I'm curious which aircraft people would recommend for the following mission, and why.

A county sheriffs department in the Sierra Nevada Mountains is in need of an aircraft, but doesn't have the tax base to afford a helicopter. The work would be simple aerial observation with limited technology...mostly looking out the windows while flying low and slow, with some hand-held FLIR and night vision devices possibly being used.

Missions include marijuana spotting, search and rescue, following vehicles, photography, etc.. Off airport landings are not really a consideration, though I still prefer a tail wheel .

The terrain is mountainous, going from about 1000 feet up to 11,000 feet, with VERY high density altitudes in the summer. The work would be confined to the county, so long distance cross county performance isn't really a consideration. About 95% of the work would be in density altitudes below 10,000 feet.

The primary concern is the ability to fly low and slow with good visibility for a two person crew (pilot and observer). Cost is also a consideration, both in the purchase and in the operation. If it wasn't they would just buy a helicopter... Even paying the gas on a Cessna 206 might be too much to ask.

I was thinking a Husky or Scout would be the way to go, but I've never flown them so its hard to say. I'm guessing a 180 hp engine with a constant speed prop is sufficient, but again, I've never flown one...

any suggestions?

Looks like a perfect job for a Maule M9-230 turbo diesel with full patroller package and single lever engine/prop/mixture control.
Jeremy

I would go for the Maule MX-7-180 for a few reasons.

1) 2 passengers is well below Max Gross with full fuel...no problem 10,000 ft.

2) Long wing model with 70 gallons usable at 8 gph burn

3) Patroller doors are optional and offer great view

4) Can be had for under $75,000 in great shape. We paid $80k for a 1994 model with 75 hours TTAF...she was a hangar queen

5) Rock steady with flaps at 50 mph

6) Cheap and easy to maintain.

7) Maules have a large rear area for cargo with the rear seat removed. Could put a stretcher back there with little modification

8.) The 180 is STCd for MOGAS...a cheap fuel option

9) Insurance would be higher than other options, but should be offset by other cost factors

Just my .02. I am sure that others will have some great options as well.

-Low

My vote would be for the Scout, I have flown both. And currently own a Scout.
The Scout is easier to climb into. No radio gear between your legs. You don't have to worry about your size 13s hitting when that moment of full rudder needs to be full rudder. More comfort if your in it for hours.

ACA sells the cheapest aircraft parts I have ever purchased.
You may want to talk to the US border patrol. One of their pilots I was talking to last year at IMP said they were dumping the husky and wanting 8GCBC.

http://www.maules.com/1995-1999Models/1 ... index.html

This would work. For what you want, a Maule with taining wheels is just the ticket. The next step down is a Piper Tripacer. Stay away from a tailwheel plane cus if they are short on money for fuel then the pilots will not be able to stay proficient.

The Sept 2004 issue of Vintage magazine had an article titled The Alaska Ercoupe Squadron, or, Why Use a Helicopter When an Ercoupe Will Do The Job? Aparently the Alaska State Defense Force maintains a fleet of about five Ercoupes at Wasilla airport. They are used for certain types of observation and personnel transport missions when the ASDF's Huey and Blackhawk helo's would be considered overkill. Cost effectiveness is apparently a consideration, as it should be.
Makes sense to me! As I recall, the CAP along with earlier coastal defense organizations made extensive use of the Aeronca L-16 and Cessna L-19 for similar missions. Seems like the Cessna "Patroller" 140A's and "Commuter" 150's might be good choices.
Of course, the high (density) altitude aspect of the mission statement has to be taken under consideration-- marginally-powered aircraft might not be able to cut the mustard.

Eric

Sounds like you are gearing up to go look for my cousin maryjane in Weimar. She has been doing well and the clampers want a part of the action.In this case being kin I would suggest aahh the Beach skippy or its partner Piper tramahawk . They will out perform any other plane in the crash contest held each summer in the sierra gold cup.

I do quite a bit of flying for the Malheur County Sheriff, on search and rescue misssions. I have a 1959 Cessna 182B square tail skylane. The Sheriff and his deputies call me a lot to help them out. I really enjoy those flights. Bob

Given the original parameters and limitations, I would suggest a C150. It's inexpensive to purchase and operate, almost anyone can fly it, you can insure it and parts are everywhere. Unfortunately, many public offices have a proclivity to spend way beyond their budget (and get into my back pocket) for the "What if's"
The C150 would cost only 10% of the Husky and burn less fuel. Being a Tri-wheel, any SEL pilot could handle it and any underwriter would cover it. (Notice almost all Gov't vehicles are automatic transmissions?) Load is not an issue (Two people and fuel) so why bother with the higher gross weight? If you really have an issue with a potential third seat or so, go C172, same argument.
I always seem to lean to the KISS mindset when it comes to Government spending.

Kurt, you're making waaay too much sense. Unfortunately most public agencies are definitely NOT all about cost effectiveness. That's why I was (pleasantly) surprised to see the article about the ASDF Ercoupes. Are they still there at Wasilla?

Eric

For the environmental and operational cost reasons stated above and for your observation mission (and go for a used version of all of these) in the order I would look at them:

1. Scout with VG's (easy in and out for largish coppers with lots of gear and yet an excellent observation platform. A bit truckish to fly but hey...
2. Husky A1-B (less easy in and out but the best performer in your environment and you can fly with the doors and windows open should you want.)
3. Maule with 180 in it and patroller doors. (I throw out this peace offering bone to maule types...

Brad

(our local DNR bought a Scout after considering everything, the chief pilot is a Cub guy through and through, but he had to consider that the size of his officers was growing...

Apparently, nobody read the criteria that ravi spelled out in his original post. Did anybody notice the Density Altitudes he mentioned?????

A Cessna 150??? Good grief!

I worked at this sort of mission for over 30 years. At one point, we ran a comparison and evaluation test of several of the aircraft mentioned here.

We compared a Maule M-7 235, a Husky model A-1, a Scout, and a Super Cub. We wound up with two Scouts in the fleet, seven Husky model A-1B's in the fleet, and six Super Cubs in the fleet. The Maule got excessed.

Here are some thoughts on your proposed missions:

1. Hand held FLIR is going to be iffy in any of these aircraft, due to stabilization issues. I doubt if you'll be able to do much with it, but perhaps.

2. Night vision will work, but you'll want Gen III goggles=around $10 K per pop. Bear in mind the aircraft also has to be modified to be compatible with NV as well. This isn't terribly expensive, but it adds up.

3. The observation mission at high DA is a demanding one. True speeds are high, which equates to a high work load on the pilot. Find a plane that has absolutely the best FLYING characteristics, and the BEST performance characteristics.

If it was me, it would be an A-1B Husky. The airplane far outperforms all the others described in the high DA environement. It has phenomenal range, and superb climb capability, even at very high DA's.

The Scout is a great airplane, but as the man said, they are sorta trucklike in handling, and they do not perform all that well at high DA. Scouts have a relatively high stall speed, and the stall characteristics, while not ugly, aren't the most friendly, either.

The Super Cub is a great airplane, but again, at high DA, you won't have the performance in climb to work it as well. This would be my number two choice, preferably with a 180 hp engine for the high DA environment.

The Maule would work as well, but for the little difference in price, I'd stick with the 235 engine Maules. The 180 is not going to have enough zoot to do what you are talking about, in my opinion. You are not concerned about range as much, so the bigger engine burns more gas--that may be a cost issue, but....performance is a HUGE deal in low level observation work.

The Border Patrol doesnt' have any Huskys. They got rid of theirs back in 1989, due to a couple accidents and the fact that they were transitioning to helicopters.

By the way, you do realize that you can acquire "free" helicopters from the military and operate them as Public Aircraft, right??? OH-58 and OH-6 aircraft are readily available surplus. They'll take some money to get them useable for your work, though.

Don't think too small--there's a lot of grant monies around for this kind of work nowadays. Some of these pots of money may be drying up, but there's a lot of money around for drug interdiction/homeland security.

The Husky is a fantastic performing airplane in this environment. It would (and was) my first choice of an airplane for these missions. It requires that the pilot learn to fly it (something the Border Patrol found out the hard way), but it is honest, fast, and powerful.

Finally, even if you operate on a shoestring, get some flight time in with someone who does this kind of work for a living, and get some flight time with someone like Rich Stowell, so you know something more about low speed/high angle of attack performance.

Also, remember that whatever you acquire is going to be used as a work airplane, not a recreational toy. It needs to have dispatch reliability, and offer a safe and solid work platform for your missions.

I get really nervous when I hear of agencies using "volunteers" to fly missions for them. This can be done well, as the State of Montana does it, by providing training and flight training and certification, mind you, but there's no way I'm getting in a plane with a private pilot and going out to fly a low level mission.

Send me a PM if you want more info on our comparison trials.

MTV

The Scout is a great airplane, but as the man said, they are sorta trucklike in handling, and they do not perform all that well at high DA. Scouts have a relatively high stall speed, and the stall characteristics, while not ugly, aren't the most friendly, either.

The Border Patrol doesn't' have any Huskys. They got rid of theirs back in 1989, due to a couple accidents and the fact that they were transitioning to helicopters.

I am new here so please go easy on me...But the spec sheet shows
Aviat A1B Stall Full Flap---53MPH
8GCBC stall Full Flap-----49 MPH
A1B fuel 50 gal
8GCBC 70 gal usable

And as of last year the Border Patrol were using 2 of the dept of agriculture's Husky's. And one PA-18-150
I didnt want to bring up the whole broken airplane topic since ravi was just looking for suggestions and not facts.

I will certainly agree that the flight controls on a Scout are not in harmony.

Scout,

The Scout has great range, no doubt. If I were going long distances, and not working much terrain, nor high DA's, particularly in cold weather, I'd pick the Scout any time, over any of those airplanes, including the Husky probably. At least the Scout has a heater. We're flying a brand new Top Cub, and there is no trace whatsoever of heat in this thing. Oil temps run 90 degrees at -20 F. I sure wouldnt pick one of those for cold climates either. But it's a great airplane in many ways.

As to stall speed, I intended to refer more to the stall characteristics of the airplane than the speed.

That said, the stall speed of an A-1B at mid-mission weight would be 43. Power on stall speed is given as 37 mph.

I'm not badmouthing Scouts, but their performance simply isn't as good as a Cub or a Husky.

Now, a pilot who is really good with a Scout can do things a poorer pilot cant' do with a Husky or Cub, no doubt--but you have to compare apples to apples.

We ran the airplanes on wheels, skis and floats. Everybody loved the Scout, except for the performance. But, we still bought a couple, since there were a couple places where that airplane fit the mission very well.

They are all fine airplanes, bottom line.

I wasn't aware the coyote killers were in cahoots with the DHS these days. Musta run out of coyotes locally. The APHIS folks have been using Huskys a lot for a number of years as well. They are allowed to shoot their perpetrators, though.....

MTV

One of those OH-6 "Little Birds" with mingun and rocket launcher sounds like fun......

Thanks for all the good input. I'm surprised nobody suggested the Cessna 182/206, as they seem to have completely take over the CAP, though they seemed like strange choices to me.

In the limited ground observation I've done in my 140 I've found the blind spot created by the side-by-side seating to be a real problem. I don't know how much of this is eliminated by patroller doors, but for trying to follow a vehicle on winding roads a tandem seems a whole lot easier.

I'll agree that the cessna 150 / 172 are way to underpowered for the loftier parts of the county. In fact, on any given summer afternoon I don't think you could fly a 150 to the east side of our county at all. A turbo diesel Maule sounds great...but what does such an animal cost?

It's good thinking to stick with training wheels for all the reasons stated, including pilot proficiancy. That said, I'm figuring that due to the terrain and the nature of the flying, the crew needs to be flying a minimum of ten hours a week to keep current. If they are too out of practice to land on a 3000 foot paved runway, they are WAY too out of practice to be doing low passes down the American River Canyon at 55 knots. Also, if it's a tail wheel I have a better chance of flying it!

As far as the clampers in Wemire go...they are safe for now. By the time a garden gets big enough to see from the air it's definitely not personal use anymore...

Has anyone out there seen a nightsun put on a fixed wing aircraft? I know a Helio in Arizona uses one, but that's a little different.

ravi, call Joe Stancil over at Placerville. He might be able to help you out if you tell him what your requirement are. Back in the late 50"s the CDF&G if I remember correctly use to use Cessna 180"s out of Bridgeport, Ca.

ravi,

There is one benefit that side by side seating has for observation purposes: Observers don't use nearly as many barf bags in the process.

The back seat of a tandem aircraft, even one well flown, can be an evil place to work on a maneuvering mission. Add a touch of turbulence and a nice hot day, and you've got a really nice combination.

The problem is that the pilot pretty much sits right at the "pivot point" of the airplane, while the person in back sits three feet aft of it. Any slight skid or slip is magnified, and any bump results in up and down motions galore.

My wife gets along fine in the front of a Cessna, but put her in the back of a Cub and she's looking for a bag.

The 182 is a great airplane. There are now turbo 182's available as well, which would be better for your purposes.

I believe CHP got rid of all their 185s and went to new 206's.

The 206 is a great airplane, but it's probably more airplane than you need or care to pay to support. You wont' get substantially better performance out of one than you would from a 182.

The big lights are going by the wayside these days. Many outfits find that bad guys just run when the Night Sun is on. Turn off the Sun, and watch em on FLIR.

With a 182, you can remove the cargo door and construct a beamlike structure that sticks out the side of the airplane, bolted down to fittings inside the baggage compt. The beam that sticks out can then serve as a mount for FLIR or NV or Color cam, or if you've got $700K or so, a combination FLIR/NV/Hi Res Color camera unit. There are less sophisticated units, though.

I'd think a FLIR would serve your purposes much more than a light. Get in touch with the San Diego PD Aviation Branch. They've done some pretty close investigating of these options. They are going pretty much FLIR only.

MTV