A relatively small number of air cadets first-solo'd in the ASK21. IMHO, a far better aircraft than the Grob 103.

It really isn't that easy, even if losing them once the 70 gliders had been built was simple.

• Building gliders is very much a skilled hand. New employees would need training and it would take time before the new employees could be productive.
• If they could magic skilled employees out of thing air, would they need another mould or moulds to double production?
• Do they have space on the shop floor for more K21 moulds without sacrificing building their other gliders?

interesting thoughts on the costs for the last 24 months, new contracts for Serco, Babcocks and now Marshalls Aerospace.
New engine, glass cockpits, radios and Flarm etc etc.
Perhaps a FOI is needed,

I estimate that all above would be above £15 million to:
replace G103 with ASK 21
G109 with Sf25

all with type certificate holders support

Buy hey, I only have 3500 hours and a degree qualified aeronautical engineer

I don't think anyone is thinking of fitting glass cockpits to these aircraft, the new radio would only be what is required to meet international requirements and FLARM is cheap and all these things are not part of the current contracts.

The G109 engine requirement depends on the availability of engine parts in the short term, in the long term a retrofit is required. I don't know what the parts holding of the RAF for the current engine and things will depend on that.

From the efforts that SERCO & Marshals are putting into the G109 it would seem to indicate they have an adequate supply of parts for the near future.

C5

Let me answer those in turn:

Building gliders is very much a skilled hand. New employees would need training and it would take time before the new employees could be productive.
Agreed to small extent. However, there are similar skills needed in small boat, racing cars, motorcycles, other aircraft and bespoke bathroom furniture manufacturing - so man-made fibre with epoxy resin is hardly unique to the glider manufacturing industry. Also, training someone from scratch shouldn't take more than a couple of months and then you use your experienced people as your supervisors.

If they could magic skilled employees out of thing air, would they need another mould or moulds to double production?
Agreed, but not impossible. Either use the original wooden formers to make more moulds or use an extant airframe to make more.

Do they have space on the shop floor for more K21 moulds without sacrificing building their other gliders?
This is the easiest to fix of all - hire another industrial unit!!!

None are insurmountable and would reflect in the A-S and LTB S business models for their quote. I suspect that Paul M's costs would be undercut with a new buy...

...btw, go for a FOI request although I suspect they will redact all of the commercially sensitive bits that you're interested in!

CPL Clott

A and C

I believe there are 30-40 inhibited Grob 2500 engines in stores. So they should be able to keep ~20 of the fleet running until the planned OSD of 2025 even with the very low 1600hr TBO (unless anyone knows of a different TBO?). It would need careful management, so now is the time to get the SF25s with fixed-pitch props and normally aspirated Rotax on order to replace the Vigilant. Lead time for a fleet-wide replacement of Vigilant is probably 3 years or so with SF25s.

I believe that some Vigilants have engines running on condition with 4000hrs+ on them before the 'pause'. Not great for a youth flying organisation, even for a powered glider!!! :eek:

I'm guessing this is the delay in letting everyone know what is happening - they will need to axe some Vigilant units or turn them into Viking units unless they have found some more Grob 2500s? I'm also guessing that OSD for Vigilant will need to come forward and a line for replacement put into the ABC from 2016 to 2020 and then a sustainment line put in the ABC from thence on.

CPL Clott

I think CPL Clott needs to let Schleicher know he has a stunning 10-year temporary business expansion plan that will rake in the Euros...

You are all missing the point.

Schliechers don't need the business - they have a full order book. They are highly profitable - they have a waiting list - they build K21's almost as a sideline compared to their other gliders.......

Many years ago the MoD asked if there was a possibility of licence build by Slingsby to increase delivery rates. This was declined....... Because Schliecher did not want to impact their marketplace going forward (why would you.....)

So all this talk of expanded space and production facilities is pointless. I am told that Schleicher won't even talk about it anymore.

So we need to sort out what we've got.

I fully expect that when we hit the OSD we will be in the same boat with no replacement kit and no supplier to fulfill the requirement in a short timescale or bulk-buy scenario.

Arc

I realise that, that would be their answer to CPL Clott had he floated his scheme to them...

In addition they got burnt when they licenced building the ASW20 to Centrair who then produced a remarkably similar glider in the Pegase. AFAIK there was considerable fall-out at the time. Whilst AFAIK it was eventually resolved I'm sure the experience will also put them off licencing CPL Clott to produce K21s.

Two points:

The CAMO for the glider fleet sits under a Crown Servant (by regulation) not a contractor.

The Type Airworthiness Authority is also a Crown Servant (by regulation). The TAA is part of a project team that was sent an MAA Warning Notice in March 2014 for lack of suitably qualified and experienced personnel.

As Schleicher don''t want to play ball, Slingsby and the ACO could always run a competition for people who know what they are doing to design a glider for the Air Cadets that would be perfect for the job. Slingsby could then get on and build it. Please make a better job of it than the T53 though!

why not just sub-contract all the flying to a decent commercial flying school..........


just asking........

I'm guessing this is an ironic suggestion!

And what one of these covers all of England ,Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland ? Or do you suggest tansporting cadets from around 1000 units to one location using coaches, ferrys, airlines, trains then providing accomodation for those 40,000 cadets and staff?:ugh:

RUCAWO

There are 14x RAF Flying Clubs, 7x RAF Gliding & Soaring Clubs and 1x RAF Microlight Club scattered across England, Wales and Scotland. Could they not take up a lot of the slack? That's nearly the same number of flyimg organisations as the VGS.

With the use of the EASA Introductory Flight you can even take up people with a bog-standard EASA PPL/SPL for up to 90 minutes as long as you take off and land at the same airfield and don't do aeros.

Just saying...:8

The B Word

PS. Cats Five - I am not convinced by any of your nay-saying points over buying new gliders. Granted, you can't just buy them off of the shelf, but given a 2-3 year run as Cpl Clott suggests then I see no reason it can't be done save for cost (although it would probably be cheaper in the long run!). Business is business, and if you remunerate anyone the right amount then it can be done...

B word
 

In a perfect world using the RAF flying clubs to fill the cadet flying gap would work but we now live in a world devoid of common sence and the clubs would be deluged in requirement for types of insurance, elf & safety audits, risk assessments and kiddie fiddler checks....... All a bit too much for a volunteer flying club without a professional support network.

A and C

It's all self induced, though. RAF Halton flying club regulalrly fly 100+ children in the space of about 4 hours at their annual 'Young Flyers' event. All is 'above board', with licensed pilots, valid insurance, close supervision and has done this since I took my kid there 7 or 8 years ago. So why we have to make a huge 'meal' of flying cadets is just beyond me...

Anyway, if we are wedded to the uber-expensive 2FTS way of doing business then how about the following for their 'new' fleet if A-S won't play ball:

Schemp-Hirth Arcus: Arcus

Ximango: Home

Stemme S12, S10 or S6: S12 - NEW STEMME

HK36 Dimona: HK36 Super Dimona ? Born to shine :: Diamond Aircraft Industries

Alstar Perkoz: SZD-54-2 PERKOZ | Allstar PZL Glider Sp. z o.o.

I'm sure some of them would like a contract for 50-100 aircraft to augment the current ailing Air Cadet gliding fleet - especially if there was an option to buy more when the rest wear out?

The B Word

It would take a lot more than 2-3 years if you wanted to buy K21s. Schleicher have a full order book and no desire for a temporary expansion to fulfil one order, even though it would be a big one. The alternatives are the Polish PW6 or Perkoz, maybe one of them would be interested in building 70+ gliders.

B word
 

I'm with you on this one in an ideal world........... But these kids that you took flying at Halton had informed parental consent, do this as an air cadet activity and the lawyers will smell a pay day from the deep pockets of the govenment the very moment there is half a chance of a problem.

I don't like it but that is the way it is.

As to your new glider ideas....... Arcus, that would work as would the Alstar PZL. The Dimona might work as a motor glider, I don't know enough about the Ximango, however if you think that the over complicated over priced Stemme with its narrow track landing gear is suitable for VGS flying then Please would you send me some of what you are smoking before my next visit to the dentist.

None of the conventional gliders in post #1356 from the B word are suited to the ACO flying task. Large span, flaps = ground handling issues and unnecessary complexity - also probably not robust enough for large numbers of launches and landings with low experience students ( the bread and butter of ACO operations)

The Ximango might be a good Vigi replacement - but I think it would need serious evaluation as it really is more of a light aeroplane than a motor glider - folding wings help hangarage though.....

The other motor gliders I would suggest are unsuited.

Arc