US Air Force buys 19 DG-1000 trainiers

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.

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

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

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.

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

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

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.

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

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

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