172 replacement?

[Old Redeye]

see this link: http://www.cs-ent.ca/6424.htm

two former UAE Air Force 1989 PC-6 Turbo-Porters in excellent condition for USD850,000 each.  A real bargain.  Easily another 15 years left on them.

[GoneToTheCanner]

Redeye,
thats a very good idea.Ideal for parachuting, rough-field operations, observation,etc....and there's a PC-6 rated pilot already in the Don . Good price too. Could somebody send an underling from the DoD down to Clonbulloge to see a live one in action?
regards
GttC

[Bigwillie]

It certainly is an extremely capable aircraft with excellent STOL performance. However, I'd say the choice for the future C172 replacement will be dictated by what the primary role(s) of such an aircraft will be, and right now, this is anyone's guess!

[pilatus]

not a hope of them being bought!it will be another 3years at least before they start to look seriously at replacing the the 172s!

[SousaTeuszii]

Hi Guys,
The PC6 is a great aircraft but may not be what the Air Corps require. For example, will it be allowed to land on unapproved strips? - Probably not. If it lands on an airfield what use is the extremely low landing  / take off roll? This effectively negates what makes the PC6 what it is.
Consider also that these aircraft in VFR are about the same price as a fully IFR C208B. Plus for a slightly longer ground roll you can carry more pax or cargo and fit full deicing making it much more useful. Its range and cruise are also much better while retaining the utility capability. The PC 12 is also an option but is really only a corporate machine.
However, is single engine the way to go. The IAA and CAA do not allow SE commercial IFR / Night operations. At present neither do the Air Corps (Some limited training only, no ops). Considering that helicopters have a better chance of making a forced landing without hitting anything then a fixed wing it is unlikely that the Air Corps will allow Night SE operations. So is it worth buying a fleet of SE aircraft that can only operate for 52% of the year.
Perhaps the way to go is to replace the SE C172 fleet with a multi engine 24/7 fleet that can perform all the C172 tasks bar para ops and target towing and buy 1-2 aircraft for these operations.
What do you think.
Regards,

ST

[Old Redeye]

Souza,  

I beg to differ on your price for a Caravan - even a late model used one averages USD1.5M, a new one consierably more.  Quibbling to be sure.  I love the Caravan, very versatile, capable, cost-effective, etc. But what would be the role of a Caravan in the IAC?  Utility transport/MATS around the Republic, NI & UK - fair enough.  Support to EU Battlegroup/RW planning conferences and training exercises in the UK, France, etc.?  Adequate but not optimum in that most likely partners are NOR, SWE, FIN - a long slow slog with a fuel stop for a Caravan.  Parachute training?  Not an ideal platform.  

As for replacing the 172's, my guess they won't be replaced, exactly.  An optimum helo force of 3x EC-135's and 8xAW139/149's would assume much of the 172's current role.  

Optimum solution is to sell off the 172's; replace the B200 with a newer, used low-time B200 for multi-engine training and utlity missions; commit to early delivery of 1-2 tactical airlifters - whatever is affordable and sensible = CN-235, C-295, C-27J, etc.

[Flyboy]

That is such an ugly looking plane.

[P.Doff]

I heard someone mention the other day that we are getting Caravans next year???? Im normally quick off the mark with these type of rumours but this ones new to me!!  Anyone know any better??  I know Im supposed to be in a position to know these things but looks like this ones slipped passed me . Tony Kearns, how about yourself??

[sealion]

Caravans have been mentioned as a 172 replacement as far back as 1998.

[GoneToTheCanner]

Hi Folks
Remember that a Caravan was trialled by the Air Corps when Pearse Cahill's Iona held the Cessna agency.It was a semi-military version with a roller-cargo door and hardpoints and it flew several flights with a Marchetti camera pod.There are so many Caravan rivals out there now, that a Caravan might not be the first option it used to be.As for a rough-field capability, the Cessnas have routinely landed on grass airfields, both on civil and Army lands.Landing on grass strips is no big deal.
regards
GttC

[SousaTeuszii]

Hi Old Redeye,
The caravan is expensive but it is fully IFR and capable of full de icing. The PC6 is only made to order, there is no full production line. Have you seen the price for a VFR PC6! its close to 1.5 mil, a C208 full IFR and DEiced is only 2 Mil. As for rough fields, a designated and IAA conforming grass strip is not a rough field. Landings outside these areas will never happen in the IAC except by helicopters! However if you read the post again I suggest the replacment of the C172s with a light twin. The C208 type aircraft would only be for the ops that a light twin could not carry out i.e. drouge and para ops.
As for the heli fleet, it is not conceivable that helicopters would be bought to do the C172s operations of hauling techs and observers around the country. 3.5 mil Vs 200,000 and 700/hr Vs 100 / hr. This is a job for another light aircraft, be it single or twin.
With regard to the King Air why spend up to 4 mil and 500/hr to do the job of a half mil light twin at 100/hr. It makes no sense. The King Air is a corporate aircraft and has suffered from 150Hr pilots hopping it of the ground. A proper training orientated twin should be bought for ME conversions. The King Air does still do some VIPs but it has already been replaced in this role by the lear. The cost of 1 SKA could fund a fleet of 6-8 light twins to carry out all training and liaision duties!
I agree with the tactical transport though, It cant come quick enough but it is hardly a 172 replacement option.
Regards,
ST

[GoneToTheCanner]

Hi Souza
The Cessnas have operated from non-IAA-approved grass strips, such as a 'strip on the South side of the Curragh barracks.Also, all airstrips in the country, licensed and unlicensed are recorded by the IAA and DoD in case the State ever needs to use them.As an aside, can anyone tell me when the Fermoy(barracks) strip was last used? Also, twins have been used for drogue towing in some air forces.
regards
GttC

[SousaTeuszii]

Hi GTTC,
You are of course correct however these are still prepared strips and not off airfield landings as would be required to fully utilize the PC6. I agree that some airforces use twins for drouge ops but this is generally Cessna Caravan II size and upwards. Again this would not be an aircraft type that could perform 99% of the 172 roles and pliot training.
ST

[P.Doff]

RE: Helis doing the job of Cessnas! The main roll for the C172's is top cover for cash escorts! Cant see a heli being able to do that? This role requires the Cessna's to loiter around for hours so a heli probably wouldnt be able to hack it??

[Old Redeye]

Sousza My Man,

I was not attempting to compare capabilities of Caravan and Porter.  Apples and oranges.  Your points about IFR capability, etc. are correct, but the real question remains just what would a Caravan do for the IAC?  Great aircraft with lots of utility, but what would it really do?  General utility within IRE, NI, UK?  Fair enough, but not much beyond - limited range and dreadfully slow.  How often? Weekly at best is my guess.  Visual Surveillance? Of what, with what type of profile?  Low and slow? A bit big for that. Strictly visual - not the best visibility - or with sensors?  Not required.  How often? Once a month at best.  Sounds like an EC-135 (or PC-6) role to me.  Parachute training?  Not the right platform for military airborne ops.  Only practical for free fall, not static line. Jumpers could not stand in the cabin.  Limited internal space for fully-equipped jumpers. Get an airlifter to do airborne ops properly.

I'm not saying the IAC should not get a Caravan, but let's be realistic about what it can and cannot do and what it will do.

I'm not sure what you mean by a light twin?  Example please.  I don't know of any light turbine twins, and certainly no petrol burners, that have better performance than a B200.  As for the B200 - I'm saying pick up a used, low time model for no more than USD2M and fly it for another 15 years.  Principal role = multi-engine training and general utility, meaning operating throughout IRE, NI, UK and into Europe for non-MATS, such as EU Battlegroup planning & coordination meetings and training and exercise support.  No problem with range and performance for trekking to Finland, for instance, the furthest likely battlegroup partner nation. As for ME training, King Air variants are the platform of choice for every major western country, inlcuding the UK, US, Canada, Australia, NZ, etc.

A newer used B200 will do most of the missions you propose for a Caravan, with the remainder parsed out to the helo force, principally the 135's, with an occasional 139 utility mission.  The IAC needs to grow out of its previous mindset as a type of offical Irish Flying Club and focus on core functions - training, MPA, deployable battlefield helos, airlift, national agency support (air ambulance, environment, inland SAR, crisis response, etc.) and MATS.