US Air Force buys 19 DG-1000 trainiers

[John Smith]

http://www.dg-flugzeugbau.de/?id=559#Presse

[JS]

Perhaps taxpayers can get a special deal on their used Duo Discii?
Jim

[jim wynhoff]

On Mar 21, 8:16*pm, JS > wrote:
> Perhaps taxpayers can get a special deal on their used Duo Discii?
> Jim

Must........ keep.......fingers.....away..... from.......keyboard!!!

[Frank Whiteley]

On Mar 21, 9:16*pm, JS > wrote:
> Perhaps taxpayers can get a special deal on their used Duo Discii?
> Jim

I suspect the Discii will remain with the racing team for a while yet.

Frank

[150flivver]

On Mar 22, 12:27*am, Frank Whiteley > wrote:
> On Mar 21, 9:16*pm, JS > wrote:
>
> > Perhaps taxpayers can get a special deal on their used Duo Discii?
> > Jim
>
> I suspect the Discii will remain with the racing team for a while yet.
>
> Frank

Anyone know what a fixed gear DG1000 runs pricewise?

[Markus Graeber]

On Mar 22, 9:26*am, 150flivver > wrote:
> On Mar 22, 12:27*am, Frank Whiteley > wrote:
>
> > On Mar 21, 9:16*pm, JS > wrote:
>
> > > Perhaps taxpayers can get a special deal on their used Duo Discii?
> > > Jim
>
> > I suspect the Discii will remain with the racing team for a while yet.
>
> > Frank
>
> Anyone know what a fixed gear DG1000 runs pricewise?

DG 1001 Club with fixed gear and fixed 18m tips just over EUR 80,000
base price at the moment, add 10 - 20K for instruments/basic options
and some 12K for a Cobra trailer...

Markus

[Craig[_2_]]

On Mar 22, 7:57*am, Markus Graeber > wrote:
> On Mar 22, 9:26*am, 150flivver > wrote:
>
> > On Mar 22, 12:27*am, Frank Whiteley > wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 21, 9:16*pm, JS > wrote:
>
> > > > Perhaps taxpayers can get a special deal on their used Duo Discii?
> > > > Jim
>
> > > I suspect the Discii will remain with the racing team for a while yet..
>
> > > Frank
>
> > Anyone know what a fixed gear DG1000 runs pricewise?
>
> DG 1001 Club with fixed gear and fixed 18m tips just over EUR 80,000
> base price at the moment, add 10 - 20K for instruments/basic options
> and some 12K for a Cobra trailer...
>
> Markus

So for the cost of one F35 Lightning we could have about 1300 DGs.
End of training glider crisis. ;-)

Craig

[Bob Kuykendall]

On Mar 22, 7:26*am, 150flivver > wrote:

> Anyone know what a fixed gear DG1000 runs pricewise?

It looks like DG is into the US taxpayer for 4655 euro per year in
maintenance fees alone...

[Markus Graeber]

On Mar 22, 11:19*am, Bob Kuykendall > wrote:
> On Mar 22, 7:26*am, 150flivver > wrote:
>
> > Anyone know what a fixed gear DG1000 runs pricewise?
>
> It looks like DG is into the US taxpayer for 4655 euro per year in
> maintenance fees alone...

You only have to pay the maintenance fees/get a maintenance contract
if you have a DG/LS glider that was build before the current owner(s)
took over DG and later LG after their respective bankruptcies. That
also means that if you buy a new glider from them as of right now you
are entitled to the usual stuff as with other glider manufacturers.
Not saying this is good or bad, just stating the facts with no
intentions of getting into that discussion again... :-)

Markus

[Mike the Strike]

On Mar 22, 9:19*am, Bob Kuykendall > wrote:
> On Mar 22, 7:26*am, 150flivver > wrote:
>
> > Anyone know what a fixed gear DG1000 runs pricewise?
>
> It looks like DG is into the US taxpayer for 4655 euro per year in
> maintenance fees alone...

Almost certainly the cheapest flying hardware they have. My take is
I'd rather have the air-force guys flying gliders than anything with
an engine in it.

Mike

[Andy[_1_]]

On Mar 22, 9:49*am, Mike the Strike > wrote:

> I'd rather have the air-force guys flying gliders than anything with
> an engine in it.

But watch out for Ghadaffi's asparagus!

[JS]

Their cheapest hardware, but total landed cost will be about $5
million. Meanwhile most US clubs and commercial operators are using
trainers based on a circa 1940 single seat design and/or trying to
figure out what to do with a 1970s Czechoslovakian debacle.
Can't the USAFA racing team fly the DG1001s? Would that be stooping
too low?
The benefits of working for a company that prints its own money...
Jim

On Mar 22, 9:49*am, Mike the Strike > wrote:

> Almost certainly the cheapest flying hardware they have. *My take is
> I'd rather have the air-force guys flying gliders than anything with
> an engine in it.
>
> Mike

[[email protected]]

Like Jim Wynhoff said:

Must - keep - fingers - off - the - keyboard.

Wow, just wow.

[Walt Connelly]

Is 61 too old to apply for an appointment to the USAFA?

Walt

[JJ Sinclair[_2_]]

The benefits of working for a company that prints its own money...
> Jim

The AF Academy alumni association bought the Duscus-2's and the Duo-
discus's, not the US taxpayers. The DG-1000 will be used to give all
cadets an introduction to aviation and were purchased with taxpayer
dollars. BTW, two cadets pulled off a clean win at Air Sailing
Regionals last season.
JJ

[Martin[_5_]]

I don't expect the USAFA to buy used, ancient gliders to teach its
cadets. I am delighted the USAF gives all cadets an exposure to
flying, and that they chose gliders as the means to do so.

And there's more than one instructor at my club - good ones, in fact -
who got started in soaring as cadets at the academy.

Bitching about this is like complaining that the army drives Abrams
tanks while I have to drive to work in my 10-year-old Subaru.
Different mission, different budget, different priorities.

On Mar 22, 2:52*pm, JS > wrote:
> Their cheapest hardware, but total landed cost will be about $5
> million. Meanwhile most US clubs and commercial operators are using
> trainers based on a circa 1940 single seat design and/or trying to
> figure out what to do with a 1970s Czechoslovakian debacle.
> Can't the USAFA racing team fly the DG1001s? Would that be stooping
> too low?
> The benefits of working for a company that prints its own money...
> Jim
>
> On Mar 22, 9:49*am, Mike the Strike > wrote:
>
>
>
> > Almost certainly the cheapest flying hardware they have. *My take is
> > I'd rather have the air-force guys flying gliders than anything with
> > an engine in it.
>
> > Mike

[Ian Cant[_2_]]

As a soaring pilot I welcome all efforts to expose young potential pilots
to soaring.

As a taxpayer, I want to see value for my money. Under-used AF L-33s did
not give value. For initial exposure in a modern glider, many more
ASK-21s for the same total price would give much better value; and would
be more welcome on the civil market when the AF gets bored with them.

Pity Schweizer or other US manufacturer is not around to compete

Ian





At 10:17 23 March 2011, Martin wrote:
>I don't expect the USAFA to buy used, ancient gliders to teach its
>cadets. I am delighted the USAF gives all cadets an exposure to
>flying, and that they chose gliders as the means to do so.
>
>And there's more than one instructor at my club - good ones, in fact -
>who got started in soaring as cadets at the academy.
>
>Bitching about this is like complaining that the army drives Abrams
>tanks while I have to drive to work in my 10-year-old Subaru.
>Different mission, different budget, different priorities.
>
>On Mar 22, 2:52=A0pm, JS wrote:
>> Their cheapest hardware, but total landed cost will be about $5
>> million. Meanwhile most US clubs and commercial operators are using
>> trainers based on a circa 1940 single seat design and/or trying to
>> figure out what to do with a 1970s Czechoslovakian debacle.
>> Can't the USAFA racing team fly the DG1001s? Would that be stooping
>> too low?
>> The benefits of working for a company that prints its own money...
>> Jim
>>
>> On Mar 22, 9:49=A0am, Mike the Strike wrote:
>>
>>
>>[i]
>> > Almost certainly the cheapest flying hardware they have. =A0My take
is
>> > I'd rather have the air-force guys flying gliders than anything
with
>> > an engine in it.
>>
>> > Mike
>
>

[Ian Cant[_2_]]

As a soaring pilot I welcome all efforts to expose young potential pilots
to soaring.

As a taxpayer, I want to see value for my money. Under-used AF L-33s did
not give value. For initial exposure in a modern glider, many more
ASK-21s for the same total price would give much better value; and would
be more welcome on the civil market when the AF gets bored with them.

Pity Schweizer or other US manufacturer is not around to compete

Ian





At 10:17 23 March 2011, Martin wrote:
>I don't expect the USAFA to buy used, ancient gliders to teach its
>cadets. I am delighted the USAF gives all cadets an exposure to
>flying, and that they chose gliders as the means to do so.
>
>And there's more than one instructor at my club - good ones, in fact -
>who got started in soaring as cadets at the academy.
>
>Bitching about this is like complaining that the army drives Abrams
>tanks while I have to drive to work in my 10-year-old Subaru.
>Different mission, different budget, different priorities.
>
>On Mar 22, 2:52=A0pm, JS wrote:
>> Their cheapest hardware, but total landed cost will be about $5
>> million. Meanwhile most US clubs and commercial operators are using
>> trainers based on a circa 1940 single seat design and/or trying to
>> figure out what to do with a 1970s Czechoslovakian debacle.
>> Can't the USAFA racing team fly the DG1001s? Would that be stooping
>> too low?
>> The benefits of working for a company that prints its own money...
>> Jim
>>
>> On Mar 22, 9:49=A0am, Mike the Strike wrote:
>>
>>
>>[i]
>> > Almost certainly the cheapest flying hardware they have. =A0My take
is
>> > I'd rather have the air-force guys flying gliders than anything
with
>> > an engine in it.
>>
>> > Mike
>
>

[[email protected]]

There is a LOT of history regarding the amazingly wasteful procurement
and use of glider/motorglider/light aircraft resources in the USAF(A)
that JS and others have direct knowledge of. Thus the perceived
negativity of their posts.

I am sure that everyone will agree that soaring is a fantastic
introduction to aviation for the Cadets but like most .gov entitites
many people with direct knowledge believe that they have not spent our
resources very effectively.

But heck, what's $5 million? It's for the children. :)

[Grider Pirate]

On Mar 22, 2:47*pm, JJ Sinclair > wrote:
> *The benefits of working for a company that prints its own money...
>
> > Jim
>
> The AF Academy alumni association bought the Duscus-2's and the Duo-
> discus's, not the US taxpayers. The DG-1000 will be used to give all
> cadets an introduction to aviation and were purchased with taxpayer
> dollars. BTW, two cadets pulled off a clean win at Air Sailing
> Regionals last season.
> JJ

Okay, I can't keep my fingers off the keyboard any longer. It's great
that the Academy is getting new gliders, and the DG 1000 may be the
glider best suited to their needs. I just have a problem with buying
from a company which may have committed suicide by treating owners of
legacy gliders harshly. On the other hand, an order for 19 gliders
should help DG's bottom line. Will it be enough?

[JS]

And why wait until April first, when everyone will be expecting a hand
grenade lobbed in?
Haha!
Jim

[Jim Beckman[_2_]]

At 15:03 23 March 2011, wrote:
>There is a LOT of history regarding the amazingly wasteful procurement
>and use of glider/motorglider/light aircraft resources in the USAF(A)
>that JS and others have direct knowledge of. Thus the perceived
>negativity of their posts.
>
>I am sure that everyone will agree that soaring is a fantastic
>introduction to aviation for the Cadets but like most .gov entitites
>many people with direct knowledge believe that they have not spent our
>resources very effectively.
>
>But heck, what's $5 million? It's for the children. :)

It used to be the case (perhaps it still is) that AFA cadets
were given the opportunity to take glider lessons up to the
point of solo. Once they soloed, that was it, unless they
were accepted into the special program that led to a CFIG
ticket and some chances to compete. The Academy used
to bring their 1-26s to the Championships, and they were
always an impressive bunch of young folks.

But it seemed like the AFA never could get out of their own
way when it came to powered flight. The last time I was
there for a 1-26 bash, there was no powered flight available.
Seems like they always either over specified the requirements
for a trainer, or just plain made bad choices. Couldn't keep
them flying, and wasted impressive (to civilians, at least)
amounts of money.

When they decided to replace their 2-33s (about a dozen
of them) with the Blaniks, the 33s were left tied down
outside, where about half of them were destroyed in a
storm. The rest were parceled out, mostly to CAP units,
I suppose. Useful in search and rescue operations, no
doubt.

[Then again, the last time (ever, I guess) the 1-26
Championships were held at the academy, the first
practice day started with a pass by a tight formation
of grey F-16s. Not every glider contest gets that
treatment. And later we had demonstrations by their
parachute team, and a low pass by the Caribou.]

Jim Beckman

[Bruce Hoult]

On Mar 24, 3:49*am, Ian Cant > wrote:
> As a taxpayer, I want to see value for my money. *Under-used AF L-33s did
> not give value. *For initial exposure in a modern glider, many more
> ASK-21s for the same total price would give much better value

You would not get "many more" ASK-21s for the same price.

I don't know the current list prices, let alone what the USAF is
paying, but when my club bought two DG1000 CLubs several years ago it
was 60k EUR for an ASK-21 or 70K EUR for the DG1000.

If the relative prices have stayed the same you could get 22 ASK-21s
for the same price as 19 DG1000s.

We've had this discussion before here and the only reason anyone could
come up with for preferring the ASK-21 was that they are safer to get
aerobatics wrong in because they have a lot more drag than the DG1000.

Most of the rest of us prefer less drag :-)

[Brad[_2_]]

On Mar 23, 8:03*am, " > wrote:
> There is a LOT of history regarding the amazingly wasteful procurement
> and use of glider/motorglider/light aircraft resources in the USAF(A)
> that JS and others have direct knowledge of. *Thus the perceived
> negativity of their posts.
>
> I am sure that everyone will agree that soaring is a fantastic
> introduction to aviation for the Cadets but like most .gov entitites
> many people with direct knowledge believe that they have not spent our
> resources very effectively.
>
> But heck, what's $5 million? *It's for the children. :)

How does getting training in a DG-1000 prepare young kids when it's
likely all they will do is sit behind a monitor and fire missiles via
a Predator!

But, I am in full agreement, if it's for the children it must be a
good thing! And that would be the children making the gliders as well
as those flying them....booooyah!

Brad

[kirk.stant]

On Mar 24, 11:30*am, Brad > wrote:
> On Mar 23, 8:03*am, " > wrote:
>
> > There is a LOT of history regarding the amazingly wasteful procurement
> > and use of glider/motorglider/light aircraft resources in the USAF(A)
> > that JS and others have direct knowledge of. *Thus the perceived
> > negativity of their posts.
>
> > I am sure that everyone will agree that soaring is a fantastic
> > introduction to aviation for the Cadets but like most .gov entitites
> > many people with direct knowledge believe that they have not spent our
> > resources very effectively.
>
> > But heck, what's $5 million? *It's for the children. :)
>
> How does getting training in a DG-1000 prepare young kids when it's
> likely all they will do is sit behind a monitor and fire missiles via
> a Predator!
>
> But, I am in full agreement, if it's for the children it must be a
> good thing! And that would be the children making the gliders as well
> as those flying them....booooyah!
>
> Brad

For one thing, Brad, the Predator pilot doesn't target the weapons -
that's done by the sensor operator. The pilots job is the same as if
he were physically sitting in the Predator - he flies it where it's
needed and maneuvers it as required to get in a position to employ
it's weapons or support the troops on the ground. So having
experience in a DG-1000 is excellent training - it probably flies more
like a predator than anything else in the Air Force inventory.

But equally important, it's about motivation and acquiring "air sense"
early on in a pilots career - If those DG-1000 rides at the Zoo result
in an AF pilot staying in for 20 instead of bailing to the airlines,
then the price of the gliders is insignificant!

And if a skill learned in a DG-1000 later saves a B-2 or F-22, that
would be well worth it.

I'm glad to see the Academy acquire a fleet of modern gliders, and
support an active XC, contest, and acro program (something it couldn't
do when it was stuck with those nasty Schweizers!). I think it would
be cool if all the service academies had glider programs and teams
that competed.

Kirk
66
USAFA 74

[bildan]

On Mar 24, 11:22*am, "kirk.stant" > wrote:
> On Mar 24, 11:30*am, Brad > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 23, 8:03*am, " > wrote:
>
> > > There is a LOT of history regarding the amazingly wasteful procurement
> > > and use of glider/motorglider/light aircraft resources in the USAF(A)
> > > that JS and others have direct knowledge of. *Thus the perceived
> > > negativity of their posts.
>
> > > I am sure that everyone will agree that soaring is a fantastic
> > > introduction to aviation for the Cadets but like most .gov entitites
> > > many people with direct knowledge believe that they have not spent our
> > > resources very effectively.
>
> > > But heck, what's $5 million? *It's for the children. :)
>
> > How does getting training in a DG-1000 prepare young kids when it's
> > likely all they will do is sit behind a monitor and fire missiles via
> > a Predator!
>
> > But, I am in full agreement, if it's for the children it must be a
> > good thing! And that would be the children making the gliders as well
> > as those flying them....booooyah!
>
> > Brad
>
> For one thing, Brad, the Predator pilot doesn't target the weapons -
> that's done by the sensor operator. *The pilots job is the same as if
> he were physically sitting in the Predator - he flies it where it's
> needed and maneuvers it as required to get in a position to employ
> it's weapons or support the troops on the ground. *So having
> experience in a DG-1000 is excellent training - it probably flies more
> like a predator than anything else in the Air Force inventory.
>
> But equally important, it's about motivation and acquiring "air sense"
> early on in a pilots career - If those DG-1000 rides at the Zoo result
> in an AF pilot staying in for 20 instead of bailing to the airlines,
> then the price of the gliders is insignificant!
>
> And if a skill learned in a DG-1000 later saves a B-2 or F-22, that
> would be well worth it.
>
> I'm glad to see the Academy acquire a fleet of modern gliders, and
> support an active XC, contest, and acro program (something it couldn't
> do when it was stuck with those nasty Schweizers!). *I think it would
> be cool if all the service academies had glider programs and teams
> that competed.
>
> Kirk
> 66
> USAFA 74

Hear! hear!

[Jim Beckman[_2_]]

At 17:22 24 March 2011, kirk.stant wrote:
>
>I'm glad to see the Academy acquire a fleet of modern gliders, and
>support an active XC, contest, and acro program (something it couldn't
>do when it was stuck with those nasty Schweizers!).

When they had their 1-26s, they always competed. I thought it was amusing
how they noted their off-field landings in the 26s. Each one had a little
row of Holstein cow stickers below the cockpit rail, one for each
outlanding. And acro in gliders as a sport makes about as much sense as
up-hill skiing.

Jim Beckman

[Ian Cant[_3_]]

At 02:57 24 March 2011, Bruce Hoult wrote:
>On Mar 24, 3:49=A0am, Ian Cant wrote:
>> As a taxpayer, I want to see value for my money.
>I don't know the current list prices, let alone what the USAF is
>paying, but when my club bought two DG1000 CLubs several years ago it
>was 60k EUR for an ASK-21 or 70K EUR for the DG1000.
>

At $5 million for 19, that's about quarter of a million each. Expensive
for air experience.

I agree, as we all do, that soaring exposure for cadets is highly
desirable. But would not even a 'slightly' less expensive aircraft do
this job just as well ? And maybe for more cadets if the total budget
stays the same ?

As to the value for Predator operators, I doubt if it is significant. The
pilots' union will keep the job designated for rated pilots as long as
possible, but sitting in front of a screen is NOT equivalent to flying in
combat, nor does it demand the same skills set.

Ian

[Ian Cant[_3_]]

At 02:57 24 March 2011, Bruce Hoult wrote:
>On Mar 24, 3:49=A0am, Ian Cant wrote:
>> As a taxpayer, I want to see value for my money.
>I don't know the current list prices, let alone what the USAF is
>paying, but when my club bought two DG1000 CLubs several years ago it
>was 60k EUR for an ASK-21 or 70K EUR for the DG1000.
>

At $5 million for 19, that's about quarter of a million each. Expensive
for air experience.

I agree, as we all do, that soaring exposure for cadets is highly
desirable. But would not even a 'slightly' less expensive aircraft do
this job just as well ? And maybe for more cadets if the total budget
stays the same ?

As to the value for Predator operators, I doubt if it is significant. The
pilots' union will keep the job designated for rated pilots as long as
possible, but sitting in front of a screen is NOT equivalent to flying in
combat, nor does it demand the same skills set.

Ian

[Nyal Williams[_2_]]

Hear, Hear!

At 21:48 24 March 2011, Jim Beckman wrote:
>At 17:22 24 March 2011, kirk.stant wrote:
>>
>>I'm glad to see the Academy acquire a fleet of modern gliders, and
>>support an active XC, contest, and acro program (something it couldn't
>>do when it was stuck with those nasty Schweizers!).
>
>When they had their 1-26s, they always competed. I thought it was
amusing
>how they noted their off-field landings in the 26s. Each one had a
little
>row of Holstein cow stickers below the cockpit rail, one for each
>outlanding. And acro in gliders as a sport makes about as much sense as
>up-hill skiing.
>
>Jim Beckman
>
>
>

[No Name]

Seems like a very good purchase. The DG1000 is a much more
modern design with many already produced so the faults are pretty
well known. The ASK 21 is a 30 year old design in need of an
upgrade. The GRP honeycomb fuselage is probably heavier than
several layers of glass and carbon would be and, I think, much
more expensive to repair. The wing spars are still fiberglass, not
carbon fiber and there is still a lot of wood in the wing spars and
fuselage. Tail ballast weights mount on the outside of the tail and
are for spin training but with two heavy pilots the K21 could still
use some kind of aerodynamic tail ballast to move the cg more aft.
A nose hook would be easier to hook up on the line, you have to
crawl under it to hook up for aerotow and on a hot asphalt tarmac
you can burn your knees and hand.

[Jim Beckman[_2_]]

At 00:17 25 March 2011, Ian Cant wrote:
>
>I agree, as we all do, that soaring exposure for cadets is highl
>desirable. But would not even a 'slightly' less expensive aircraft d
>this job just as well ? And maybe for more cadets if the total budge
>stays the same ?

For that matter, do it with single engine piston airplanes. If what you
want is exposure to air operations in the real world, that makes a lot
more sense, regardless of our own prejudices.

>As to the value for Predator operators, I doubt if it is significant.
Th
>pilots' union will keep the job designated for rated pilots as long a
>possible,

Air Force pilots belong to a pilots union? Sounds unlikely to me.

Jim Beckman

[kirk.stant]

On Mar 24, 4:48*pm, Jim Beckman > wrote:
> At 17:22 24 March 2011, kirk.stant wrote:
>
>
>
> >I'm glad to see the Academy acquire a fleet of modern gliders, and
> >support an active XC, contest, and acro program (something it couldn't
> >do when it was stuck with those nasty Schweizers!).
>
> When they had their 1-26s, they always competed. *I thought it was amusing
> how they noted their off-field landings in the 26s. *Each one had a little
> row of Holstein cow stickers below the cockpit rail, one for each
> outlanding. *And acro in gliders as a sport makes about as much sense as
> up-hill skiing.
>
> Jim Beckman

1-26s were fine in their day - but you can't do intro rides in them,
can you? And 2-33s were (and still are) absolute junk, period. It's
great that the cadets now have modern gliders to train and compete
in. And a hell of a lot safer, by the way.

As far as acro in a glider - hmm, seems teaching acro in a glider to a
cadet who will move on to F-22s might be a good thing. Sure would
teach unusual attitudes, situation awareness, and energy management,
wouldn't it? Yeah, you can do it in a power plane, but compare the
cost of an Extra 300 to a DG-1000.

And if you have never done acro in a glider - ASK-21, Blanik 13AC,
Pilatus, Swift, etc.. you are missing a wonderful aspect of our sport
- and one that can be done on those days when there isn't any lift
around. Don't knock it if you havn't tried it!

Kirk
66

[John Smith]

kirk.stant wrote:
> As far as acro in a glider - hmm, seems teaching acro in a glider to a
> cadet who will move on to F-22s might be a good thing. Sure would
> teach unusual attitudes, situation awareness, and energy management,
> wouldn't it? Yeah, you can do it in a power plane, but compare the
> cost of an Extra 300 to a DG-1000.

Looking at the pure acro time, glider acro is about the most expensive
acro you can buy.

That said, I strongly believe that pilots who have made their first
steps in gliders have a different attitude. And cleanly rolling a DG1000
(or a ASK21, for that matter) is really difficult and teaches you an
awful lot.

[Frank Whiteley]

On Mar 25, 6:52*am, Jim Beckman > wrote:
> At 00:17 25 March 2011, Ian Cant wrote:
>
>
>
> >I agree, as we all do, that soaring exposure for cadets is highl
> >desirable. *But would not even a 'slightly' less expensive aircraft d
> >this job just as well ? *And maybe for more cadets if the total budge
> >stays the same ?
>
> For that matter, do it with single engine piston airplanes. *If what you
> want is exposure to air operations in the real world, that makes a lot
> more sense, regardless of our own prejudices.
>
>
>
> >As to the value for Predator operators, I doubt if it is significant.
> Th
> >pilots' union will keep the job designated for rated pilots as long a
> >possible,
>
> Air Force pilots belong to a pilots union? *Sounds unlikely to me.
>
> Jim Beckman

http://www.dossaviation.com/page.asp?id=76

[Frank Whiteley]

On Mar 25, 8:17*am, Frank Whiteley > wrote:
> On Mar 25, 6:52*am, Jim Beckman > wrote:
>
>
>
> > At 00:17 25 March 2011, Ian Cant wrote:
>
> > >I agree, as we all do, that soaring exposure for cadets is highl
> > >desirable. *But would not even a 'slightly' less expensive aircraft d
> > >this job just as well ? *And maybe for more cadets if the total budge
> > >stays the same ?
>
> > For that matter, do it with single engine piston airplanes. *If what you
> > want is exposure to air operations in the real world, that makes a lot
> > more sense, regardless of our own prejudices.
>
> > >As to the value for Predator operators, I doubt if it is significant.
> > Th
> > >pilots' union will keep the job designated for rated pilots as long a
> > >possible,
>
> > Air Force pilots belong to a pilots union? *Sounds unlikely to me.
>
> > Jim Beckman
>
> http://www.dossaviation.com/page.asp?id=76

http://tinyurl.com/4tp5bnr

[150flivver]

On Mar 24, 7:21*pm, Ian Cant > wrote:
> At 02:57 24 March 2011, Bruce Hoult wrote:
>
> >On Mar 24, 3:49=A0am, Ian Cant *wrote:
> >> As a taxpayer, I want to see value for my money.
> >I don't know the current list prices, let alone what the USAF is
> >paying, but when my club bought two DG1000 CLubs several years ago it
> >was 60k EUR for an ASK-21 or 70K EUR for the DG1000.
>
> At $5 million for 19, that's about quarter of a million each. *Expensive
> for air experience.
>
> I agree, as we all do, that soaring exposure for cadets is highly
> desirable. *But would not even a 'slightly' less expensive aircraft do
> this job just as well ? *And maybe for more cadets if the total budget
> stays the same ?
>
> As to the value for Predator operators, I doubt if it is significant. *The
> pilots' union will keep the job designated for rated pilots as long as
> possible, but sitting in front of a screen is NOT equivalent to flying in
> combat, nor does it demand the same skills set.
>
> Ian

They are already tapping aviators without Air Force pilot wings to
pilot UAVs. Navigators that have civil commercial licenses have been
getting Predator piloting assignments.

Considering the debacle concerning the $32M acquisition and eventual
disposal (at a total loss since the airplanes were eventually
shredded) of the T-3 Firefly that General McPeak was responsible for,
a couple mil for modern, supportable, off the shelf sailplanes is a
vast improvement. Many of these cadets are studying aeronautical
engineering and will go on to fly aircraft costing well over $100M
each. Giving them a good foundation in airmanship is an investment.

[Jim Beckman[_2_]]

At 13:34 25 March 2011, kirk.stant wrote:
>
>1-26s were fine in their day - but you can't do intro rides in them,
>can you?

Can't do them in an LS8 either. My complaint is the idea that you
can't compete in a 1-26. It's the purest form of competition, head to
head with no handicaps and no excuses (particularly when some 80-year-old
submariner like Vern Hutchinson beats you).

>And if you have never done acro in a glider - ASK-21, Blanik 13AC,
>Pilatus, Swift, etc.. you are missing a wonderful aspect of our sport
>- and one that can be done on those days when there isn't any lift
>around. Don't knock it if you havn't tried it!

My problem is that it's so damned expensive. Talk about a way to beat
the towplane back to the airport, this is it. If you want to give the
cadets aerobatic experience (and I've never know the AFA to be interested
in that task) then do it in a capable aerobatic airplane.

Jim Beckman

[Jim Beckman[_2_]]

At 14:25 25 March 2011, Frank Whiteley wrote:
>
>http://tinyurl.com/4tp5bnr

That's nice, but it's about two years old. So what happened? The AFA
has a record of making lousy choices when it comes to picking aircraft
(powered or not) for their cadets to fly. Didn't they pick some
foreign-built powered airplane the last time out, and end up having loads
of trouble with them? But what the hey, money is plentiful, don't worry
about it.

And as far as glider experience being useful in later aviation careers, as
I recall it was at the AFA that Sullenberger got his glider time. And
remember what he said about its influence on his Hudson River splashdown.

Jim Beckman

[John Scott[_3_]]

Some background on a variety of points raised in this string of messages.

The gliders were procurred thru an open competition. The RFP was available
online. I down loaded and read the technical portion and it all seemed
reasonable.

What is unknown when discussing the $5M is what else was required/purchased
in addition to the 19 gliders.
I'm sure there were a number of trailers, spare parts, instruments, manuals,
and probably some amount of factory support. Until you know the full scope
of the proposal, it is hard to comment on the final price.

The acrobatics that most of the cadets do amount to steep turns, spins, a
few loops and a roll or 2.

The glider training is an optional course. All cadets do not have to
participate.

They fly the gliders a lot.

I live about 500' from the Academy. They fly the gliders over my house all
the time. We have AFA cadets join our club from time to time. 3 of our
club tow pilots also tow at the Academy. The above is not speculation.

John Scott

[Bruce Hoult]

On Mar 26, 2:53*am, John Smith > wrote:
> Looking at the pure acro time, glider acro is about the most expensive
> acro you can buy.

Not if you have access to a decent ridge, or wave.

[bildan]

On Mar 25, 3:13*pm, Bruce Hoult > wrote:
> On Mar 26, 2:53*am, John Smith > wrote:
>
> > Looking at the pure acro time, glider acro is about the most expensive
> > acro you can buy.
>
> Not if you have access to a decent ridge, or wave.

And not if you have a good winch:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-VlRd9-wxQI (Instruments in meters,
meters/sec)
Winch launch height was limited by airspace restrictions

[kirk.stant]

On Mar 25, 1:56*pm, Jim Beckman > wrote:
> At 13:34 25 March 2011, kirk.stant wrote:
>
>
>
> >1-26s were fine in their day - but you can't do intro rides in them,
> >can you? *
>
> Can't do them in an LS8 either. * My complaint is the idea that you
> can't compete in a 1-26. *It's the purest form of competition, head to
> head with no handicaps and no excuses (particularly when some 80-year-old
> submariner like Vern Hutchinson beats you).
>
> >And if you have never done acro in a glider - ASK-21, Blanik 13AC,
> >Pilatus, Swift, etc.. you are missing a wonderful aspect of our sport
> >- and one that can be done on those days when there isn't any lift
> >around. *Don't knock it if you havn't tried it!
>
> My problem is that it's so damned expensive. *Talk about a way to beat
> the towplane back to the airport, this is it. *If you want to give the
> cadets aerobatic experience (and I've never know the AFA to be interested
> in that task) then do it in a capable aerobatic airplane.
>
> Jim Beckman

I suggest you inform yourself about the USAFA glider program.

You might be surprised.

Then again, perhaps not.

Cheers,

Kirk
66

[Jim Beckman[_2_]]

At 22:20 25 March 2011, kirk.stant wrote:

>I suggest you inform yourself about the USAFA glider program.
>
>You might be surprised.

Well, I've been there, talked to them, and competed against them. They
were extremely impressive young folks, and fairly good competitive pilots
(I got a mild kick out of finishing ahead of one of their officers one of
the days I was flying - part of a team).

What particularly sticks in my mind, though, is one day after
the flying (or maybe we weren't flying because of the wind)
when some of the cadets got Vern Hutchinson talking about
his experiences as a submariner in WWII. Vern did some
amazing things, including infiltrating into Tokyo harbor to
see what was going on (he was just crew, not captain or
anything like that). Those cadets were hanging on his every
word. It was something just to watch it.

My club in NJ produced a young kid glider pilot (his father was
a doctor, but didn't support Bob's gliding desires - when he
was younger, Bob bicycled quite a few miles to the glider
field, and the club sort of adopted him. He ended up at
the Academy, instructing in gliders, and was flying F-16s
over Iraq in the First Bush War.

At the time I was there, the cadets were flying a flock of 2-33s,
1-26s for competition, and some big white glass two-seater
that they trailered around. One thing you have to say for
the Schweizers, I never heard about the AFA having any trouble
with them.

Jim Beckman

[Jim Beckman[_2_]]

At 21:13 25 March 2011, Bruce Hoult wrote:
>On Mar 26, 2:53=A0am, John Smith wrote:
>> Looking at the pure acro time, glider acro is about the most expensive
>> acro you can buy.
>
>Not if you have access to a decent ridge, or wave.

Acro on the ridge? Now *that* sounds dangerous. Not much ground
clearance.

Jim Beckman

[Bruce Hoult]

On Mar 27, 2:15*am, Jim Beckman > wrote:
> At 21:13 25 March 2011, Bruce Hoult wrote:
>
> >On Mar 26, 2:53=A0am, John Smith *wrote:
> >> Looking at the pure acro time, glider acro is about the most expensive
> >> acro you can buy.
>
> >Not if you have access to a decent ridge, or wave.
>
> Acro on the ridge? *Now *that* sounds dangerous. *Not much ground
> clearance.

In these parts we have several 1000 - 1500 ft ridges to choose from,
depending on the exact wind direction, and can often get to 2000 ft
above the top of the ridge and 3000+ ft above the flat ground upwind
of the ridge.

http://soar.co.nz/gallery/24.jpg

[Bruce Hoult]

On Mar 27, 2:15*am, Jim Beckman > wrote:
> At 21:13 25 March 2011, Bruce Hoult wrote:
>
> >On Mar 26, 2:53=A0am, John Smith *wrote:
> >> Looking at the pure acro time, glider acro is about the most expensive
> >> acro you can buy.
>
> >Not if you have access to a decent ridge, or wave.
>
> Acro on the ridge? *Now *that* sounds dangerous. *Not much ground
> clearance.

A fairly typical day cruising the 1500 ft high ridge 10 km NNE of our
field.

http://cs10405.vk.com/u53282174/124785828/x_80699e9e.jpg

There's as likely as not to be weak wave out towards the beach too.

[Kevin Christner]

> 1-26s were fine in their day - but you can't do intro rides in them,
> can you? *And 2-33s were (and still are) absolute junk, period. *It's
> great that the cadets now have modern gliders to train and compete
> in. *And a hell of a lot safer, by the way.

Hear Hear!!!!!!

[John Smith]

DG just published a picture of the first completed trainer doing its
maiden flight:
http://www.dg-flugzeugbau.de/foto-11-05.html

[ContestID67[_2_]]

On Apr 29, 5:53*pm, John Smith > wrote:
> DG just published a picture of the first completed trainer doing its
> maiden flight:http://www.dg-flugzeugbau.de/foto-11-05.html

One heck of a nicer ride than the Blanik L-23's that they flew
before. I wonder if they are selling them as "military surplus"? ;-)

[Walt Connelly]

;770635']On Apr 29, 5:53*pm, John Smith wrote:
DG just published a picture of the first completed trainer doing its
maiden flight:http://www.dg-flugzeugbau.de/foto-11-05.html

One heck of a nicer ride than the Blanik L-23's that they flew
before. I wonder if they are selling them as "military surplus"? ;-)

I would sure as heck try to buy one if they did. The L13 fiasco is going to cost more to repair then the plane is worth. Two place trainers are becoming valuable. 2-33's are selling for 16000, a big jump from their price last year.

Walt

[tomcatvf51]

The US Air Force Academy flew the final flight in their TG-10 (Blanik L23) last week. What amazed me is that they accumulated 140,000 flights over 10 years in 12 ships!

http://www.usafa.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123311630

- Barry, USAFA 76