US Air Force buys 19 DG-1000 trainiers

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!

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

Like Jim Wynhoff said:

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

Wow, just wow.

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

Walt

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

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

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 [I wonder
if the contract was even competitive ?]

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:



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

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 [I wonder
if the contract was even competitive ?]

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:



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

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.

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?