Cessna Replacement - Type or Role?

[SousaTeuszii]

Hi all,
I was browsing IMO and this topic was brushed upon by GTTC(Hope you dont mind me using this GTTC).

There has been a lot of speculation on both boards that the 172 replacement will be a single turbine but I wonder why is this and is it the best option?

The 172 is an aircraft that is easy to fly, cheap to purchase and operate and fulfils it roles, mostly with a maximum of 2 people on board. Its major limitations are the lack of IF/ night capability and its very small payload for items such as para ops.
So do we replace this machine with a couple of expensive to purchase and operate turbines and have them empty for 95% of the time or fulfil the current tasks with an IF capable 4 seat aircraft and allow the para ops to be carried out by a civil turbine such as the PC-6 at the IPC.
The way I see it the fleet should not be tied down to a larger then required aircraft by the constraints of about 5% of its flight time. The needless waste over the other 95% would easily pay for a civil aircraft to complete the para courses. This would leave the capability of purchasing an excellent  basic 172 replacement fleet on a 1 for 1 scale.

The requirements I would see are as follows (No particular order):
1. Capability to perform all current 172 tasks bar para ops and drouge towing.
2. IF / night ops. Proably twin engine for this reason but this would also allow twin engine conversion courses.
3. Upgardeable to carry sensors systems if required.
4. Long endurance, resonable cruise speed.
5. Resonable price.
6. Ease of maintenance, cheap to operate.
7. Modern design and cockpit for transition from EFIS PC9 and onwards to an increasingly EFIS fleet.
8. Low Stall speed and short grond rolls for small airfield and surveillance operations.
9. Easy to fly allowing low time pilots to operate the machine in its tradional roles.

If anybody hasnt worked out where I am going with this I would suggest the DA42 as the 172 replacement. Hell, instead of 3 Caravans you could buy 1 Caravan and still afford 8 DA42s!
The economics of a large turbine for a small no of flight hours (para ops) just doesnt bare scrutiny.
What do you all think.
Regards,

ST

[clog]

Hi ST, interesting topic.

Ive given it some thought and i came up with the:

DHC-6 Twin Otter.

Highly maneuverable with low stall speed (150 KM/H) and a top speed of 340 KM/H.
It's a twin turboprop (Pratt&Whitney).
Weather radar, GPS ect.
It has a crew of 2 and can take up to 15 pasengers.
Flight endurance is 6 hours with a max range of 1300 km.
It only needs a 240 m runway to get airborne.
Seats can be remove for 1940 KG of cargo.
Options for underwing hardpoints and a GPMG in the cabin.
Spares can't be a problem with all the military and civil opperators.


I think 3-4 aircraft would replace the curent Cessna 170 fleet.
Should the IAC buy the Twin Otter its capabilities would dubble. Think of it, more Army co-op because it can take up to 10 Rangers (para's), it would be able to perform cargo flights to free up the Casa's and Government jets so they can carry out their intended role. It can take all the survailance equipment you need and so on.

And besides she'd look lovely in a green coat and a roundel don't ye think?   '>

[SousaTeuszii]

Hi Clog,
I agree, the DHC 6 is a fantastic aircraft which has been evidenced by its huge utilisation in civil operations particularly bush work.
The two aircraft so far suggested are however chalk and cheese. This is where I see the crux of the problem and the initial question. What are the Air Corps to replace - the type or the role?
If the answer is the type then we are looking for something that can replace all of the cessna operations, which cannot be replaced by more economical means, while remaining cost effective to purchase and utilise.
If the answer is role then it is open season on type but you have to ask yourself what roles would realisticly be required that are not now currently covered.
Looking only at cessna ops and the others that you have mentioned I have some suggestions that could cover these to allow for a type only replacement.

1. Para Ops: Utilise the IPC PC6. While jumpers would need to be IPC members (Small Cost) the PC6 should be hauling about 8 jumpers at about €35 a head three times an hour. Thats about €840/hr. To purchase a caravan as opposed to 2 DA42s will cost an extra €1,000,000. Its running cost is about €350/hour so €1 mil / €490 = 2041. That means for 1 caravan to break even againest IPC it must provide 2041hrs of para ops i.e 48,960 jumps!! Its not economical.

2. Cargo and Pax operations: The current King Air 200 will be kept in some form for twin engine conversion and internal VIP operations. For a little more then the cost of a caravan and a lot less then that of a new King Air the current machine can be upgraded to EFIS standard, new engines, 13 pax interior, factory produced cargo door and increased MTOW. All these operations can then be carried out by it. Of course it does not have the short field performance of the DHC6 or caravan but there are no runways in military training areas that are even up to bush standard and it is likely that this is more and more into the AW139s territory.

3. Weapons provisions: Again this is likely to be the AW139 and most definitely the PC9s territory. An aircraft like a DHC6 as no reason to be in areas where it requires weapons.

The other problem is if you look at cost and capability:

1. DHC6: Out of production. One company, Viking something, is looking to restart it but at a cost of $3.8mil. It is VERY capable but for 95% of the tasks it is 95% overkill.

2. Caravan: About $1.9mil without any options such as deicing or EFIS cockpit. It is IFR but will it really be utilised IFR or night. It is current policy to phase out single engine aircraft. The PC9 is the exception but it does have 'bang' seats. Looking at current JAR / EASA regulations it is unlikely that SEIFR will be allowed for passenger commercial operations and only a few countries allow cargo ops. Not to follow suit and have an accident would be throwing best practice out the window and career if not political suicide, especially considering the IAA would be investigating. Again for 95% of ops it is way over qualified.

3. PC6: About $1.3mil VFR only. There are IFR options but no de ice or EFIS options and the cabin is very sparse and utilitarian. Its role could be highly utilised by the Army however with 6 helicopters that can outlift it, out run it, out manoverue it and land on the spot I cannot see the need for it. Again it is over qualified.

Having ruled out the need and economics of replacing the 172 operation with any of the above it leaves a type only replacement.
Consider the need to phase out sinlge engine esp for IFR and night ops, the need to get rid of AVGAS (single fuel policy) and the need to cover all Cessna ops bar those above and the choice narrows to about..........one.
Only my thoughts I am sure others will offer their reasons for single or twin turbines but consider that a fleet of 8 DA42s with de icing will only cost about €4,000,000. A little over the price of 2 Caravans. Also consider that you will operate a least three of those DA42s for an hour each at the same cost as one hour in a Caravan.

Economics, requirements and future needs must all be taken into account. So what is everybody elses take?
ST

[Taj]

ST,

Dont confuse the bog standard club 172 with the Reims Rockets flown by the Air Corps. Different bird completely. 210HP engine is the major difference. They are fully IFR/Airways equipped and as military machines they are not limited by the ridiculous rules in this country that dont allow civilian single engine night flight outside controlled airspace.
The DA42 is totally unsuited to Cessna replacement, not least because of its low wing configuration. The Cessna is not a training aircraft-the Diamond's primary role, instead it is primarily an observation aircraft. Hence, high wing is a must.  
The DHC-6 is as stated out of production and anyway is overkill for the roles envisaged. Expect either the Caravan or the Turbo Porter.Engine commonality with the rest of the fleet and flexibility of roles are the major advantage.
The King Air is currently in afive seat configuration and believe me would never fit 13 without standing them in the aisles. What would be the economic sense in upgrading a 25 year old aircraft in any case?

[SousaTeuszii]

Hi Taj.
I realise the RR172Hs are 210hp (the K model was not) this has no bearing on the topic. It is my understanding that the only one with a full airways kit was R243 (Could be corrected on the reg but it was the later one) which was lost a couple of years ago. The others have ADF and GPS, no VOR or ILS.
Secondly, the Air Corps did not fly any of their sinlge engine reciprocating engine fixed wing OR turbine single engine helicopters operationaly at night. They did some very limited training but that was it. If for the last 44 years turbine singles have not been allowed operate at night what will make a Caravan so special.
Thirdly, high wing aircraft are great in the observation role, as long as you do not have to orbit over a target. If you do then the into turn wing descends into the pilots line of sight unless he makes a very aggressive turn or stays in such a wide orbit that he can see very little. Conversly the low wing decends out of the pilots line of sight giving much better visibility in orbits. Consider also that the DA42s forward seats are mounted forward of the leading edge and you have the best of both worlds.
Fourthly, dont confuse an aircrafts current popular civil role with its potential future roles. You say the 172 is not a training aircraft. Perhaps not in the Air Corps but look at its popular role in civiy land, a trainer perhaps? So why can the DA42 not become a superb surveillance aircraft? Have you heard of the DA42MPP, already certified, in production and in operation with a number of civil customers.
Fifthly (If there is such a word), I agree that the C208 or PC6 is most likely however to justify the cost of such aircraft the Air Corps will have to completely rewrite the current Cessna 172 roles, not just replace what it currently does.
I personnaly would find it a hideous waste of tax payers money to have a $2mil aircraft spending 95% of its time, burning 56Gals of jet fuel per hour following a CIT rather then a $600,000 aircraft burning 8Gals hour.
Finally, Why upgrade a 25 year old SKA? Becasue it is cost effective, capable of more then a new SKA 200 at over twice the price? Are you seriously considering a new SKA to replace the old one which has supposedly already been replaced by the Learjet. Also the SKA 200 IS available in 13 seat configuration and IS is operational in commercial and military service. I suggest if you rip out the 5 high roller seats and the side cabinet that looks more like a kitchen cupboard and replace them with normal airline style seats youll see where they fit. By the way its actually a 7 seat config not including pilots.
ST

[GoneToTheCanner]

Hi all
Some very good facts and figures here.Souza, high winged aircraft are perfectly capable of performing tight-orbit slow and low turns for observation.Ever heard of a Piper Cub? The best obsevation are high-winged and there have been thousands manufactured, since WW 1.... Every FAA PPL is taught turns around a point and s-turns across a road (the most basic of all observation manouvers)in a Cessna 150/152/172 and even low winged PA28s.So if even the average humble PPL can do them, then so can the mighty Air Corps.
I agree with the cost figures being quoted.Bear in mind that a ME turbine aircraft would be expected to be multi-tasked (training, cargo, pax, CIT cover, para,etc), justifying the purchase cost.....the Twin Otter doesn't have to be new to be used by the Don. There's plenty out there and a proposal exists to have them placed back in production.A "Twotter" would be absolutely ideal for the Don, given it's ability to land in non-tarred runways and it's legendary short-field ability.....there are also several new utility designs appearing, such as the GA-9 Airvan, which would be perfectly useful, especially since it and others would also be available with turbine engines.If the Don stays with a small aircraft, then they should get a Cessna 206, fitted for utility work.There is no better lifter in it's class, apart from a Defender, which meets, in terms of performance, the abilities of the FR172 and can carry more besides. If you want to try and have night IFR ability, then the cost just goes up, for equipment that is of no value for the original CIT escort role.
regards
GttC

[Pink Panther]

The British army air corp replaced their high winged Beavers in 1989 with 4 high winged Islanders (turbine powered) based at Aldegrove. 24 Hour availibility, capable of instrument flight, Short runway capability, used for aerial recces amonst other things. A good all rounder by all accounts. A shorter version of the defender currently used by the boys in blue.

[SousaTeuszii]

Hi GTTC,
I agree that even basic PPLs are capable of completing tight turns, however why would you make a tight turn directly over a target when you could make a much easier turn a short distance away. The very fact that you are at low speed and placing extra G loading on the wing is bringing you into stall territory and this is in good weather during the day. This is a bad idea if there is an indisticnt horizion and definately a no-no at night.As for normal observation compare flying a base leg to finals turn in a high wing versus that in a low wing. Which one puts the wing more in the way?
With regard to multi tasking a ME turbine - to do what? There are very very few tasks which are not completed by the current aircraft fleet. My point is that to purchase a single turbine, never mind a twin, for such a small number of flight ops would be outragously inefficent and wasteful. Just write a list of the tasks that these aircraft might be expected to do, then delete all of those that are currently completed by the current fleet, whats left?
As for night operations, it is not just a CIT role but a surviellance capability for the DF. Currently this does not take place at night due to the lack of capability but it should. To purchase an aircraft that can only be utilised for 50% of the year would be ridiculous.
Also I could be wrong but I think the GA8 Aivan is a piston aircraft requiring AVGAS and its assocosiated storage and upkeep costs. The 206 is a good idea and would allow limited para ops to a greater extent then with the current 172s.

Pink Panther,
The Garda Defender has, I believe, been a bit of a hanger queen since it arrived. The BN2T is without doubt superiour however it is my understanding that the Army BN2Ts operating in the observation role are fitted with sensors to allow stand off surviellance and therefore are not required to perform low, slow tight orbits. I think it would also be interesting to compare the operational cost of a DHC6 or BN2T covering a CIT Vs a 172 or similar replacement, especially if it is to do precious little else.
ST

Can I revise the role?

Night tactical resupply to forward operating bases in support of helicopter and military operations to confined fields.

I'll give you the fact that it's the most demanding role, and that it will most likely be to places where helis are already based, but given that most ops in any force occur by night and the helis will most likely be tasked on other missions, to have a fixed wing capable of delivering a tonne of kit (plus) into your FOB in the dark is a massive boost. I aint done any research into the twin vs single thing and knowing in general what is out there, I think the diamond is not gonna cut it. Give me a PC6 or Caravan, or even a or even an Islander on NVG in the conditions that a heli can fly in VFR and exercise a military muscle to say 'sure, you say twin only, but we say single is good enough, especially if it is a PW single' just like the PC9 in IFR with solo cadets and I'll be happy. Bear in mind that these aircraft will never leave the country. Also bear in mind that they will be forced to be as prevalent as Alouettes were, considering the material technology and willingness to replace them. In forty years, whatever they replace the 172 with will still be forced to soldier on. Diamond? Not too sure. PBN? Not too sure.

My two cents. '>

[Old Redeye]

*New build Viking Twin Otter is a possibility - Canadian Air Force is replacing their old ones with new Vikings - but too slow and limited range/payload for anything but internal + UK ops.

*DA-42 is good multi-engine trainer, but that's all. Zero payload, poor visibility for visual recce (VR) ops.

* A pair of PC-6's is a good option, though again limited to internal utility/VR ops, and not an ideal parachute platform (as a former military SF jumper).

* A pair of Caravans are slightly better option with more capability than PC-6's.

My recommendation: A pair of used PC-6's or Caravans to complement a new CN235-300 (likely to happen soon anyway) which will perform regional airlift, multi-engine training (after attending a commercial M/E transition such as Flight Safety, as is already done today) parachute training and more, while freeing up the MPA's for their primary task Not to mention covering for the MPA's while they go through upgrade one after the other in Spain shortly that will bring them up to -300 standard + FITS.

[SousaTeuszii]

Hi Scorpy,
Night airlift operations in a fixed wing aircraft in Ireland. To where? There are NO suitable landing areas in any army training areas. A recced field MIGHT be ok for daytime but at night on NVGs, come on. Besides to negate the need for a ground logs system the helis would then have to be based in an area that can accept the PC6s thereby negating their ability to stay with the troops.
As for BAA HOO SUCKs were military what kind of attitude is that? SEIFR restrictions are not only in place to protect the crews and passangers but also the people on the ground. Its fine to say that we except the risk until a 5 ton aircraft ploughs into a residential area and kills those on the ground. The PT6 has an enviable record but one that I would love to seriously investigate. The PC12 had a number of inflight shutdowns last year due an accessory unit failing, shuting down the fuel flow and thereby shuting off the engine. PW do not accept this as a PT6 failure as the Ass drive was made by a different company. Therefore a spate of PC12s had in flight shutdowns but were never counted as part of the PT6 stats. I wonder how often this happens.
Again the whole thread is evolving towards cargo lift and para ops for turbine aircraft. Why? where is this role CURRENTLY required to any extent that these machines need to be purchased. It just smacks of a machine being favoured and money spent without any clearly defined current operational role. It is this kind of squandering of the DF budget on aircraft that are over spec'ed and under utilised that make the Air Corps a demon to be hit at amoungest the other branches of the DF.
If there is a credable current role for a single turbine, that can operate to best civil practices (to protect citisens on the ground), then by all means buy one, if not then the ego should be set aside an an aircraft that can fulfil the role should be bought. The DA42 was only my suggestion I am sure there are many more out there but please this comes back to the greatest mistake made in all of the Air Corps purchases. Define the task and then the aircraft, dont just look at pretty pictures and say I want and nothing else will do.
ST

[SousaTeuszii]

If you do insist that a turbine single is the only way forward, despite the safety of a twin or the waste of a large aircraft being horrendously undertasked, then how come no body has mentioned the Quest Kodiak?
Have a look at the figures, they may surprise you.

Cessna Grand Caravan

Max Cruise                       184Kts
Stall (Ldg Config)               61Kts
Max Range (45Min Reserve) 907
Fuel Consumption               52 Us Gals
Useful Load                       1944Kg
T/O Roll (MTOW SL ISA)      1365'
Ldg Roll (MLW SL ISA)         950'
Cost                                $1.9 mil IFR

Pilatus PC6

Max Cruise                       125Kts
Stall (Ldg Config)               52Kts
Max Range (NO reserve)      500
Fuel Consumption               39 Us Gals
Useful Load                       1400Kg
T/O Roll (MTOW SL ISA)      646'
Ldg Roll (MLW SL ISA)         417'
Cost                                $1.3 mil VFR

Quest Kodiak

Max Cruise                        190Kts
Stall (Ldg Config)               60Kts
Max Range (60Min Reserve) 1075
Fuel Consumption               47 Us Gals
Useful Load                       1523Kg
T/O Roll (MTOW SL ISA)      700'
Ldg Roll (MLW SL ISA)         750' Without Using Reverse!!
Cost                                $1.3 mil IFR With G1000

Now how does the Vernerable PC6 and C208B stack up in regard to the above facts and most importantly 'bang for the buck'.
I think its time to stop listening to the tripe spoon feed  by manufacturers over the last 15 years of 'Cessna Replacement', decide what this machines task is to be and then purchase only what is required and not something that is going to be a waste. Dont forget every Euro spent on new aircraft is one less for the DF to spend on the re equippment of the other arms of the DF. Im not saying it cant be bought, just that thought should be given now rather then p***ing of the Army and Navy by buying a white elephant.
ST

[Taj]

Just a few points.

ADF and GPS are perfectly acceptable for night time ops in other countries for civilian operations, and Im talking piston engine I cant see the trouble having six Cessna available for night flying here. Military aircraft are not subject to the same rules as civilian aircraft. It is my understanding that Air Corps Cessnas do fly at night, whether that is inside or outside controlled airspace would need clarification. Remember in certain more aviation friendly countries, that have much larger population centres than here, night time VFR is allowed. The United States is one in particular, where I have myself logged more than 50 hours night VFR in a Cessna 150, no GPS and I never used the ADF or ILS. Visual approach using PAPIs.
As for the Irish Cessnas, the lack of an ILS and VOR does not preclude them from instrument flight. Every regional airport in the country is NDB equipped, and ICAO regulations list the MDH(minimum descent height) for an NDB approach as 300 feet. The remainder of the approach being flown visually. If the cloudbase is below 300 feet then on that rare occasion dont fly. Simple as that.
I also have time on the Twin Star, and the only good thing I can say about it is it's bloody easy to fly. But in that respect it's a crap multi engine trainer. It's too easy. Two engine controls instead of six on the an older twin, like the Seminole on which I got my rating. It's a different skill level completely. The low versus high wing argument is a no contest. An aircraft whose wing conceals a high percentage of the ground in straight and level flight is not an ideal observation aircraft. Direct overflight of a possible area or incident of interest would have a big possibility of being missed. Also the need to offset while circling to keep an area of the ground in view would also require steep angles of bank to stop the wing blocking the lateral view. Other problems I have with the Twin Star are its non existant payload and it's "diesel" engines, which would Im sure need a lot of engineer training.
The Quest Kodiak looks like a really useful aircraft alright and I would put it in a close second place behind the Caravan, the only two reasons being Quest's survival in the market is not yet assured and Cessna have previous experience with Caravans sold to military customers. I cannot see the PC6 being the aircraft of choice not least because of it's tail dragger design. Learning to fly tail draggers on an aircraft where such t.d. symptoms as assymetric blade thrust would be magnified just doesnt seem realistic to me. Until a set of design requirements are known and roles specified we wont know. This will have to go to tender. Then we'll see what players step up to the plate.

[SousaTeuszii]

Taj,
A couple of points also:
1. Regarding what you earlier called 'full airways', the cessnas do not have this. To fly IFR with less then that is just stupid, regardless of which country it is in.

2. NBDs are becoming obsolete and are slowly disappearing to the extent that modren avionics do not include ADFs and it can only be fitted as an expensive option. Besides this has no bearing on the topic as any aircraft can be fitted with any avionics.

3. In or out of controlled airspace is no different. Single engine VFR of any kind, except training for NVFR, is illegal. You are getting confused with twin engine operations. A twin can fly NVFR inside controlled airspace, apart from this there is NO NVFR allowed for twin or single. The only exceptions are Military aircraft and SAR aircraft.

4. Military and civil single engine aircraft must obey the same law, its called gravity.

5. So the Twin Star is a crap trainer because its too easy to fly. Sounds perfect for low time pilots to cut their teeth in an operational role.
It also has a crap payload. For what?
Useful Load 1174Lbs

Two Crew for Surv Mission 400lbs
Misc for Tech Logs etc      30lbs
Max standard fuel             193lbs

Total requirement for standard Surveillance mission 623lbs
TOW is 551lbs below AUW.

Service support
1Pilot + 3 Techs              800lbs
Tools                             150lbs
Misc as above                 30lbs
Max Standard Fuel           193Lbs

Total requirement for standard Service Support mission 1173lbs
TOW just below AUW.
So whats the problem? This was never suggested as a cargo hauler but rather a replacement for the Cessnas current Surv and utility roles bar Para and drouge ops.
Considering that the 194lbs of fuel will take you 690nm with an hours reserve I think the payload is more then adequate.

6. The Diesel engines are the future of GA flying. Had a look at your NOTAMs recently? How many airfields are no longer stocking AVGAS? They require specific training to work on but less actual maintenance then your bog average piston. The 'overhaul' is at a much higher TBO although it is a replacement rather then an actual overhaul. And before you say it the replacement cost is similar to an overhaul of a standard piston but occurs at 2400hrs giving at least an extra 400Hrs over most engines. It is therefore also cheaper to maintain as well as operate.

7. So you prefer high wing for surveillance, we all have our preferences but would you be willing to pay an extra $1.4 mil for the pleasure. If the DA42 is that bad why not fit a FLIR system with a Scotty satelite video downlink. You could still afford 2 such equipped aircraft for the price of 1 Caravan with no sensors. High wing or not it still couldnt see in the dark.

I agree that it will come down to a tender being released and the first item will be for a single turbine ' for safety'. The question is, and touch wood it never happens, when a single turbine crashes at night with people killed or injured how long will it take a court to decide if the Air Corps were negligent by turning their backs on best civil practice and their own precedent  set during 44 years of day time only single engine TURBINE helicopter operations. Thats a sorbering thought and the reality of todays world.
ST

[pym]

Hi Souza, just a question. Would the DA42 MPP be suitable for say, coastal patrol and inland/coastal SAR tasks? Its long endurance, sensor suite & twin engines would seem to suggest so.

While the Cessna was charged with neither of these missions primarily, a capability like this seems like one not to be sniffed at. So perhaps instead of the Air Corps looking at an Aircraft to replace all of the Cessna's current roles, it would be wise of them to look at two different aircraft which would offer enhanced capability and a greater range of missions?

Say, get one or two PC-6 for Para ops (if there really is a demand, something worthy of its own topic), and 4x DA42 MPP for Observation, Cash Escort, Pollution control, Coastal Patrol & Search roles? Then just follow what the Swiss do and use the PC-9 as a target tug?

Worthy ideas?