US Air Force buys 19 DG-1000 trainiers

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 :-)

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 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 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

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

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

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.