About 15 of those ordered I'd expect.

Well, I think we can all agree that (with a nod to today's date) this has definitely not been "Our Finest Pause" - although I suspect it may well be the longest!

Rocket2 - you mean the shiny new Skylaunch winches that had to be re-engined with diesels (no doubt at vast expense) because installing LPG tanks at VGS sites was not acceptable? Dohhh!

@Cpl Clott

The issue is the same as last time. Schleicher can't do the volume. That is approx 3 - 4 years production for them. They were not willing to do it last time and certainly won't do it now (several reasons, some logistical, some political and some commercial). There is plenty about this on the Air Cadet Gliding Thread <<6 Vanguards (ASK-21) as I remember at 618VGS - we got all the K21's eventually apart from 2 which remained at Syerston. I always thought Catterick was small to operate the K21 on the eagle winch but West Malling was a fantastic site for the Air Cadet Operation, hard surfaces, large grass areas, big hangars, unobstructed approaches, uncontrolled airspace, no other major airfield users - no wonder they built all over it (wuckfits !!)

Personally I thought that the K21 and the current Grobs were chalk and cheese - the K21 was a fantastic aeroplane all round and the Grob a real plastic pig. Heavy controls, not enough rudder, ran out of elevator quickly with a heavy front cockpit load and insufficient rear trim. No suprise that Grob could deliver so many so quickly - they had a bundle of them sat on the shelf because the Germans did not want them........... and they know a thing or two about sailplanes.................. :-) - IIRC Group Captain J*** D******** was the agent for Grob at the time and may have been a powerful lobbyist

I always thought it was a shame Slingsby did not licence build the K21 like they did the T61 - that would have made production and delivery much faster. I was told that Schleicher would not lend out moulds anymore though becuase they had been stung by Centrair building the Pegasus 101 from ASW19 moulds and either undercutting prices or not paying licencing fees (can't remember which) - although that might just be rumour

Arc>> http://www.pprune.org/aviation-histo...-glass-11.html


With regard to the Falke I agree it would be perfect but the decision to move away from Rag and Tube aeroplanes was made nearly 30 years ago by ACCGS.

I can't see them going back - despite the benefits from a maintenance perspective for the type of operation they run. High volumes of cheaper aeroplanes and low complexity technology is much better than fewer, expensive and higher spec IMHO.............. but there you go

What is all this about Skylaunch winches ? - are the Van Gelders being replaced ??

Arc

Skylaunch Latest News

Its a shame they are re-engining them with diesels as the LPG engined Skylaunches are so easy and responsive to drive.

Diesel is, however, a much more benign fuel from a filling and storage point of view, particularly if cadets get involved in filling, and most operational stations will have a supply of red diesel anyway.

What was wrong with the Van Gelder then ??

I always found it superb. And 6 drums more than adequate.

I assume this mean 3 per school of these. I can see some benefit. If 1 is U/S then the others are OK whereas if the Van Gelder was U/S it was game over, and these will be easier to tow.............

I think the Diesel decision is a general decision for the vehicle fleet across MoD, cheaper and easier.

Arc

Hi Arc

Thanks for the comprehensive reply. So in 3-4 years we could have better gliders and we've wasted nearly half that time on what sounds like a p!ss-poor glider in the first place? Sounds like another scr3w up then. We could, on your numbers, have at least half our conventional VGSs flying by now with 'Vanguards' if we had not bothered with the Vikings and 'cut our losses' back in Apr 14. I understand, talking to one of those who has been working on the Vikings, that they are with 2 sub-contractors and have been for several months. He told some stories of the discovery of non-documented glass-fibre repairs in fuselages and wing leading edges that need to be done all over again and then properly recorded. If that is the case then it is hardly surprising that it's taking so long to do a fleet of 80+ aircraft.

Furthermore, of the 60-odd Vigilants, we could probably have replaced 27 (estimating 1.5 Falkes per month from the factory) - or just under 50%. Modern coverings on these are far better than that of the Venture. It also has conventional sprung gear rather than the old mono-wheel.

If we had done this then we would have half the VGSs flying again and they would be 'future proofed' in not needing new engines for the motorgliders.

Still, too late now. This 'pause' is not our finest hour...:(

CPL Clott

Cpl Clott,

Not everyone agrees with Arc's analysis of the two gliders. I have flown and instructed on both types in both the Air Cadets and with BGA clubs and each has its own good points and bad points.

Rather than get into a pissing contest over this it would be best to just say the Vanguard (K21) has better rudder/aileron co-ordination in the front cockpit and the Viking (Grob 103 Acro) is much better in the rear cockpit.

That probably equates to the Vanguard being better for training but I never had any problems with students in either aircraft. The whole thing is academic anyway since Schleicher refused to have anything to do with supplying the 100 aircraft needed by the Air Cadets.

ACW

Mechta
LPG is a darned site easier to store unless the military HSE gophers get involved. Go to any house, petrol station or even a civvy gliding club that uses it, no bunding or 6 ft protective fences required, doesn't matter if you "spill" some & is perfectly safe to use so long as you take basic precautions. Its cheaper & gives a far better launch that any diesel powered winch - I suspect the engines last longer too rather than the smoky turbo charged diesel versions.
Cheers
R2

R2,

Yes we all know that!

However, as in every other procurement case in recent history, the MoD decides that off-the-shelf purchase of a proven product is simply not acceptable - in this case LPG storage was the issue. (What issue?)

So the proven spec is b*ggered about with, the supplier adds significant additional cost and we - the taxpayers - end up paying way over the odds for a non-standard piece of kit that performs worse than the original.

What makes this case even more laughable is that all these new Skylaunch winches have nothing to launch because of yet another MoD f*ck up.

Never mind, those young air cadets that can't glide can go along to Wittering at the weekend for some AEF flying: not! Sorry, I forgot, the feckwits that moved all the flying units from Wyton failed to resource the air traffic organisation so that the Wittering could open at weekends, so a fleet of Tutors stands idle!

You really couldn't script it!:ugh:

The RAF Gliding and Soaring Assoc (RAFGSA) use LPG Sklylaunch winches and manage to store LPG on MoD airfields. If they can do it, then so could the VGSs.

:confused:

R2, I do drive an LPG Skylaunch most weekends (and fill it when necessary). I agree that they give good launches and having driven a Supacat diesel winch as well must say I prefer the Skylaunch.

The MOD has had a policy for quite a few years of moving towards diesel/JP-8 fuels only, even the Royal Marines 'Rigid Raiders' use diesel outboards. The principle exceptions to this being training aircraft i.e. Tutors and Vigilants. Bringing in another diesel winch is a relatively simple matter, whereas an LPG one needs the infrastructure and all the HSE ball-ache that goes with it. In the post Haddon-Cave world, that would be a lot of extra work for each location.

One more thing; if the LPG storage tank is empty and someone forgets to order any, no-one glides at the weekend. If the tank is empty on a diesel winch, you could always fill it from jerry cans.

Trappers!!
 

....and I wonder what the trappers are doing with themselves? There are so many times you can rewrite the training manuals and the VGS's must be fed up with admin checks!!

...and how do the trappers keep current?

Oh well, I expect someone is due for a posting soon, so the problem will be somebody else's to sort out :ugh:

A VERY sad débacle (definition: A sudden and ignominious failure; a fiasco) for the Air Cadet organisation, and one I fear that will change this fantastic organisation for many years to come.

Venture, Adventure!!

Venture, Adventure, Misadventure..................hat, coat..............

"What makes this case even more laughable is that all these new Skylaunch winches have nothing to launch because of yet another MoD f*ck up."

I know what you mean 1.3. For a while I thought that this whole sorry affair was reminiscent of a Marx Brothers caper, but it is now beyond parody. Even David Brent and Basil Fawlty could've done a better job.

ACW418

Sorry if I sounded super critical of the Viking. It's done sterling work for the VGS. I just personally felt that the Vanguard (K21) was better at the task (having operated both on a VGS) of teaching cadets.

I'd have to say the proof of the pudding is in the eating. The K21 is still in production in largely its original form - the 103 (having gone through several iterations) is not.

Personally I always felt that the K13 was the glider the ATC should have brought - but don't get me started on that !!

And I think the Canadian Air Cadets are still using their original Schweitzer 2-33's from the 1960's !!

I just wish the fiasco could be sorted and everyone back to work.

Regards

Arc

Did Schleicher not want to build 100 K21s full stop, or 100 K21s with mucked around specs?

DaveUnwin
 

You shoud understand that there are now a number of gliders that would be condsidered ready to fly from a mecanical point of view however in a post Haddon-cave enviroment the paperwork culture is very cautious and parts certification issues are a problem as the military has to get to grips with the way the gilder manufactures release servicable parts to service under EASA.

it is rather a pitty that the gliders are not on the civil register (as are the Grob Tutors,) f they were the whole thing would fall under EASA 145 oversight and not have the complication of a foot in both certification camps when it comes to parts supply.

This is one of the few times I have ever seen when EASA oversight would remove complication.

A & C I do understand that. As someone who has managed a gliding club, I also understand the frustrations of many on here.
To recap the situation as I understand it - more than 18 months ago gliders that were serviceable on the day they were grounded, were grounded.
18 months later, these gliders are still not serviceable.
In a nutshell, is that - or is that not - a reasonable precis of the situation?

"Did Schleicher not want to build 100 K21s full stop, or 100 K21s with mucked around specs?" I know what you means Cats5 - as Schleicher are in the glider building game to make money it could only have been the latter!

Cats Five

I believe Schleicher were not willing to give up their entire production run for 1 customer for a long period of time and thereby jeopardise their other customer base (civvy world) who would buy something else maybe. Also I believe at that time they already had a waiting list (still do). Questions were asked about licence production (see my previous post) but never came to anything............

The K21 was more labour intensive to produce than the Grob 103 due to Production techniques and sandwich construction - ergo slower to produce in volume.

The Vanguards we operated were bog standard off the shelf items.

Whether Schleicher also were not willing to deal with a pernickity customer I really don't know...............

I think they may have missed the long view though. The sales is a small bit, the ongoing support and spares would have been huge. The Vikings have been in service now for nearly 30 years..................... it would have been a long term profitable deal.

Which raises another issue in my head............. Why we keep this 'relatively' cheap kit for such a long time. In industry many businesses replace their kit on a 3 - 5 year cycle to accommodate new technology, realise the maximum value of asset resale and to avoid issues around major services and fatigue life. The Air Cadet operation would really be a good candidate for this. One of the few PFI initiatives that might work - if kit replacement & servicing contracts were bundled together..............

And since the Landrovers are on leasing arrangements as part of the 'white fleet' why are we not doing the same for the winches ??, it's just a finance arrangement after all............

Discuss...................

Arc

Many years ago, as a corporate planner in local government (there's an oxymoron) I worked on vehicle replacement policy - depreciation curve plotted against maintenance cost - where they crossed was replacement point, ISTR 4-5 years. Arclite, IMHO you make a good point

..............and actually I smile to myself when I always refer to them as 'the new glass gliders' in conversations :-)

I am an officially an 'old git'

Arc

And possibly the ATC weren't willing to accept a delivery schedule that would see them getting 1 in 2 or 3 of Scheicher's output.

Had there been a bit more competition in the training glider market, this would have been a great idea. Modern two seaters tend to hold their value, and if by buying a job lot a significant discount had been possible, then the high resale value would have meant minimal depreciation.

As it turned out, if Schleicher didn't want to play, so Grob were the only contender and probably knew it, so why would they discount?

Had the original purchase of these gliders not been largely driven by having to spend a 'use it or lose it' tranche of money, things may have been so different.

Cats Five

That is also a valid point - a re-equipment plan though, means larger numbers in the military world and they place an order and want it as soon as possible, a trickle feed is not ideal for them. And based on 24 a year = 2 per month for an average the re-equipment programme takes approx 5 years for 100 aircraft.

This means on a leaseback the oldest ones would just be getting replaced as the last new ones arrive. All OK once you are into a cycle of continuous rolling replacement but bad news if you are the back of the queue first time round.

Additionally the real issue is Schleicher only build about 30 a year (since they have other models in production and only limited factory floor space) so you would be lucky to get 10 of those so the refresh would take 10 years and not 5. I am assuming that Scheicher have done this for years and are happily profitable and efficient to the levels they are pleased with.

Finally, the upside is that the K21 has just been lifed to 18000 hours so at current average use rates they would last until the end of this century at least !! (if we were crazy and wanted to buy them to keep ad infinitum).

The powers that be need to realise that they are not in a flooded market and are not ordering or operating A400M or C-130J, but a simple sailplane with a potential simple procurement lifecycle. The Motorglider replacement programme could also follow a similar profile but with a slightly higher hours profile.

The Canadian Air Cadets appear to operate on CF plates - why not put ours on G plates ? - bring them under EASA and off we go..............

I believe that there may be slightly more of a political issue now though as I often see Vikings and Vigilants included in overall RAF Aircraft numbers - is this part of the game to make the RAF look larger on paper than it really is ??

Arc

Another thought. Why bother with the winch launch fleet at all. There are less and less stations willing to accept a Winch Operation (FOD risk, cables etc). Why not just standardise on one type (Motorglider) and put them out on detachments to local airfields for weekends so that units don't have to travel too far for BGT and AEG ??

Hi Mechta

Not included in that cost figure of £0.50p is the cost of the airfield and associated infrastructure. I am aware of the benefits of the Winch type operation to the Air Cadets and used to fly at Kenley :)

However since a lot of this thread talks about root and branch reform I thought I'd ask the question......, float the idea..........., run it up the flagpole and see who salutes it etc............... (Management speak)

Potentially you could base 3 x Motorgliders at Redhill and achieve the flying task more efficiently. The following week/month do it at Manston (errr sorry) Headcorn or Lydd and the following week/month at White Waltham (say). Maintenance could be a la MGSP with routine servicing done at a central regional area (say Halton or Abingdon). With some thought it could really fly...............:O

Cost benefits from reduced travel and using someone else's airfield infrastructure to operate could really bring the costs down......................... 4 regionalised flights maybe for ownership and maintenance - say:

Abingdon or Halton (S&E)
St Athan (S & W)
Syerston (Midland & North & CGS)
Lossiemouth or Condor (Scotland & NI)


Arc

One thing not mentioned in the recent posts, but which is very applicable here is that there aren't really many new training gliders on the market these days.

As the Chairman & Director of a civvie gliding club (on an RAF airfield!) we have the dilemma of wanting to replace our aged K13s (the best training glider) but with what? The only real options are the K21 (aged and not that great for training in that it can't easily be spun without the removable spin kit added), the Grob Twin II & Twin III (can't be spun or aerobated without mods due to various ADs and a limited cockpit weight) and the new DG1001 Club (expensive and long delivery as the USAF & Aussies are buying up most of the production run). Outside of these you have the PW6, Puchatz (limited airframe life and a tendency to spin off a failed winch launch) or its new successor the as yet unproven Perchoz.

Having trawled Aero this year I think the glider manufacturers are missing a trick, we desperately need a new affordable modern trainer glider as without this where will the next generation of Ventus 3, EB28 or JS1 pilots come from? The sport is polarising - manufacturers will tell you that it takes almost as much time, materials and effort to build an ASG29 as it does a K21 so why not concentrate on building the one that you can sell for more than twice the price of the other!

Sadly one day they'll realise that as us glider pilots get older and fall off the perch, there wont be the aircraft clubs like ours need to train the next generation of pilots. So really, if the ATC want to get back into gliding, overhauling their fleet is the only realistic way forward if you rule out just flying the Vikings as they are under the BGA CAMO.

The only fault with the K21 is that it won't spin with most crews without tail weights. Otherwise it flies well, it's easy to handle on the ground, it's robust, and at 12,000 hours it can be relifed to get another 6,000. You can't buy a new Grob these days an as you say the PW6 & Perkoz don't have the track record at present.

I have had a flight in a Perkoz, it flies beautifully but in my view had plenty of ergonomic issues. People who looked at it while it was at our club thought it looked fragile in key areas, and it wasn't as easy to handle on the ground. OTOH with the 20m wingtips it has an excellent best L/D.

The Perkoz looks like a slightly refined Puchacz. And not particularly asthetically pleasing.

I agree with all the comments from Flying_Anorak.

Lets hope the ACO get the Vikings back up and running quickly then.

Arc

In my view both the Perkoz and Puchaz fail the 'if it looks right it is right' test. Of course that's not the be-all and end-all of design, but IMHO they are ugly gliders.

The Puchaz and Perkoz are too short coupled for me to ever look elegant.

For the Air Cadet fleet spinning is not taught routinely beyond the incipient stage anyway (it is at the centre to instructors)

So K21 spin performance is not an issue there.

Anyway all hypothetical - they will never have them. Lets get the Vikings up and running again. I am now thinking of the organisational and staff challenges the VGS is going to face to deliver the Flying Taskings when the Aircraft do come back on line :( Nightmare is one word..............

Arc

I see no reason whatsoever why the UK tax payer should pick up the bill for a new fleet of gliders when it has a fleet of gliders that can do the task.

The problem is that the MoD took their eye of the ball and let a company fail to maintain the fleet and keep records to show the compliance of their maintenance and repair.

The result is that some how compliance with proper maintenance practices has to be demonstrated before these gliders can take to the air, some of this can be done by inspection but some repairs will have to be re-repaired if they don't come up to standard.

The assumption that at one moment these aircraft were servicable and as soon as the MAA stepped is they instantly became unserviceable is a distortion of the facts, I have no doubt that most of the gliders were not unsafe to fly in the short term however their was no way that the maintenance oversight was up to the standard required by the RAF to fly air cadets. This fact left the MAA with no alternative but to stop the fleet from flying.

There is little doubt that the RAF have been slow to get on top of this problem ( air cadet gliding being not the top priority in the nations defense ) but now they have a team in place who are dedicated to this task, for most of them it is their first experience of aircraft of this sort of construction and so they are on a cautious learning curve and wisely not rushing into things and making ill considered decisions.

It is easy to be critical of the speed of progress of the re- activation team but the real criticism should be directed to those who's maintenance practice fell well short of that required and precipitated this situation in the first place.

But surely not all aircraft showed evidence of damage and repair (whether or not correctly carried out and recorded). Surely therefore a percentage of the fleet remained airworthy and could have continued flying, albeit meeting only part of the task. As it has turned out the baby seems to have followed the bathwater down the plug hole and no-one is flying, and apart from disappointed cadets we seem now to be bereft of instructors. Could make a "Fawlty Towers" programme on that basis. From the outside could make the basis of an interesting IOT exercise - far too simple for staff college

@Wander

I think the real thing was 'they didn't know what they didn't know' hence the blanket grounding while they baselined the situation. That meant a survey of each airframe - no small task.

You can kind of understand that.

I was concerned about the supposed lack of documentation of the repairs and the poor quality of some repairs (just paraphrasing some comments on this thread). Weren't the repairs all done 'in house' by the GRP bay at Syerston ?

Arc

Wander, would you commit aviation in an aircraft where you couldn't be sure of its Rectification/Modification state? Because I certainly wouldn't!

More pertinently, would you allow your child to be a passenger in such an aircraft?

One accident, just one, and that would be the end of Air Cadet gliding forever.



As an ATC Sqn Cdr it is extremely frustrating that I can't get my lads and lasses airborne. However this is compounded by the move of 5 AEF from Wyton to Wittering and the stupidity of not having Air Traffickers at the W/E which is generally when ATC Cdts (as opposed to CCF RAF Cdts) can go flying.

As a result, not only have we had no Gliding for 18 months, we have had no Powered Flying for in excess of a year. It's a bloody shambles, the result being that Cdt retention becomes extremely problematic.

I take it the documentation and maybe the maintenance also isn't up to BGA standards... I've only realised from reading this thread that the gliders weren't on the G register, despite having seen some of them in action...

To be fair (ish) to the contractors, my understanding is that some of the iffy engineering practices date back to "blue suited" days.

"That meant a survey of each airframe - no small task".

But, individually - not that big a task either. Remember, the Viking T.1 is not a Hawk T.1. It's a sailplane that doesn't even have flaps, and the U/C is fixed. Was it really that difficult to look at the records of each aircraft, and starting with the ones that had never been pranged de-rig each one, take a really good look at it and then release it to service? Surely after 18 months that would've provided the ATC with at least some serviceable aircraft?