US Air Force buys 19 DG-1000 trainiers

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

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

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 :-)

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

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

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!

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

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

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

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