Artificial Turf Runway

[tomcatvf51]

US Air Force Academy has installed an artificial turf landing area for glider ops.

http://www.usafa.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123294443

[Mike C]

On Mar 23, 10:41*am, tomcatvf51
> wrote:
> US Air Force Academy has installed an artificial turf landing area for
> glider ops.
>
> http://www.usafa.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123294443
>
> --
> tomcatvf51



A colossal waste of taxpayer money. But, if you don't spend it this
year you will not get the funding next year.

Mike

[Tony[_5_]]

On Friday, March 23, 2012 3:23:11 PM UTC-5, Mike C wrote:
> On Mar 23, 10:41*am, tomcatvf51
> > wrote:
> > US Air Force Academy has installed an artificial turf landing area for
> > glider ops.
> >
> > http://www.usafa.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123294443
> >
> > --
> > tomcatvf51
>
>
>
> A colossal waste of taxpayer money. But, if you don't spend it this
> year you will not get the funding next year.
>
> Mike

The academy spent a million more(4.8 million, http://www.koaa.com/news/af-academy-buys-19-new-gliders-for-cadet-training/)on the recent upgrade to the DG-1000's after retiring their Blaniks. The Blaniks lasted 9 years. Before the Blaniks they flew 2-33's. I doubt the 2-33's minded the rough runways. Apparently the Blaniks did not fare so well. Perhaps a combo of rough runway and aggressive preflights? Thinking out loud here, i'm guessing the thought process is that if a smoother runway will extend the life of the gliders by 80% then it is worth it. Probably cheaper than concrete too.

[Mark Jardini[_2_]]

I can think of worse things to spend my taxes on that promoting
soaring.

[Tony[_5_]]

On Friday, March 23, 2012 3:37:07 PM UTC-5, Tony wrote:
> On Friday, March 23, 2012 3:23:11 PM UTC-5, Mike C wrote:
> > On Mar 23, 10:41*am, tomcatvf51
> > > wrote:
> > > US Air Force Academy has installed an artificial turf landing area for
> > > glider ops.
> > >
> > > http://www.usafa.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123294443
> > >
> > > --
> > > tomcatvf51
> >
> >
> >
> > A colossal waste of taxpayer money. But, if you don't spend it this
> > year you will not get the funding next year.
> >
> > Mike
>
> The academy spent a million more(4.8 million, http://www.koaa.com/news/af-academy-buys-19-new-gliders-for-cadet-training/)on the recent upgrade to the DG-1000's after retiring their Blaniks. The Blaniks lasted 9 years. Before the Blaniks they flew 2-33's. I doubt the 2-33's minded the rough runways. Apparently the Blaniks did not fare so well. Perhaps a combo of rough runway and aggressive preflights? Thinking out loud here, i'm guessing the thought process is that if a smoother runway will extend the life of the gliders by 80% then it is worth it. Probably cheaper than concrete too.

make that http://www.koaa.com/news/af-academy-buys-19-new-gliders-for-cadet-training/

[Mike C]

On Mar 23, 2:37*pm, Tony > wrote:
> On Friday, March 23, 2012 3:23:11 PM UTC-5, Mike C wrote:
> > On Mar 23, 10:41*am, tomcatvf51
> > > wrote:
> > > US Air Force Academy has installed an artificial turf landing area for
> > > glider ops.
>
> > >http://www.usafa.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123294443
>
> > > --
> > > tomcatvf51
>
> > A *colossal *waste of taxpayer money. *But, if you don't spend it this
> > year you will not get the funding next year.
>
> > Mike
>
> The academy spent a million more(4.8 million,http://www.koaa.com/news/af-academy-buys-19-new-gliders-for-cadet-tra...the recent upgrade to the DG-1000's after retiring their Blaniks. The Blaniks lasted 9 years. Before the Blaniks they flew 2-33's. I doubt the 2-33's minded the rough runways. *Apparently the Blaniks did not fare so well. Perhaps a combo of rough runway and aggressive preflights? *Thinking out loud here, i'm guessing the thought process is that if a smoother runway will extend the life of the gliders by 80% then it is worth it. Probably cheaper than concrete too.

Having been a sales rep and installer of artificial turf sports
surfaces, someone was sold a bill of goods, not a working solution,
for the alleged problem of composite sailplanes falling apart on a
grass surface. I doubt the installation will last 10 years.

Mike

[glidergeek]

On Mar 23, 1:37*pm, Tony > wrote:
> On Friday, March 23, 2012 3:23:11 PM UTC-5, Mike C wrote:
> > On Mar 23, 10:41*am, tomcatvf51
> > > wrote:
> > > US Air Force Academy has installed an artificial turf landing area for
> > > glider ops.
>
> > >http://www.usafa.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123294443
>
> > > --
> > > tomcatvf51
>
> > A *colossal *waste of taxpayer money. *But, if you don't spend it this
> > year you will not get the funding next year.
>
> > Mike
>
> The academy spent a million more(4.8 million,http://www.koaa.com/news/af-academy-buys-19-new-gliders-for-cadet-tra...the recent upgrade to the DG-1000's after retiring their Blaniks. The Blaniks lasted 9 years. Before the Blaniks they flew 2-33's. I doubt the 2-33's minded the rough runways. *Apparently the Blaniks did not fare so well. Perhaps a combo of rough runway and aggressive preflights? *Thinking out loud here, i'm guessing the thought process is that if a smoother runway will extend the life of the gliders by 80% then it is worth it. Probably cheaper than concrete too.

$4.8 million for 11 gliders? $436,363 per glider? I would think
smother landings rather than a smother runway would be more in order.
What does artificial turf have to do with what's underneath.

[Tony[_5_]]

On Friday, March 23, 2012 5:36:15 PM UTC-5, glidergeek wrote:
> On Mar 23, 1:37*pm, Tony > wrote:
> > On Friday, March 23, 2012 3:23:11 PM UTC-5, Mike C wrote:
> > > On Mar 23, 10:41*am, tomcatvf51
> > > > wrote:
> > > > US Air Force Academy has installed an artificial turf landing area for
> > > > glider ops.
> >
> > > >http://www.usafa.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123294443
> >
> > > > --
> > > > tomcatvf51
> >
> > > A *colossal *waste of taxpayer money. *But, if you don't spend it this
> > > year you will not get the funding next year.
> >
> > > Mike
> >
> > The academy spent a million more(4.8 million,http://www.koaa.com/news/af-academy-buys-19-new-gliders-for-cadet-tra...the recent upgrade to the DG-1000's after retiring their Blaniks. The Blaniks lasted 9 years. Before the Blaniks they flew 2-33's. I doubt the 2-33's minded the rough runways. *Apparently the Blaniks did not fare so well. Perhaps a combo of rough runway and aggressive preflights? *Thinking out loud here, i'm guessing the thought process is that if a smoother runway will extend the life of the gliders by 80% then it is worth it. Probably cheaper than concrete too.
>
> $4.8 million for 11 gliders? $436,363 per glider? I would think
> smother landings rather than a smother runway would be more in order.
> What does artificial turf have to do with what's underneath.

11 trailers. 19 gliders.

[Mike C]

On Mar 23, 4:36*pm, glidergeek > wrote:
> On Mar 23, 1:37*pm, Tony > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Friday, March 23, 2012 3:23:11 PM UTC-5, Mike C wrote:
> > > On Mar 23, 10:41*am, tomcatvf51
> > > > wrote:
> > > > US Air Force Academy has installed an artificial turf landing area for
> > > > glider ops.
>
> > > >http://www.usafa.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123294443
>
> > > > --
> > > > tomcatvf51
>
> > > A *colossal *waste of taxpayer money. *But, if you don't spend it this
> > > year you will not get the funding next year.
>
> > > Mike
>
> > The academy spent a million more(4.8 million,http://www.koaa.com/news/af-academy-buys-19-new-gliders-for-cadet-tra...recent upgrade to the DG-1000's after retiring their Blaniks. The Blaniks lasted 9 years. Before the Blaniks they flew 2-33's. I doubt the 2-33's minded the rough runways. *Apparently the Blaniks did not fare so well. Perhaps a combo of rough runway and aggressive preflights? *Thinking out loud here, i'm guessing the thought process is that if a smoother runway will extend the life of the gliders by 80% then it is worth it. Probably cheaper than concrete too.
>
> $4.8 million for 11 gliders? $436,363 per glider? I would think
> smother landings rather than a smother runway would be more in order.
> What does artificial turf have to do with what's underneath.

"What does artificial turf have to do with what's underneath."

It is normal procedure to provide a level substrate before the turf
is laid.

[[email protected]]

On Mar 23, 2:23*pm, Mike C > wrote:
> On Mar 23, 10:41*am, tomcatvf51
>
>
> A *colossal *waste of taxpayer money. *But, if you don't spend it this
> year you will not get the funding next year.
>
> Mike



Even with the expensive landing area and 19 brand new DG 1000 gliders,
it is probably the least expensive and most cost-effective flight
training the Air Force does by a huge margin.

I wonder what the Air Force Academy spends on their football team and
training facilities in comparison

Steve Rathbun

[Mark Jardini[_2_]]

I was quoted F 15 flight time at $10k an hour. That would be exclusive
of acquisition cost.

[kirk.stant]

On Friday, March 23, 2012 11:41:10 AM UTC-5, tomcatvf51 wrote:
> US Air Force Academy has installed an artificial turf landing area for
> glider ops.

The way I read it, it's a natural Turf runway, replacing the natural high desert grass. That's totally different than an artificial turf runway!

So it's fundamentally the same as a football field. Sounds like a good idea, since the natural grasses in that part of the world aren't the softest. I would think the protection from rocks, etc would help the maintenance load on the new DGs a lot. These gliders aren't just flown once a week - they get used A LOT!

And probably a lot cheaper than a paved runway, which would have been the Army's approach... ;^)

Go Falcons!

Kirk
66
USAFA '74

[Mike C]

On Mar 24, 9:03*am, "kirk.stant" > wrote:
> On Friday, March 23, 2012 11:41:10 AM UTC-5, tomcatvf51 wrote:
> > US Air Force Academy has installed an artificial turf landing area for
> > glider ops.
>
> The way I read it, it's a natural Turf runway, replacing the natural high desert grass. *That's totally different than an artificial turf runway!
>
> So it's fundamentally the same as a football field. *Sounds like a good idea, since the natural grasses in that part of the world aren't the softest. *I would think the protection from rocks, etc would help the maintenance load on the new DGs a lot. These gliders aren't just flown once a week - they get used A LOT!
>
> And probably a lot cheaper than a paved runway, which would have been the Army's approach... ;^)
>
> Go Falcons!
>
> Kirk
> 66
> USAFA '74

Grass is good!

[glidergeek]

On Mar 24, 8:43*am, Mike C > wrote:
> On Mar 24, 9:03*am, "kirk.stant" > wrote:
>
> > On Friday, March 23, 2012 11:41:10 AM UTC-5, tomcatvf51 wrote:
> > > US Air Force Academy has installed an artificial turf landing area for
> > > glider ops.
>
> > The way I read it, it's a natural Turf runway, replacing the natural high desert grass. *That's totally different than an artificial turf runway!
>
> > So it's fundamentally the same as a football field. *Sounds like a good idea, since the natural grasses in that part of the world aren't the softest. *I would think the protection from rocks, etc would help the maintenance load on the new DGs a lot. These gliders aren't just flown once a week - they get used A LOT!
>
> > And probably a lot cheaper than a paved runway, which would have been the Army's approach... ;^)
>
> > Go Falcons!
>
> > Kirk
> > 66
> > USAFA '74
>
> Grass is good!

Doesn't matter what the surface is like for the most part and we all
know what a good landings and it's not just one you walk away from.
Even at $20k per trailer that's $220k for 11, what do they need
trailers for?

[Walt Connelly]

On Mar 23, 2:23*pm, Mike C wrote:
On Mar 23, 10:41*am, tomcatvf51


A *colossal *waste of taxpayer money. *But, if you don't spend it this
year you will not get the funding next year.

Mike



Even with the expensive landing area and 19 brand new DG 1000 gliders,
it is probably the least expensive and most cost-effective flight
training the Air Force does by a huge margin.

I wonder what the Air Force Academy spends on their football team and
training facilities in comparison

Steve Rathbun

I understand that the football team will be playing on asphalt this year. Go Falcons.

Walt

[Walt Connelly]

;812032']I was quoted F 15 flight time at $10k an hour. That would be exclusive
of acquisition cost.

Okay, I'll take two minutes of F15 flight time please. (hope that's exclusive of taxi time)

Walt

[C-FFKQ (42)]

> Even at $20k per trailer that's $220k for 11, what do they need
> trailers for?

Perhaps the per unit price includes a maintenance contract?
Wouldn't the trailers be useful for taking the ships to contests or on "show the flag" type of tours?

[Mark Jardini[_2_]]

I just was at Chris Klix' shop today at Pacific Aerosport in Arlington
WA. He had two of the DG 1000's there setting them up for the Academy.
Beautiful birds. He told me there would ultimately be #19 in all. That
brings the price down to an understandable per copy.

[Tom Bjork]

At 00:17 25 March 2012, C-FFKQ 42 wrote:
>> Even at $20k per trailer that's $220k for 11, what do they need
>> trailers for?
>
>Perhaps the per unit price includes a maintenance contract?
>Wouldn't the trailers be useful for taking the ships to contests or on
>"show the flag" type of tours?
>

The USAF can really save $$ by flight training with gliders, then
transitioning to computer games, since a fair number of their pilots are
flying drones out of trailers.

Ah, for the good old days when men were men, aircraft came with
afterburners, and planes were built after their pilots were born (not
before their fathers were born). (In 1985, I thought my T-38s were ancient,
since they were built in the 60's. Still flying!)

[Frank Whiteley]

On Saturday, March 24, 2012 6:17:20 PM UTC-6, C-FFKQ (42) wrote:
> > Even at $20k per trailer that's $220k for 11, what do they need
> > trailers for?
>
> Perhaps the per unit price includes a maintenance contract?
> Wouldn't the trailers be useful for taking the ships to contests or on "show the flag" type of tours?

There have been some cadets flying in Willcox, AZ, recently. Five of the new DG are for acro. At least one was in Tucson for the IAC?/SSA sanctioned Tequila Cup Aerobatics competition in November 2011. Results appear to be behind a members only firewall. Not clear if it was really an IAC contest as SSA got a last minute sanction request. Another camp soon in Littlefield, TX, I believe. They do travel some apart from competitions.

Frank Whiteley

[Dan Marotta]

Admittedly, I haven't read all the reports, but, last time I flew over, the
Academy already had paved runways. Is this a new landing field?


"Mike C" > wrote in message
...
On Mar 24, 9:03 am, "kirk.stant" > wrote:
> On Friday, March 23, 2012 11:41:10 AM UTC-5, tomcatvf51 wrote:
> > US Air Force Academy has installed an artificial turf landing area for
> > glider ops.
>
> The way I read it, it's a natural Turf runway, replacing the natural high
> desert grass. That's totally different than an artificial turf runway!
>
> So it's fundamentally the same as a football field. Sounds like a good
> idea, since the natural grasses in that part of the world aren't the
> softest. I would think the protection from rocks, etc would help the
> maintenance load on the new DGs a lot. These gliders aren't just flown
> once a week - they get used A LOT!
>
> And probably a lot cheaper than a paved runway, which would have been the
> Army's approach... ;^)
>
> Go Falcons!
>
> Kirk
> 66
> USAFA '74

Grass is good!

[John Scott[_3_]]

The turf was installed in the grass area west of the paved glider launch
area. Same area that has been used for years for landing gliders.

John Scott
"Dan Marotta" > wrote in message
...
> Admittedly, I haven't read all the reports, but, last time I flew over,
> the Academy already had paved runways. Is this a new landing field?
>
>
> "Mike C" > wrote in message
> ...
> On Mar 24, 9:03 am, "kirk.stant" > wrote:
>> On Friday, March 23, 2012 11:41:10 AM UTC-5, tomcatvf51 wrote:
>> > US Air Force Academy has installed an artificial turf landing area for
>> > glider ops.
>>
>> The way I read it, it's a natural Turf runway, replacing the natural high
>> desert grass. That's totally different than an artificial turf runway!
>>
>> So it's fundamentally the same as a football field. Sounds like a good
>> idea, since the natural grasses in that part of the world aren't the
>> softest. I would think the protection from rocks, etc would help the
>> maintenance load on the new DGs a lot. These gliders aren't just flown
>> once a week - they get used A LOT!
>>
>> And probably a lot cheaper than a paved runway, which would have been the
>> Army's approach... ;^)
>>
>> Go Falcons!
>>
>> Kirk
>> 66
>> USAFA '74
>
> Grass is good!

[John Scott[_3_]]

Nope. It's artifical. It's the only thing that is green on the airfield
right now. Very very dry spring this year on the fonrt range.

John Scott

"kirk.stant" > wrote in message
news:20170128.1560.1332601403747.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@ynne2...
On Friday, March 23, 2012 11:41:10 AM UTC-5, tomcatvf51 wrote:
> US Air Force Academy has installed an artificial turf landing area for
> glider ops.

The way I read it, it's a natural Turf runway, replacing the natural high
desert grass. That's totally different than an artificial turf runway!

So it's fundamentally the same as a football field. Sounds like a good
idea, since the natural grasses in that part of the world aren't the
softest. I would think the protection from rocks, etc would help the
maintenance load on the new DGs a lot. These gliders aren't just flown once
a week - they get used A LOT!

And probably a lot cheaper than a paved runway, which would have been the
Army's approach... ;^)

Go Falcons!

Kirk
66
USAFA '74