Interesting aircraft they are using for this mission. I would have prefered a twin engine aircraft especially considering some of the austere places this thing will have to land.
quote:
New squadron is activated By MLADEN RUDMAN Daily News Staff Writer
HURLBURT FIELD — A new unit flying a single-engine transport was activated Wednesday. The 319th Special Operations Squadron and its roughly 45 airmen will be used to deliver lighter loads — commandos and cargo — with U-28As when MC-130s are more warplane than needed. In their civilian dress, U-28As are Swiss-made PC-12s. “The unit provides greater versatility to the (Special Operations) forces on the ground by using a smaller airplane,” said 16th Special Operations Wing vice commander Col. Paul Harmon in a statement. “The PC-12 is able to operate on shorter runways.” He added that like the MC-130s, PC-12s are able to land on dirt and grass strips. The 319th SOS would provide “intra-theater” support for troops such as Army Green Berets and Navy SEALs, according to the wing. The squadron is likely to see action in Iraq and Afghanistan where insurgents are highly mobile and American forces have to be, too. The PC-12, at $20 million plus upgrades, can carry a payload of up to nearly 3,000 pounds. Air Force versions are equipped with weather radar and advanced communications and navigation gear. There are currently six PC-12s in the inventory. Its crew is two pilots, though the machine can be flown by just one. “This is a more efficient use of Air Force assets and tax dollars ... when there is fewer people and lighter cargo to be moved,” Harmon added. “The C-130 is used when there is a requirement to move more people and cargo.”
I would also be curious to see whether it has been modified for infil, air drop. If so it would have be near the tail or under the belly near the rear. I am going to keep my eyes peeled around here since they are in my AO.
Would've rather seen a larger scale of the OV 10. Only thing the C 130 has over this is if one of it's engines quits it can still make it home! If this little guy "putts" out it's over for the personell and equip! Other than that it sure looks purdy!
Pretty plane, but that doesn't get the job done. why a single engine? I flew jets with eight engines, so multiple powerplants are a high selling point for me, especially when I talked to many f-16 pilots who have had to set down in very remote areas or leave the jet when the one lung gets a bit congested. It would make sense that, operating in areas where the likelihood of getting 'something' in the engine is pretty likely, the AF would go with a two engine. Yes, a bigger OV-10 would fit the bill nicely. I always thought that plane looked cool!!
We saw those PC-12's last week at Hurlbert, at the time we didn't know what they were or why they were there... It looks like a Kingair/C-12 with one engine removed and the other engined moved to the nose...
I wonder what congressman (or senator) decided it would be good for the USAF to bid on this low wing, one engine joke! Where are the personnel supoose to exit an aircraft with a low wing. Why not bring back the C-7A with upgrades (radar, engines, and such). Easy access and exit, that can land in a pasture, instead of a highway. This PC-12 doesn't look like a real rugged aircraft. Strange, Swiss, uh?!
Not neccessarily a bad choice - Powered by a Pratt&Whitney PT-6. Extremely reliable. Also has great lifting ability when restricted by runway available.
One engine isn't as big a deal as some make of it. This aircraft obviously isn't going to be used in an uncovert/frontline manner. BTW - FEDEX uses the same type single engine for its smaller airlifting. It has a proven record on the street and in the military..
This aircraft seems to be able to handle a modified team with a limit of 3000 lbs; which seems a bit on the under-equipted side... and what is it's range?? I don't believe that it has mid-air refueling capabilities or the speed to go where the action is... Who talked the Air Force into these??
I looked for some good mission accounts of some of the combat rescue missions the SA-19 did landing behind enemy lines on sand bars, beaches, rivers, etc during the Korean conflict, but could not find nothing to link to. Helicopters have caused many to forget what a smaller fixed wing aircraft can do.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: johca,
I'll have to write some members of Congress on this one. See http://caravan.cessna.com/ and http://www.pilatus-aircraft.com/. Make up your mind! I'm no rocket scientist, but there are only two ways to go with this decision: King Air or Caravan (twin or single)! Probably to late to go back now, but how did Cessna let this one get away???
While at clark we had C-124's/c-130's lose one engine. From talking to the crews you can bet the c-130 crew was glad to have a multi engine craft, 3 flew it just fine, even with almost a full load. Not so the c-124-even with 3 working engines they almost had to ditch. scared the 72 marines on board, bad. They had to jetson everything that would fit out the door to stay aloft. One engine planes scare me. No back up.
quote:
Originally posted by 6990665: Not neccessarily a bad choice - Powered by a Pratt&Whitney PT-6. Extremely reliable. Also has great lifting ability when restricted by runway available.
One engine isn't as big a deal as some make of it. This aircraft obviously isn't going to be used in an uncovert/frontline manner. BTW - FEDEX uses the same type single engine for its smaller airlifting. It has a proven record on the street and in the military..
Oh come on! You guys are such suckers! Obviously, this bird is a toy for some rear area super-grade to fly off to a beach while you sleep on a sand dune. It is just being procured through a Special Ops unit with a bogus story.
Now, if its special mission was to fly in hookers from Europe then I would give it a two thumbs up.
Interesting comments. For you 'nay' sayers, you should do a little more homework first. I've flown most every aircraft that's been mentioned including the PC-12 and it's an incredibly capable and surprisingly rugged aircraft. It isn't a true STOL machine, but it will fill the requirement. By the way, who thinks they really understand the requirement? Unless you were involved in the development and acquisition, I say you don't. Rest assured it is worthy and isn't some VIP's personal transport.
