Artificial Turf Runway

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

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

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

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

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-...t-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.

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-...t-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-...adet-training/

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-...adet-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

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-...adet-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.

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-...adet-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.

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-...t-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.

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