Cessna Replacement - Type or Role?

[Taj]

The reason it's a crap trainer is and this is not just my opinion, that it develops a much lower skill level than other twins that are available. But that is neither here nor there because we are not discussing training aircraft.
On the point of non-directional beacons, I would put it that all forms of radio navigation(with the exception of ILS/MLS) will be superseded by satellite based navigation. GPS approaches are already in place in the United States for the last few years and is being trialled in the UK at the moment for widespread introduction. The only issue holding it back at the moment is that the system is ultimately controlled by the US military, who shut it down in the aftermath of 9/11. This will be overcome by the European controlled Galileo system in development/deployment. The point being that any aircraft can be easily fitted with a GPS system.NDB's are more numerous than any other navigational aid in this country and as such will be around for a couple of decades yet.
Single engine VFR IS allowed inside controlled airspace under an SVFR clearance. It cannot be conducted outside controlled airspace.This law is pretty much unique to Ireland.Single engine VFR is allowed outside controlloed airspace once the operator holds a night rating on his/her licence in most other countries.Multi engine aircraft can leave the control zone here, but only if they switch to IFR operations. The exceptions being military aircraft. You only re-iterated a point I made earlier.
As regards the Diamonds engines, can you point out to me where in my previous postings did I advocate the use of avgas powered aircraft over Jet A1 guzzlers?The Caravan is powered by the PT-6A...which uses what fuel??
The disesl engine is great development for GA but in terms of the Air Corps would just add another engine type for Air Corps engineers to worry about. In terms of GA these engines will not for the mid to long term supersede standard piston engine aircraft. There is a weight penalty and as such they are not yet suited to powering aircraft in the lighter end of the market, which is it's biggest growth area.Larger airfields no longer stock AVGAS to merely discourage GA from interrupting their day.
As regards your simplified mass and balance calculations, your calculations are slightly inaccurate in that the Irish military use a specific comms package that would also need to be fitted to the aircraft. And on that point, have you seen a twin star instrument panel? Where would it go?
I agree that the target towing duties should be passed to the PC-9, thats pretty much a no brainer.
However, I do think that the Diamond represents a reduction in possible roles and would require the introduction of an additional aircraft type to fulfill the roles it cannot do. From a support point of view, introducing two types to replace one is simply unacceptable and wont happen. The ideal Cessna replacement will be able to do all the roles the current aircraft do and more. We're not a poor country so looking for the poor man's option, which is what the Twin Star is, is simply not acceptable.No amount of Diamond sales pitch will change that.
30 million for six aircraft and a support package and  30 years of service is value for money in my books any day.

[SousaTeuszii]

Hi Taj,
I did not moot the DA42 primarily as a trainer. If you actually read my last post you will see I dont care if it is good or bad. The fact that it is easy to handle is a bonus for operation by low time pilots.
As you point out avionics is a mute point as any aircraft can have any fit, therefore I am not even going to go into it. Suffice to say any aircraft with full IFR airways equipment IS a step up from the current 172 operation. As would the ability to operate at night.
With regards to AVGAS this is purely to point out that the current pistons engines will be obsolete and this will happen a lot quicker in Europe then in the US. If you prefer I can call them Jet A1 guzzlers, 39 Gals per hr vs 9 Gals per hour over maybe 800hrs per year thats 24,000 Gals of extra fuel just to have the capability of dropping some Paras!!
Regardless of what the military Vs civil regulations are the overriding authority is mother nature. If a civil or military single engine aircraft has a failure at night they will BOTH crash. Wheather you are allowed to do it is irrelevant, wheater it is acceptable in this modern age when the Air Corps have already spurned single turbine ops for 44 years is the issue.
I am sorry if I left out the radios for the weights of the DA42, I also forgot to check if the pilot would be wearing cold weather gear or summer flying suit, that maight have an effect to!! The standard surveillance mission has 30lbs allotted for misc items on top of this there is another 551lbs payload available, what size and weight is the Sincgars? In the service support role you might lose a whopping 150nm off your range (ie a mear 540nm with 1 hr reserve remaining) but again there is still 30lbs alloted plus 150lbs for tools!! Thats a hell of a tool box.
As for where it would go have you ever heard of a remote control head? The radio system is placed in the rear baggage area and feed through the G1000 just like the other VHF comms. I cant say for certain that it is possible but Ill bet you cant say its not.
Finally, yes there is money in the country but the DF see precious little of it. For you to just willy nilly throw out a sum of €30mil to be subtracted from the DF budget 'just because its there' is the kind of thinking that has the country where it is today.
This needs to be a balanced procurement programme that looks at actual requirements and the most cost effective and efficent way to fulfil them. Not just a programme to purchase the 'biggest we can get.'

Pym,
The DA 42 MPP would be suitable for all those tasks. It currently comes with a choice of three sensor area, nose turret, nose pod or belly pod. So far it has been fitted with FLIR, SAT video downlink, LIDAR and photometric cameras. It also states that future options can include SAR radars and SLAR. With 2 crew and full fuel you have about 580lbs worth of payload to play with.
I think the two type strategy is really the only way of efficently completing all tasks without some relience on civil contractors but unfortunately I dont think that it is likely to happen.
With regard to the single turbine I think it would be able to take on the target tug role also. It is not likely to be that busy on other ops and with a para door it would be very capable of using the current drouge system. The problem that I would see with using the PC9 is that it would require modification and I imagine this is quite substaintal. Also to be sure that one would be available for a given day, more then one would need to be modded. I think if a utility aircraft is bought it would just be easier to let it do it.
I think your suggestion of 2 PC6 and 4 DA42 MPPs would work well with each type staying to its own tasks. Nasayers will point out that you are replacing 1 type with 2 but you are also increasing the current roles and capabilities in an effective and efficent manner. Besides if Baldonnel cannot handle the maintenance of 4 DA42s I really would dispair.
ST

[Taj]

Don't get me wrong ST the Twin Star is a lovely GA aircaft and I would love to own one.That is a case of Diamond lust we both share!
 I do have some questions. Those range figures you quoted were at the economy 50% power setting I take it. Can this aircraft operate at 50% power at or near MAUW? And if so what is the cruise speed? To be honest the more I look at this aircraft the more I see the merits of it being operated by the GASU or the Customs Service. I think it's equipment fit of Sat Video down link, LIDAR, SLAR, with the possible exception of FLIR, is overkill for the Cessna replacement.The Cessna's succeeded in part due to their simplicity and ruggedness. The DA42 MPP is ultimately a surveillance aircraft, with the Cessna being a support utility aircraft. As a Cessna replacement the C208 offers role expansion, whereas the DA42MPP offers role reduction. It is a very role specialised aircraft. The Cessna replacement needs to be a work horse. The 4:2, Twin Star:Utility Aircraft ratio you advocate is interesting. Are you suggesting that the Air Corps Cessna's spend 70% of their flight time on clandestine surveillance ops??!
Suggest if you took this info to the Guards/Customs/Dept of Justice you might yet earn yourself that commission from Diamond you're working so hard for here!(Disclaimer: I am in no way suggesting that you have any vested interest blah blah blah)
Th figure of Eur 30 mil is, you are correct off the top of my head.I did however use the figures you provided earlier which roughly equate to 10 mil for the aircraft and I added 200% for training and support to simply guarantee I wasn't under estimating. I dont write the cheques so don't fret old boy..we could actually get them for less!

Quote

For you to just willy nilly throw out a sum of €30mil to be subtracted from the DF budget 'just because its there' is the kind of thinking that has the country where it is today.

I'd say the country is better off than it ever was.Why thank you.

[SousaTeuszii]

Hi Taj,
I think we are approaching some common ground here!! The problem is we are still left with the question in the topic.
In essesence the C172 is a 4 seat vfr, daytime only aircraft. Its majority of flight time is spent in the obervation role with some spent on gaining pilot hours and a little service support. There is a currently a very small amount of para operations and drouge towing also completed.
The question is can these roles be fulfilled by another single engine piston aircraft? ie a 172. Yes they can that is a type replacement
Is it efficent or effective to purchase a modern aicraft which would be grounded for half the year simply becasue it is dark? No
The next step up is to buy a twin, any twin. This however does not allow you to do para ops or drouge towing, How can this be done?
The choice is either to do the very small amount of para ops or drouge towing via a commercial operator and use the twin in its most effective roles or buy a bigger aircraft to do the tiny amount of para jumps and drouge towing.
The problem with buying a bigger aircraft is the cost of purchasing and operating the aircraft. As I have already shown the Army would need to do thousands of jumbs just to approach an economic break even point on 1 caravan let alone a fleet of two or three. This does not even take into account the increase in running costs for the other 95% of its flight time compared with a light twin. Add to this the extra noise caused by a C208B or similar circling a given point for half an hour at a time. And you still have the issue of single engine night operations, in this day and age is it acceptable when there are other safer more economical options?
The DA42 calculations are at 60% power 151kts and 9Gals per hr. These figures are at MAUW. The important figure for OEI operations is its single engine safety speed. While I am not sure what it is Im sure its well below 151kts.
I agree the items mentioned are too much, they are just samples of what is available on this aircraft to prove its future surviellance credentials. The 4:2 mix does not suggest clandestine anything, but lets face it 95% of 172 operations are in the surveillance, hour building role. In light of your point I think Ill amend my mix to 6:1.
Im sure the customs etc would be interested and if I did have a vested interest Id be straight off to them, Id also be flying one over here, for demonstration purpose you understand!
I agree with your method of working out the €30mil its just when you compare it to €14.4mil for the above fleet of 7 aircraft the gap immediately shows.
Finally Im glad you would like to take credit for our country today, while the economy has never been better in many years basic services are still in a pityful state. Try going to casualty some day, or maybe taking public transport or maybe even drinking some water in Galway. This has been caused by the afore mentioned 'splashing of cash' in areas that it is neither efficent or effective to do so. Sound familiar?
ST

[SousaTeuszii]

Taj,
Just for interest the min control speed OEI is 68kts and the best climb is 85kts. God bless Google!

DA42 Flight Manual

ST

[Taj]

VMC speed is very impressive. Ill admit that, but as we both know  add weight critical V speeds increase.

Nothing like a good discussion.

[Taj]

I think what is evident from this discussion is that in order to maintain and improve certain roles carried out by the current fleet, there is not a single type available to carry out all effectively? I would like to see Caravans or to a lessor extent Turbo Porters bought because they have more potential in providing a basic internal transport facility. I agree the noise factor for low level surveillance ops would be a drawback. But would they have to operate at low level? From an economic point of view the Twin Star is in league of it's own But does it provide any real military capability? Is it flexible enough? I am looking forward to reading the tender when it's finally published.

[SousaTeuszii]

Hi Taj,
The Vmc speed of 68kts is at max gross weight, of course add G loading and it will increase but that happens on all aircraft.
To perform the surveillance from a distance or height above that currently used by the 172s will require optical sensors to be effective, again increasing the cost. It can be said that the Twin Star has very little military capability bar high end surveillance but then again none of the tasks currently operated by the 172 can really be considered as true military tasks. It is more of an IS role, the primary utilisation of which is surveillance.
I will conceed that a machine such as the C208 or PC6 can cover all roles but certainly not at a purchase or operational cost that could bear an scurtiny for the service provided.
I would suggest that the most efficent way to replace the 172 is to allow its current IS and service support type roles to be completed by a light twin with a civil company providing a para and drouge towing element.
In the event however that the DF would prefer to control all aspects of para and drouge ops then a single engine turbine could be purchased for these operations alone. That said if we actually look at the current para and drouge ops, even giving for moderate increases, I doubt if it requires more then one aircraft.
On a related issue I followed a link from IMO (Thanks Apod) to the ministers speech in the oireachtas on 4th April. No metion of cessna replacement or any further Air Corps projects. Looks like well just have to wait and see how this one evolves.
ST

[Old Redeye]

Sousa my friend,

Once again you are putting out some great ideas, but if I may re-enter the fray by stepping back to basic requirments definition for what may be termed the Fixed Wing Utility Aircraft (FWUA).  

These may be boiled down to: Reducing the expenditure of valuable blade time by performing non-tactical tasks currently allocated to helos with a less costly (across the board), commercially derived alternative.  Specifically, but not all inclusive, tasks are: near all weather day/night admin transport of personnel and light cargo, transport of high value/senstive light cargo is this still a mission?), administrative light transport support to civil authorities such as national resources, forestry, agriculture, health, etc., which may include a benign visual surveillance/observation role.  

Parachute training may be included, but I would not, as the need is not great and military parachute training cannot be adequately conducted with a utility aircraft type.  If a new CN-235-300 or other appropriate airlifter is not procured, then make a deal with another air force, such as Sweden,to buy Hercules time, and/or lease the services of an appropriate civilan jump platform when required - Casa 212, Let-410, DC-3TP, etc.  

Likewise for banner towing, a PC-9 job, and more advanced tactical surveillance operations - the purview of the Garda Islander and/or the 139's once the have their full FLIR fit.

I do not believe there is a requirement for the advanced STOL capability of an aircraft like the Quest Kodiak, though it is a superb aircraft and you are right to suggest it.  Operating locations will be established airfields in Ireland, of which there are plenty, with possible occasional trips to the UK - not rough fields.  Similarly, the DA 42, while a superb light twin training aircraft, is not a utility aircraft in terms of payload and range - carryng three pax and a few duffels does not satisfy the requirement.

The existing B200 is capable of perfomring many FWUA tasks, but is in need of an avionics update (which I understand is imminent) and will eventually run out of hours on the airfarme and have to retire.  Until that happens there is no reason it cannot keep flying on task.  I would even add Raisbeck enhancements if there is sufficent time left to justifty them.

That said, I believe a single Cessna Caravan remains the most practical solution, working in concert with the B200.  A new Caravan goes for USD2.2+ million, but a used Caravan may be obtained on the market for as much as USD1.8 million for a low time 2006 model, down to an minimally acceptable USD1.3 million for a 2003(+/-) with higher time.  In terms of the Kodiak, I have to echo Taj in that there are no guarantees of Quest viability as an aircraft manufacturing concern, and a production aircraft will certainly exceed the cost fo a new Caravan, based on economies of scale and a host of other factors, and a production Kodiak will not be available for three years at best.

My recommendation is a detailed study of the requirement vs. potential solutons, including keeping a number of the 172's on the roles for as long as they are useful.  They are economical and paid for and easy to maintain and operate - barring the need for AVGAS.  

Cheers,

[SousaTeuszii]

Hi Old Redeye,
I agree whole heartedly with your concept but would just like to tease out a number of issues.

If the larger end of the FWUA role can be covered by the SKA200 I do not think there is a requirement for anything with greater range, payload or seating capacity then the 172. This would suggest a direct replacement. You did however mention some very valid tasks which are currently performed by the 172s;
"near all weather day/night admin transport of personnel and light cargo, transport of high value/senstive light cargo is this still a mission?), administrative light transport support to civil authorities such as national resources, forestry, agriculture, health, etc., which may include a benign visual surveillance/observation role."
Firstly the 172s currently do not have an all weather day/night capability. It is also questionable if it is acceptable for the government to carry civilians in single engine aircraft during the day and would, in my opinion, be a definite no no at night or IFR. This leads to a 172 type capacity requirement with 2 engines.
With regard to high end surveillance the Garda aircraft are for their use only and will not be integrated in any way with the Army or their operations. They will have their own capability with the 135s and 139s but the cost of operation and relative lack of endurance would suggest the requirement for at least one FLIR modded fixed wing. Consider that the mod is all that is required, Im sure No1 and No3 could come to some agreement on sharing the FLIR there by cutting out most of the cost. Couldnt they?
Parachute training ,I feel, would be a waste of resources if it is the only reason for purchasing a single turbine. I agree that for the number of troops we qualify each year a training agreement with IPC or another armed forces would be much more economical and efficent.
I agree that Quest is currently an unknown quantity but the Kodiak is about to be certified, sold out through 2010 and will be almost $1mil cheaper then a Caravan. Currently running at $1.3mil new, IFR with EFIS. It was however put in to show that there are other options besides those pushed down our throats by the 'old reliable' manufacterers. Purhaps a pause to allow the Kodiak to mature, much like the LTAV tender, would prove its credentials as a much better option, if at all required.
Finally the SKA200 itself. It actually has a lot of life left in it if the money is spent on it. For less then the price of a new machine it can be fully overhauled, with-42 engines, wing spar strap, cargo door and increased gross weight. This would effectively make it a C-12 type spec, very capable of FWUA operations. By the way anybody know exactly how old it is and how many hours she has under her belt.
ST