Air corps new toy on the way

sjb25

Announcement today

The model a hint

https://facebook.com/IrlAirCorps/photos/a.280110362016594.81601.148942718466693/2023923354301944/?type=3

pepe the prawn

I wonder why they went for the pc12 instead of Cessna caravans.. having said that, I’ve seen a few video clips of pc12’s operating out of short grass strips and they are quite impressive.


Maybe there will be a couple of bargain 172’s coming on the market soon......

Any sense they’ll keep the 172’s and use them for initial pilot training and not PC-9’s

Negative_G

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Any sense they’ll keep the 172’s and use them for initial pilot training and not PC-9’s

How do you teach the principles of Instrument Flight in a Cessna 172 which isn't certified for IFR?

pepe the prawn wrote: »

I wonder why they went for the pc12 instead of Cessna caravans..

The published tender required the airframe to be pressurised.

Negative_G

Negative_G wrote: »

How do you teach the principles of Instrument Flight in a Cessna 172 which isn't certified for IFR?

I said initial training.

Would you not agree that learning to fly in a PC-9 is a tad excessive. Bit like learning to drive in an M3 or an RS4 ?

By all means after they’ve learned how to fly an aircraft advance them on to PC-9’s for IFR training. Very much a case of one size fits all by the IAC.

Negative_G

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I said initial training.

Would you not agree that learning to fly in a PC-9 is a tad excessive. Bit like learning to drive in an M3 or an RS4 ?

By all means after they’ve learned how to fly an aircraft advance them on to PC-9’s for IFR training. Very much a case of one size fits all by the IAC.

I don't agree. I think your vehicle comparison is a little daft tbh. The PC-9 has a broad flight envelope in comparison to a 172. The fully configured stall speed is only 77kts compared to 48kts in a cessna. 21kts - Hardly an earth shattering difference. Just because something is considered fast or complex doesnt mean it can't be operated in a slower, 'less complex' manner.

The original decision to replace two types with one in the PC-9 was as a result of the previous government white paper. Reverting to two types wont happen as it isn't government policy.

Doesn't make much sense to me to retain and maintain a fleet of 45 year old aircraft for the sole purposes of 'initial training' when an aircraft already exists to provide that function.

Anyway. It's topic for another thread. The upgrade is long overdue. Hopefully the CASAs are replaced next. They will be almost 25 years in service next year.

Fattes

Negative_G wrote: »

I don't agree. I think your vehicle comparison is a little daft tbh. The PC-9 has a broad flight envelope in comparison to a 172. The fully configured stall speed is only 77kts compared to 48kts in a cessna. 21kts - Hardly an earth shattering difference. Just because something is considered fast or complex doesnt mean it can't be operated in a slower, 'less complex' manner.

The original decision to replace two types with one in the PC-9 was as a result of the previous government white paper. Reverting to two types wont happen as it isn't government policy.

Doesn't make much sense to me to retain and maintain a fleet of 45 year old aircraft for the sole purposes of 'initial training' when an aircraft already exists to provide that function.

Anyway. It's topic for another thread. The upgrade is long overdue. Hopefully the CASAs are replaced next. They will be almost 25 years in service next year.

Also the CASA with the highest flight hours logged in the world are the Aer corps!! I am not sure but I thought I was told last year that a tender for their replacement was all ready in process! But I may be way off there

Negative_G

Fattes wrote: »

Also the CASA with the highest flight hours logged in the world are the Aer corps!! I am not sure but I thought I was told last year that a tender for their replacement was all ready in process! But I may be way off there

The 2015 WP states that they are due for replacement in 2019. Whether this means the tender process will commence in 2019 or that new aircraft will be delivered in 2019 is not clear.

Pat Dunne

Negative_G wrote: »

The 2015 WP states that they are due for replacement in 2019. Whether this means the tender process will commence in 2019 or that new aircraft will be delivered in 2019 is not clear.

"Due for replacement", in Civil Service speak is only the start of the, "kicking the can down the road" process. Nothing more nothing less!

If the Dept of Defence go by previous form, at least one of the CASA's will have to be permanently grounded and the other near maximum hours before the "bean counters" in Parkgate Street even start looking at the replacement process, let alone actually issuing a tender.

Peregrine

Negative_G wrote: »

The 2015 WP states that they are due for replacement in 2019. Whether this means the tender process will commence in 2019 or that new aircraft will be delivered in 2019 is not clear.

There is money allocated for both this and the CASA replacement in the 'defence capital envelope' of 2018-2021.

pepe the prawn

Are the 172’s going to be auctioned or just quietly sold off?

EchoIndia

pepe the prawn wrote: »

Are the 172’s going to be auctioned or just quietly sold off?

The usual route is a public tender for the remaining aircraft (probably minus one for the museum?). I don't see how they could be "quietly sold off."

pepe the prawn

EchoIndia wrote: »

I don't see how they could be "quietly sold off."

Like the government Gulfstream?

Tenger

Negative_G wrote: »

The 2015 WP states that they are due for replacement in 2019. Whether this means the tender process will commence in 2019 or that new aircraft will be delivered in 2019 is not clear.

I was at Fairford in 2014, got chatting to a couple of the AerCorps guys onboard the CN235 over there. They told me that the CASA reps were very welcoming when they visited the stand to look over the CN295 on display. Obviously hoping for a bit of business at some point!!!

exaisle

Negative_G wrote: »

<snip>The fully configured stall speed is only 77kts compared to 48kts in a cessna. 21kts - Hardly an earth shattering difference. <Snip>

That's 77kts-48kts is 29kts not 21kts. Slightly more earth-shattering.
;-)

exaisle

pepe the prawn wrote: »

Like the government Gulfstream?

Or the LE Aisling....

I'd certainly stick a bid on one of the 172's....

L1011

exaisle wrote: »

Or the LE Aisling....

The Aisling was sold at auction, very definition of not being quietly sold off.

Negative_G

exaisle wrote: »

That's 77kts-48kts is 29kts not 21kts. Slightly more earth-shattering.
;-)

Thank you for the maths correction. It was however a typo. It is 67, not 77 according to the Pilatus website.

So in the interest of clarity, it remains a hardly earth shattering 21kts.

martinsvi

exaisle wrote: »

Or the LE Aisling....

I'd certainly stick a bid on one of the 172's....

why? They are the 210hp reims versions, ridiculously loud and gas guzzling, maintenance wise you'd be shooting yourself in the leg if you actually buy one.. I will be very surprised if they find buyers that wont take them for part-out

roadmaster

with only 3 aircraft will that mean at any one time there will only be one or two aircraft available due to services Or would that only start to happen down the line when they start getting old and need more TLC?

Topgear on Dave

roadmaster wrote: »

with only 3 aircraft will that mean at any one time there will only be one or two aircraft available due to services Or would that only start to happen down the line when they start getting old and need more TLC?

Good point. How much maintenance downtime do these new planes need?

Can I assume the contract includes availability guarantees, parts and training courses for the pilots and techs?

exaisle

L1011 wrote: »

The Aisling was sold at auction, very definition of not being quietly sold off.

The Aisling was sold at auction for €110k and has since been put up for sale for about six times that. Whether or not it sells for that amount is another issue, but it was appear that it was sold too cheaply...

exaisle

martinsvi wrote: »

why? They are the 210hp reims versions, ridiculously loud and gas guzzling, maintenance wise you'd be shooting yourself in the leg if you actually buy one.. I will be very surprised if they find buyers that wont take them for part-out

Buy for buttons, sell for more buttons. Like the LE Aisling...which is the point I was trying to make...that quite often (and also in the case of NAMA) state assets are sold off too cheaply.

Topgear on Dave

exaisle wrote: »

The Aisling was sold at auction for €110k and has since been put up for sale for about six times that. Whether or not it sells for that amount is another issue, but it was appear that it was sold too cheaply...

Was that the one that was discussed on Joe Duffy?

Maybe she was and maybe she wasnt. Even having her sitting idle in the naval base was costing cash every day, and those costs dont be long adding up.

They wanted rid of her.

L1011

exaisle wrote: »

The Aisling was sold at auction for €110k and has since been put up for sale for about six times that. Whether or not it sells for that amount is another issue, but it was appear that it was sold too cheaply...

It was sold at auction. As was suggested as being the way to get the highest value for the 172s here.

Resale price later is irrelevant and off topic.

martinsvi

L1011 wrote: »

It was sold at auction. As was suggested as being the way to get the highest value for the 172s here.

Resale price later is irrelevant and off topic.

exactly, we don't know was there any upgrade works done to it in the mean time or issues fixed that made it's value go up.

Last time I saw the inside of Air corps c172 was just 2 years ago and they had fairly dated avionics, no Mode S, no 8.33 radios, elt, nothing.. if someone buys them and intends to make them "road-legal" and attractive for civilian pilots, you are probably looking at some 8-10k investment on avionics alone .. assuming the engines and props are not exactly fresh, an overhaul for a 6 cylinder 0-360 engine is easily 25+k, add another 10 or so for the prop.

in another words if it's sold for 10k in an auction and then you see it mint and zero timed on sale for 60k, don't be looking for a scandal

martinsvi

I have just been advised that apparently Air Corps cessnas do have GTN650 installed, which is brilliant and I should think raises their re-sell value quite a bit, but my point was just to illustrate how and why price tags can change on the same asset, and not to make any judgements on what these puppies will sell for

they're still avgas guzzling screamers as far as I can tell

Oscar Bravo

May 16th 2017, 206 205 and 210 were being stripped, with 203 and 208 remaining in service.

Fattes

exaisle wrote: »

The Aisling was sold at auction for €110k and has since been put up for sale for about six times that. Whether or not it sells for that amount is another issue, but it was appear that it was sold too cheaply...

You know it has had a lot of work done on it between being sold and offered for resale! It is being refurbished from a outdated naval vessel to a modern private Yacht! There is a reason for the price difference

Irish Steve

Can we please drop the sniping about the Aisling, it's not Aviation and Aircraft related

Stovepipe

The Air Corps Cessnas are the best kept Cessnas in the country, bar one or two. They have not been hoofed around Irish grass runways by varying qualities of pilots and recieved the best of attention. I used to work on them and we spent huge amounts of time and money compared to any Irish civvy Cessna. They might be old but they are immaculate, corrosion-free and relatively free of dents and dings. The downside is the engine, which is a gas-guzzler compared to the standard 160 hp model but this model of 172 is popular in the UK so they might find a home there. There was only ever one or two civvy Reims Rockets on the Irish register.