USAF Academy looking for new gliders

[Burt Compton - Marfa]

USAF Request For Proposal: FA8617-10-R-6210

They need approximately 20 new gliders, several trailers, support
equipment, spares and contract maintenance, for delivery at Colorado
Springs, CO (USA) in the next two years.

[L33]

On Aug 1, 8:12*am, Burt Compton - Marfa > wrote:
> USAF Request For Proposal: *FA8617-10-R-6210
>
> They need approximately 20 new gliders, several trailers, support
> equipment, spares and contract maintenance, for delivery at Colorado
> Springs, CO (USA) in the next two years.

There is a definite trap in their request for proposal. They want a
firm, fixed price for a contract that includes training (of their
personnel), maintenance and spares. Since they do LOTS of primary
training (and admit that hard landings are an issue within their RFP)
it would be very difficult to project maintenance and spares costs. On
a hopeful note, it appears they are going to use FAA certified gliders
and may not pursue certifying the new ships as major design series
(MDS) additions to the Air Force inventory. That would be a big change
for them as they currently don't use FAA licenses for their
instructors but use DoD certifications to be legal.

[JS]

Will they flood the market with (ab)used Duos?
Hmmmm....
Jim

[jim archer]

On Aug 1, 8:38*am, JS > wrote:
> Will they flood the market with (ab)used Duos?
> Hmmmm....
> Jim

Nothing against the cadets, but what exactly is wrong with the Duo's
and Discus 2's that they currently have, anyway? I'm all for
providing our future pilots with the RIGHT equipment, but their
results at the contests every year don't exactly scream for better
performing gliders. More likely, it seems to coincidentally coincide
with the new Arcus release... Hey! They've had just enough time to
write an RFP since the new beauty started shipping!
I can't imagine a "training" benefit for an equipment upgrade, maybe
someone can inform me. When they start finishing even regional
contests in the top 5 or fly more than 500 km per flight you can raise
my taxes for better equipment for the cadets, until then they might
consider buckling their belt like the rest of the country and "get by"
with the Discus II's. And if they are going to go to a contest, let
the cadets gain more experience so that they can perform in a
meaningful way.
Hopefully I will not see an Arcus in the bottom of the contest
standings next year...
Let the justification for new AF glass, and the criticism of my
patriotism, commence! (Keep in mind your current position on tax cuts
and spending...)
-Jim A

[John Scott[_3_]]

The Discus and Duos are used by the cross country team. I believe they were
paid for by the Assoc. of Graduates, at least in part.

This RFP is to replace their fleet of Blanik L23s and Blanik L13ACs (acro
ships). These were purchased by the USAF about 15-18 yrs ago to replace
their fleet of SGS 2-33s and a couple of ASK-21s (still flying locally with
the CAP).

John

[jim archer]

On Aug 1, 4:20*pm, "John Scott" > wrote:
> The Discus and Duos are used by the cross country team. *I believe they were
> paid for by the Assoc. of Graduates, at least in part.
>
> This RFP is to replace their fleet of Blanik L23s and Blanik L13ACs (acro
> ships). *These were purchased by the USAF about 15-18 yrs ago to replace
> their fleet of SGS 2-33s and a couple of ASK-21s (still flying locally with
> the CAP).
>
> John

Thanks John, next time I'll read the RFP before revealing my sour
grapes...

[Mike the Strike]

On Aug 1, 5:08*pm, jim archer > wrote:
> On Aug 1, 4:20*pm, "John Scott" > wrote:
>
> > The Discus and Duos are used by the cross country team. *I believe they were
> > paid for by the Assoc. of Graduates, at least in part.
>
> > This RFP is to replace their fleet of Blanik L23s and Blanik L13ACs (acro
> > ships). *These were purchased by the USAF about 15-18 yrs ago to replace
> > their fleet of SGS 2-33s and a couple of ASK-21s (still flying locally with
> > the CAP).
>
> > John
>
> Thanks John, next time I'll read the RFP before revealing my sour
> grapes...

A sailplane is just about the cheapest aircraft in the current
inventory and they don't tend to crash and burn like many of their
other toys. I'd rather they buy a dozen sailplanes than one
experimental fighter jet.

I've met many of the officers and cadets at contests over the past few
years and find they are a great asset to our soaring community. They
don't get the opportunity to compete cross-country as aggressively as
many private pilots, but they still have a few good pilots - this year
a couple were doing quite well. It is also handy to have the cadets
at a contest if you need a dozen strong youngsters to haul a glider
out of a lake of mud or other hazard!

Mike

[kirk.stant]

On Aug 1, 6:01*pm, jim archer > wrote:
> On Aug 1, 8:38*am, JS > wrote:
>
> > Will they flood the market with (ab)used Duos?
> > Hmmmm....
> > Jim
>
> Nothing against the cadets, but what exactly is wrong with the Duo's
> and Discus 2's that they currently have, anyway? *I'm all for
> providing our future pilots with the RIGHT equipment, but their
> results at the contests every year don't exactly scream for better
> performing gliders. *More likely, it seems to coincidentally coincide
> with the new Arcus release... *Hey! They've had just enough time to
> write an RFP since the new beauty started shipping!
> I can't imagine a "training" benefit for an equipment upgrade, maybe
> someone can inform me. * When they start finishing even regional
> contests in the top 5 or fly more than 500 km per flight you can raise
> my taxes for better equipment for the cadets, until then they might
> consider buckling their belt like the rest of the country and "get by"
> with the Discus II's. * And if they are going to go to a contest, let
> the cadets gain more experience so that they can perform in a
> meaningful way.
> Hopefully I will not see an Arcus in the bottom of the contest
> standings next year...
> Let the justification for new AF glass, and the criticism of my
> patriotism, commence! *(Keep in mind your current position on tax cuts
> and spending...)
> -Jim A

Spill your coffee in your lap this morning? The Air Force Academy
uses gliders to provide flight experience to ALL it's cadets. A lot
less expensive than using military trainers (when I went through, it
was in T-33 jets!). And, as others have said, the RFP is for
replacing the training fleet of Blaniks, not the special XC and
contest gliders. All in all, probably a cheap investment compared to
the stadium and athletic fields (you don't get to play much football
in combat....). And If I had a choice, ALL my federal tax money would
go the the military.

As an aside, I find it interesting (and a sad commentary on the US
glider industry) that the US has to use training gliders designed back
in the cold war period to train Soviet pilots. Nothing against
Blaniks (our club has an L-13AC and it's a hoot with the short wings)
but something like a fleet of K-21s or PW-6s would be a nice upgrade.

Cheers

Kirk
66
USAFA 74

[Dave Newill]

*The Air Force Academy
> uses gliders to provide flight experience to ALL it's cadets. *A lot
> less expensive than using military trainers (when I went through, it
> was in T-33 jets!). *And, as others have said, the RFP is for
> replacing the training fleet of Blaniks, not the special XC and
> contest gliders. *...

>.... As an aside, I find it interesting (and a sad commentary on the US
> glider industry) that the US has to use training gliders designed back
> in the cold war period to train Soviet pilots. *Nothing against
> Blaniks (our club has an L-13AC and it's a hoot with the short wings)
> but something like a fleet of K-21s or PW-6s would be a nice upgrade.
>
> Cheers
>
> Kirk
> 66
> USAFA 74

The actual RFP can be downloaded ( zip file ) from
https://www.fbo.gov/?tab=documents&tabmode=form&subtab=core&tabid=f0584401a0e0a16600029b06ad141878

Note it is 151 pages - the real meat is pages 55 - ~~80 but the rest
of it is stuff that most bidders will find daunting and costly!
If the Association of Grads was buying them - it would likely be a lot
less paper and probably less cost.

I know the Academy tried to maintain the Blaniks to the book standard
( no control cables permitted to snag a white cotton glove run the
length of the cable etc.) for the first several years and found it to
be nearly impossible to do. Parts were a problem - and of course any
plane flown by students day-in and day-out is going to see its share
of hard landings (a provision called out quite clearly in the RFP)

My guess is a qualified bidder would be a current US DoD approved
"house" that acquires the planes from a German source and provides all
the rest of the Contract Deliverables to time schedule - for which
they will earn a fee. Guess the fee to be 30 - 40% of cost of gliders
and trailers.

Finally - Agree with the ASK-21, but would like to look at the gear in
the PW-6 to see if it is robust (PW-5 was not)

Dave 72 USAFA

[Bruce Hoult]

On Aug 3, 6:21*am, Dave Newill > wrote:
> Finally - Agree with the ASK-21, but would like to look at the gear in
> the PW-6 to see if it is robust (PW-5 was not)

ASK-21's are pleasant to fly, and aerobatic, but they're only about 20
years newer than the Blanik and barely better performance!

Our club was in a similar kind of position several years ago. We
looked at the PW-6, Puchacz, ASK-21 but decided we'd get much better
value for money by stretching to the DG1000 Club for something like
EUR 10k more than the K21.

That gets you a 25 years newer design, 10 points better L/D ratio,
even more aerobatic (even outside loops and flick rolls if you're into
that kind of thing), and proper spin characteristics without fooling
around with the CofG. Oh and a roomy and comfortable back seat with
great visibility, which can't be said for all the others.

We got two of them and I think everyone is very happy. We've had a
number of students now do their entire training in them.

[John Smith]

Am 03.08.10 03:16, schrieb Bruce Hoult:
> looked at the PW-6, Puchacz, ASK-21 but decided we'd get much better
> much better value for money by stretching to the DG1000 Club for
> something like EUR 10k more than the K21.
>
> That gets you a 25 years newer design, 10 points better L/D ratio,

I think the "full" DG1000, while a slightly more expensive, is an even
better value for the money.

> even more aerobatic (even outside loops and flick rolls if you're into

I think for primary aerobatics trainig, the ASK21 is the better choice.
The DG1000 is just too slippery, especially at higher speeds. With some
figures, e.g. the cuban eight, the red line apporaches *very* fast.
Combined with the slow roll rate this can quickly put you in a pretty
uncomfortable situation. Besides that to calculating the tail ballast of
the ASK is a very educative exercise for a student. Oh, and nothing
beats the really graceful spin of the ASK.

Did you really do a downward outside loop with the DG? The DG being that
slippery, I didn't dare yet. (Besides that the POH does not allow for
it, but that's a different question.)

[Bruce Hoult]

On Aug 3, 10:08*pm, John Smith > wrote:
> Am 03.08.10 03:16, schrieb Bruce Hoult:> looked at the PW-6, Puchacz, ASK-21 but decided we'd get much better
> > much better value for money by stretching to the DG1000 Club for
> > something like EUR 10k more than the K21.
>
> *> That gets you a 25 years newer design, 10 points better L/D ratio,
>
> I think the "full" DG1000, while a slightly more expensive, is an even
> better value for the money.

Maybe, but we didn't have that much to spend. The cheapest one was
already a stretch.

We also specifically wanted fixed undercarriage to make it simpler and
avoid expensive training errors. The lower stance also makes it much
easier to get in and out. That's not a big deal when you're doing long
cross country flights, but it's much better when you're doing mostly
short training flights and rides for the public. The standard model
needs a box to stand on for a lot of short, old, or inflexible people.


> Did you really do a downward outside loop with the DG? The DG being that
> slippery, I didn't dare yet. (Besides that the POH does not allow for
> it, but that's a different question.)

I don't do aerobatics, but I'm pretty sure I did see it in the POH.
I'll check next time I'm at the field.

[John Smith]

Bruce Hoult wrote:
>> I think the "full" DG1000, while a slightly more expensive, is an even
>> better value for the money.
>
> Maybe, but we didn't have that much to spend. The cheapest one was
> already a stretch.

This real-world argument is hard to beat.

> We also specifically wanted fixed undercarriage to make it simpler and
> avoid expensive training errors.

You don't *need* to retract the gear, you know. Plus, there's an
acoustic gear warning.

In our club, the primary single seater for students is the LS4 (with
gear warning, too, as we've put one into all our gliders). We have the
rule that they just don't touch the gear on their first three or
somesuch flights. Not because we fear a belly landing, the gear warning
would prevent this, but because we don't want them being distracted.
Works fine for us. Besides, I believe that if a student gets used to the
gear from the very beginning, it will pretty soon become second nature.
But we fly from a grass airfield, a club with a concrete runway may see
this less relaxed.

> The lower stance also makes it much easier to get in and out.

I heard the rumor that DG plans a "DG 1000 executive" edition.
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/2891752/DG%201000%20Executive.jpg

>> Did you really do a downward outside loop with the DG? The DG being that
>> slippery, I didn't dare yet. (Besides that the POH does not allow for
>> it, but that's a different question.)
>
> I don't do aerobatics, but I'm pretty sure I did see it in the POH.
> I'll check next time I'm at the field.

I do know for sure that it isn't. The POH has a pretty restrictive list
of allowed figures. E.g. the cuban eight is not on it, and after the
experience I described in an earlier post, I now know why. Still doable,
of course, but you must know what you're doing. I wouldn't dare to try
an outside loop, though. The DG is much too slippery, combined with a
good cross country profile which performs poorly on negative figures.

[Dave Newill]

Just remember - the USAF Academy mission with their Soar-for-All
program is NOT to teach SOARING or even Gliding - but basic
airmanship. They learn stalls and falls, basic pattern work and air
"sense" so extreme acro or high L/D wings are not a real necessary
factor.

[L33]

On Aug 4, 5:37*pm, Dave Newill > wrote:
> Just remember - the USAF Academy mission with their Soar-for-All
> program is NOT to teach SOARING or even Gliding - but basic
> airmanship. They learn stalls and falls, basic pattern work and air
> "sense" so extreme acro or high L/D wings are not a real necessary
> factor.

They also want gliders that are FAA certified in the standard and
utility categories with a 16 KT crosswing capability. Hoping for
delivery in about a year.

Horst '77