Cessna announced Thursday at AOPA Expo 2007 the planemaker's Independence, KS facility recently delivered the 100th C182 Skylane to Wichita-based Yingling Aviation for modification for duty with the Civil Air Patrol.
Yingling will outfit the G1000-equipped Skylane with special avionics equipment for CAP duty. The independent Cessna authorized service station holds the STC for CAP-specific mods.
The aircraft was delivered at the end of September. Yingling will complete the modifications that provide search-and-rescue equipment and dual audio panels with the ability to have multiple, simultaneous communications between the pilot, mission specialist, observer and agencies on the ground. These modifications allow CAP to take an increased role in support of national security and disaster relief operations.
The Skylane is scheduled for delivery to CAP in November, according to Cessna.
ANN: Cessna Delivers 100th Skylane To Yingling Aviation For CAP Duty
:: Right about now, 20% of CAP's fleet is less than 5 years old, which, when compared to the regular Air Force, is just terrific.
I for one pictured the CAP Skylanes rolling off the production line with all the modifications installed in the factory... not matter... the NAV III 182 is the most capable CAP airframe ever to come into service.
Standardization of our fleet has gone a long way to help us shift to more of an expeditionary force model. Crews can train in Michigan, and link up with airframes based in Arizona without much hassle.
You know that I'm a huge fan of the G1K integrated flight deck, despite issues with SDIS, and my own frustrations with pushing through FITS.
I also wish that Garmin would get the G1000 SAR patch done. I'm hoping that when we do see mission specific software updated in our birds, that it will include integration with the direction finder. That gorgeous MFD is just screaming to display information from the Becker!
Keep up the good work folks!
This is great news!!
Does anyone have any insight into how many CAP expects to purchase per year going forward?
I also would be interested in hearing from the units that already have one of these platforms. How are your pilots making out getting up to speed in the 182 / G1000. Is it helping to attract new pilots or are we losing pilots because of the training requirements and costs??
Posted by: Capflight | October 11, 2007 at 08:38
My squadron is not excited about this and I think it will be a detriment to CAP. Right now, almost everyone has some time in the 172. This makes it easy for pilots to get involved. The low expense encourages pilots to stay proficient. The cost to upgrade to the new 182 and the almost double price per flight hour will reduce our proficiency. As of a year ago (the last time I checked) ALL of the fatals in CAP aircraft were in 182s. I also have been told that the Wing CCs are not excited about these new planes, again because of the costs. One of CAPs chief selling points to other agencies is our low cost.
On a personal note, why should someone put up with all the CAP paperwork and excessive regulations (otherwise known as the Volunteer Harassment Program) when they can go to the FBO across the airport and for about the same cost, take their family/friends flying?
Posted by: Bordo | October 13, 2007 at 17:34
Though the Garmin G1000 is a fantastic piece of equipment, I disagree with your statement, "the NAV III 182 is the most capable CAP airframe ever to come into service".
Like many adults, the C-182 has suffered from weight gain as it has aged, to the point where the turbocharged variant of the Nav III C-182 as equipped for CAP has a full-fuel payload of less than 500 lbs. That's only two average-sized senior members with survival gear. Even with fuel reduced to the bottom of the filler neck, payload capacity is still less than 600 lbs.
In seriously mountainous states where turbocharged aircraft are a necessity, not a luxury, CAP's Nav III C-182s are woefully inadequate for our mission.
Posted by: Blackwing | October 13, 2007 at 23:34
All of our fatals have been in 182s? I very much doubt that this is true over our entire history. Check the NTSB database and you will find that we lost a 172S in NC in 2004 during a CD flight.
Posted by: Auxman | October 14, 2007 at 22:59
Heck, its not even worthy of doubt. I proved its wrong.
Posted by: Auxman | October 14, 2007 at 23:00
My bad-- it was 2002 when the accident happened. The report came out in 2004.
I would have condensed these into 1 post but don't see how to edit.
Posted by: Auxman | October 14, 2007 at 23:01
Regardless of the one 172 that was lost a few years ago, the data is too small to make any assumptions.
If you lose three planes out of 550 and they all happen to be 182's, it's not enough data to create the conclusion that it is the fault of the 182.
Other factors come into play as well. The 182's are mostly assigned to the units that have higher risk areas of operation (mountains). That in itself could be the cause of more accidents.
Posted by: Capflight | October 15, 2007 at 16:00
Up here in Alaska, we cannot use the "glass cockpits" as they have a tendency to go blank at temperatures of -30F or so. Also, there aren't any avionics shops that currently service those devices.
Posted by: Flyertim | October 15, 2007 at 21:27
Great-- tell me why I'm learning to fly in a 30 year old CAP plane... A former Floatplane, Glider Plane, and god-knows-what...
Posted by: Cadetsnowball | October 15, 2007 at 21:59
"the most capable CAP airframe ever to come into service."
With all due respect, I think it is a stupid choice of airplane for CAP.
Start with carrying capacity: With fuel at minimum tabs (64 gallons) and three crew members you are near the 3100# gross weight limit and well over an hour of flight away from the landing limit of 2950#. I carry a calibrated dip stick so I can safely run with the tanks below tabs and, consequently, get some utility out of the airplane.
Then there's currency. If I am out of that airplane for more than about three weeks, I am back in Easter-egg-hunt mode -- trying to figure out where to find information on the panels. This is not a system for occasional users.
And the KAP-140 autopilot? Don't get me started on that scabbed-on human factors train wreck.
Then there is the dual audio panel setup ....
Background: I have a bit over 600 hours in a total of 19 types of aircraft, Commercial and IA ratings. Radios from none (De Havilland Tiger Moth!) through 25 hours in the G1000. As an MP, if I were offered the choice of a 172/180 or the 182 Nav III, I wouldn't even hesitate before taking the safer, more capable, and less glamorous airplane.
Posted by: Mitty | October 17, 2007 at 10:37