Mon Oct 08, 2007 3:58 pm
Interesting topic with a lot of interesting banter and opinions regarding it.
In my opinion the CAF is not doomed if it can adapt to the times soon. That’s easier said than done since its roots are quite petrified. It suffers from two caustic phenomenons that have killed many a business: “lackof” syndrome, (lack of time, lack of ambition, lack of faith, lack of imagination, etc.) and concrete thinkers, “Why do it that way?” “…because that’s the way we’ve always done it!” Here’s a newsflash: it’s almost, 2008 and well past time to make significant changes to usher in a new era, a new way of doing business that’s more in keeping with the times. A new way of thinking that will allow it to flourish right up to the time when everybody is forced to park their vintage aircraft, for whatever the reason may be. Picture a CAF where there is actually money for restorations, additional capital purchases and free membership.
Where is it written that the only source of revenue the CAF must have is through aviation and aviation related events? That thinking will be its downfall. Consider how many people think about aviation or are even remotely interested in it, maybe 1% to 5% of the total US population at best. That means the remaining 95% to 99% of the population is being ignored. Ouch! Keep in mind that not all those individuals represented in the 1% to 5% group are interested in warbirds so in reality we are probably dealing with a number much smaller than that estimation suggests. A business of some kind in a sector with broad appeal such as cars, music, food where that companies income is used to subsidize the growth and long term viability of the parent non-profit (The CAF). The problem is it requires an open mind, a willingness to modify or change its current “business” structure and a willingness to accept a small amount of risk. It would take time as this type of shift does not occur all at once and needs to happen in small, well adjusted steps. After a “Beta” model proves the viability of the concept, it is slowly deployed to larger and larger audiences. What kind of business it is would be completely dependent on ones own imagination…the catch is it has to have mass appeal…unfortunately for us involved in warbirds, aviation does not fit that description.
Right now, the CAF has the ability to be a one stop shop for airshow promoters to put as many aircraft on their ramps as they desire with one phone call. The problem is HQ has not bothered to organize this. There is also a general apprehension from unit to unit to cooperate with each other and with HQ to make it happen. That leads back to the concrete thinking and the “Me first, I for one” syndrome. If the units can pull together and start working with each other and HQ, what’s to stop the CAF from creating a nationwide airshow circuit where it works with combined units around the country to make an “Airsho” sized event in each quadrant of the country?
There is no end to what the CAF could do to ensure its future. The big question is what is it willing to do?
John
In my opinion the CAF is not doomed if it can adapt to the times soon. That’s easier said than done since its roots are quite petrified. It suffers from two caustic phenomenons that have killed many a business: “lackof” syndrome, (lack of time, lack of ambition, lack of faith, lack of imagination, etc.) and concrete thinkers, “Why do it that way?” “…because that’s the way we’ve always done it!” Here’s a newsflash: it’s almost, 2008 and well past time to make significant changes to usher in a new era, a new way of doing business that’s more in keeping with the times. A new way of thinking that will allow it to flourish right up to the time when everybody is forced to park their vintage aircraft, for whatever the reason may be. Picture a CAF where there is actually money for restorations, additional capital purchases and free membership.
Where is it written that the only source of revenue the CAF must have is through aviation and aviation related events? That thinking will be its downfall. Consider how many people think about aviation or are even remotely interested in it, maybe 1% to 5% of the total US population at best. That means the remaining 95% to 99% of the population is being ignored. Ouch! Keep in mind that not all those individuals represented in the 1% to 5% group are interested in warbirds so in reality we are probably dealing with a number much smaller than that estimation suggests. A business of some kind in a sector with broad appeal such as cars, music, food where that companies income is used to subsidize the growth and long term viability of the parent non-profit (The CAF). The problem is it requires an open mind, a willingness to modify or change its current “business” structure and a willingness to accept a small amount of risk. It would take time as this type of shift does not occur all at once and needs to happen in small, well adjusted steps. After a “Beta” model proves the viability of the concept, it is slowly deployed to larger and larger audiences. What kind of business it is would be completely dependent on ones own imagination…the catch is it has to have mass appeal…unfortunately for us involved in warbirds, aviation does not fit that description.
Right now, the CAF has the ability to be a one stop shop for airshow promoters to put as many aircraft on their ramps as they desire with one phone call. The problem is HQ has not bothered to organize this. There is also a general apprehension from unit to unit to cooperate with each other and with HQ to make it happen. That leads back to the concrete thinking and the “Me first, I for one” syndrome. If the units can pull together and start working with each other and HQ, what’s to stop the CAF from creating a nationwide airshow circuit where it works with combined units around the country to make an “Airsho” sized event in each quadrant of the country?
There is no end to what the CAF could do to ensure its future. The big question is what is it willing to do?
John
Mon Oct 08, 2007 6:48 pm
Hi John....good post. Allow me to respond.
The CAF is the world's largest airshow act, and with one phone call, a promoter could fill his ramp with all manner of warbirds...Oh, that it were so! The problem is NOT with HQ, but with the structure of the organization that puts a premium on being "confederate" because of some suspicion of "those bastids in Midland!" Headquarters simply doesn't have the "juice" to do what you say they have not bothered to organize...I need only point you to the ICAS convention, where "the CAF" has a booth, but so does Tora, the B-29 folks, Sentimental Journey, the Corsair, the Dixie Wing, etc, etc...If someone innocently asked the VP of Operations for the whole shebang if he can provide a B-25 for an airshow somewhere, he is told that he must contact the unit operating one of those airplanes and work out the details with them. This ain't a good way to run a railroad!
I've been preaching this necessity to speak more with one voice for the past three years (on the GStaff) and it has essentially just given me a sore throat, arched some eyebrows of my buds on the GStaff, and maybe provided some thought-provoking (which was my intent...)
The idea of regional airshows run by the CAF has been talked about and seriously considered. The main problem has always been cost...the cost to "take our show (read airsho team who know how to do these things) on the road." Perhaps we need to take another run at that idea and see if a unit (like the Dixie Wing, or Arizona, or SoCal) want to take on the job?
And by the way, you guys are doing a fantastic job with the Red Tail project...keep it up.
Old Shep
The CAF is the world's largest airshow act, and with one phone call, a promoter could fill his ramp with all manner of warbirds...Oh, that it were so! The problem is NOT with HQ, but with the structure of the organization that puts a premium on being "confederate" because of some suspicion of "those bastids in Midland!" Headquarters simply doesn't have the "juice" to do what you say they have not bothered to organize...I need only point you to the ICAS convention, where "the CAF" has a booth, but so does Tora, the B-29 folks, Sentimental Journey, the Corsair, the Dixie Wing, etc, etc...If someone innocently asked the VP of Operations for the whole shebang if he can provide a B-25 for an airshow somewhere, he is told that he must contact the unit operating one of those airplanes and work out the details with them. This ain't a good way to run a railroad!
I've been preaching this necessity to speak more with one voice for the past three years (on the GStaff) and it has essentially just given me a sore throat, arched some eyebrows of my buds on the GStaff, and maybe provided some thought-provoking (which was my intent...)
The idea of regional airshows run by the CAF has been talked about and seriously considered. The main problem has always been cost...the cost to "take our show (read airsho team who know how to do these things) on the road." Perhaps we need to take another run at that idea and see if a unit (like the Dixie Wing, or Arizona, or SoCal) want to take on the job?
And by the way, you guys are doing a fantastic job with the Red Tail project...keep it up.
Old Shep
Mon Oct 08, 2007 7:45 pm
Mr. Coombes, I totally agree with you. It would be amazing if we had a catalog for people to chose what aircraft they want at their shows, and we could provide. I know that has been thought of before, but like you said, it tends to a "confederate" system. Keep up the good work though. I like your ideas!
Mon Oct 08, 2007 9:31 pm
Hellcat,
Your comment about all of the CAF's aircraft accidents being pilot error is unwarrented. For instance the P-51C "Red Tail" was an engine failure, the He-111 was an engine failure, the C-60 "Lady Lodestar" was a mechanical failure in the brake system, the Grumman US-2B has not been released by the NTSB but suffice it to say it is looking like a mechanical failure, the A-20 I believe the pilot had a heart attack, one of the Minnesota Wings PBY's was severly damaged in a wind storm (these are just the ones that I can think of right off hand). Granted, yes some of our accidents have been pilot error but not all of them.
Your comment about all of the CAF's aircraft accidents being pilot error is unwarrented. For instance the P-51C "Red Tail" was an engine failure, the He-111 was an engine failure, the C-60 "Lady Lodestar" was a mechanical failure in the brake system, the Grumman US-2B has not been released by the NTSB but suffice it to say it is looking like a mechanical failure, the A-20 I believe the pilot had a heart attack, one of the Minnesota Wings PBY's was severly damaged in a wind storm (these are just the ones that I can think of right off hand). Granted, yes some of our accidents have been pilot error but not all of them.
Tue Oct 09, 2007 8:42 am
Old Shep wrote:Hi John....good post. Allow me to respond.
The CAF is the world's largest airshow act, and with one phone call, a promoter could fill his ramp with all manner of warbirds...Oh, that it were so! The problem is NOT with HQ, but with the structure of the organization that puts a premium on being "confederate" because of some suspicion of "those bastids in Midland!" Headquarters simply doesn't have the "juice" to do what you say they have not bothered to organize...I need only point you to the ICAS convention, where "the CAF" has a booth, but so does Tora, the B-29 folks, Sentimental Journey, the Corsair, the Dixie Wing, etc, etc...If someone innocently asked the VP of Operations for the whole shebang if he can provide a B-25 for an airshow somewhere, he is told that he must contact the unit operating one of those airplanes and work out the details with them. This ain't a good way to run a railroad!
I've been preaching this necessity to speak more with one voice for the past three years (on the GStaff) and it has essentially just given me a sore throat, arched some eyebrows of my buds on the GStaff, and maybe provided some thought-provoking (which was my intent...)
The idea of regional airshows run by the CAF has been talked about and seriously considered. The main problem has always been cost...the cost to "take our show (read airsho team who know how to do these things) on the road." Perhaps we need to take another run at that idea and see if a unit (like the Dixie Wing, or Arizona, or SoCal) want to take on the job?
And by the way, you guys are doing a fantastic job with the Red Tail project...keep it up.
Old Shep
Bill,
I’m going to have to respectfully and vehemently disagree with your statement that the problem is not with HQ! Who’s driving the bus anyway, the individual Wings or HQ? Who cares what the heck “they” are calling the HQ staff or how suspicious “they” are of it…”they” as individual units may not be around real long if “they” don’t start cooperating because the entire CAF will not be around. If this were a true “Franchise” like everyone loves to call it, it sure is not acting like one. The thumbnail description of a franchise is essentially cloning of each individual business unit as described (Mandated) by the parent organization. How does the CAF fit that structure? The plain and simple answer is it does not. Right now you have a lose-knit structure of small business units acting autonomously with little input from HQ, and little regard for it. HQ has to take this “Organization” by the Texas horns and organize it!
Not enough go juice at HQ to get stuff done? How many full or part time employees are there at HQ? What positions are paid? What is expected of those individuals? How much money does HQ spend in payroll each year? The intimation is not that the organization can or should do without these people, rather, is it getting the best bang for the buck the way it is utilizing these people? Can these people run a fledgling “Beta” company? Remember the 95-99% of the population the CAF is ignoring? That’s its cash cow. Imagination and rejection of the words “No” and “Can’t” will get you there. As I said in my first post, change comes slowly and with reluctance…but it must come.
I would suggest the parent and satellites get organized before you even think about a nationwide tour or major regional Airsho’s. You can’t have any pudding until you eat your meat!
Thanks for the kudos’ on our progress with the Red Tail Project. It’s coming along slow but sure. It would have been done years ago if there were a profitable business unit of the CAF that was designed to financially support the flying and restorations of these machines. OK...I’ll shut up now…you know where I’m coming from.
John
Tue Oct 09, 2007 9:37 am
John Beyl wrote:Bill,
I’m going to have to respectfully and vehemently disagree with your statement that the problem is not with HQ! Who’s driving the bus anyway, the individual Wings or HQ?
Mr. Beyl, respectfully, I have to agree with Mr. Coombs. There have been several attempts by people at HQ to coordinate a CAF aircraft for events and then the units involved in that coordination are unhappy with HQ's decision and the one that didn't get the event goes direct to the promoter/requester and under bids their own organization to get the gig. It's created a LOT of animosity between units in the past and I'm sure it'll continue because HQ really can't do anything to stop it because the way the organization is set up. In one sense Bill is right because HQ is pretty much powerless to do anything when the units decide they don't want to do it sans pull the unit's charter and aircraft, which no one wants to do.
For me, the only way I see to fix it is to re-write the articles and regulations to give HQ the primary responsibility to do things like setup aircraft for airshows and such with more recourse on what they can do if a unit doesn't comply with those decisions. The hard part - getting the membership to sign off on it. Many of them see what the CAF is as "a good thing" so they don't want to change it. I have my doubts that enough see the need for change to vote something like that in, especially since it would be pretty sweeping change when as has been said, many have a lot of suspicion against HQ and would be unwilling to give up any autonomy to HQ.
Tue Oct 09, 2007 10:00 am
CAPFlyer wrote:John Beyl wrote:Bill,
I’m going to have to respectfully and vehemently disagree with your statement that the problem is not with HQ! Who’s driving the bus anyway, the individual Wings or HQ?
Mr. Beyl, respectfully, I have to agree with Mr. Coombs. There have been several attempts by people at HQ to coordinate a CAF aircraft for events and then the units involved in that coordination are unhappy with HQ's decision and the one that didn't get the event goes direct to the promoter/requester and under bids their own organization to get the gig. It's created a LOT of animosity between units in the past and I'm sure it'll continue because HQ really can't do anything to stop it because the way the organization is set up. In one sense Bill is right because HQ is pretty much powerless to do anything when the units decide they don't want to do it sans pull the unit's charter and aircraft, which no one wants to do.
For me, the only way I see to fix it is to re-write the articles and regulations to give HQ the primary responsibility to do things like setup aircraft for airshows and such with more recourse on what they can do if a unit doesn't comply with those decisions. The hard part - getting the membership to sign off on it. Many of them see what the CAF is as "a good thing" so they don't want to change it. I have my doubts that enough see the need for change to vote something like that in, especially since it would be pretty sweeping change when as has been said, many have a lot of suspicion against HQ and would be unwilling to give up any autonomy to HQ.
No CAP Flyer....you are actually agreeing with me! You wrote: "For me, the only way I see to fix it is to re-write the articles and regulations to give HQ the primary responsibility..." This is what I was driving at! It's HQ's job to do this...It's HQ's job to drive the business!!! They set the marching ordershence "Who is driving the bus?" Does the cart pull the horse or does the horse pull the cart?
John
Tue Oct 09, 2007 11:39 am
Hi,
I hear a few good ideas here, they need a central coordinator at headquarters that can provide air show operators with a web site for A/C selection. An internal link to all of the various wings that would confirm availability, projected costs and make this as user friendly as possible. I know when I go to a junk yard to find a car part if they don't have it they get on the computer and with in minutes they can find it any were in the U.S.
With todays technology you air show wishes could be a click away. 
I hear a few good ideas here, they need a central coordinator at headquarters that can provide air show operators with a web site for A/C selection. An internal link to all of the various wings that would confirm availability, projected costs and make this as user friendly as possible. I know when I go to a junk yard to find a car part if they don't have it they get on the computer and with in minutes they can find it any were in the U.S.
With todays technology you air show wishes could be a click away.
Tue Oct 09, 2007 12:13 pm
So you are suggesting that the CAF open some Starbuck's franchises to generate income for aircraft operations? At what point does making income then become the primary focus of the organization and airplanes secondary? That's what the accountants would do to the organization. Given time there would be no money for flying.John Beyl wrote:Where is it written that the only source of revenue the CAF must have is through aviation and aviation related events? That thinking will be its downfall. Consider how many people think about aviation or are even remotely interested in it, maybe 1% to 5% of the total US population at best. That means the remaining 95% to 99% of the population is being ignored. Ouch! Keep in mind that not all those individuals represented in the 1% to 5% group are interested in warbirds so in reality we are probably dealing with a number much smaller than that estimation suggests. A business of some kind in a sector with broad appeal such as cars, music, food where that companies income is used to subsidize the growth and long term viability of the parent non-profit (The CAF). The problem is it requires an open mind, a willingness to modify or change its current “business” structure and a willingness to accept a small amount of risk. It would take time as this type of shift does not occur all at once and needs to happen in small, well adjusted steps. After a “Beta” model proves the viability of the concept, it is slowly deployed to larger and larger audiences. What kind of business it is would be completely dependent on ones own imagination…the catch is it has to have mass appeal…unfortunately for us involved in warbirds, aviation does not fit that description.
Tue Oct 09, 2007 1:41 pm
Here are a few thoughts from someone who did the airshow scheduling for one of the CAF’s C-47s in the 80s and 90s.
Having a big warbird transport is not necessarily near the top of an airshow promoter’s wish list. Throw in the fact that USAir was sending its DC-3 in Piedmont Airlines colors out for basically no cost, as well as the FAA’s DC-3, and the interest sinks even lower.
To make up for this took some wheeling and dealing, being extra nice to some VIPs at the show, etc. One thing that could make or break us financially was our physical location on the airshow ramp, and that took some schmoozing too. These kinds of things required a close working relationship with the airshow staff. Could the same thing be accomplished from HQ?
When the issue of being restricted to only selling “aircraft specific” souvenir items at shows started to become a hassle, I contacted some other Wings to see if we could address the issue as a whole organization. We all agreed it was a problem, but it seemed like herding cats would’ve been easier than coming up with an actionable plan.
One time I was contacted about having our aircraft in a movie. The production company needed a “1940s airliner” in one small exterior scene. I was negotiating a nice little compensation package, including having the aircraft repainted to our specification at no cost to us. The paint on the aircraft was over ten years old at the time and getting kind of ratty looking.
But as it turned out, HQ required a large fee payable to the general fund that was in no way negotiable for any motion picture work. I can understand that it’s not desirable to cheapen our product, but that inflexibility blew the deal. It was just a small made-for-cable production and the scene was simply deleted from the script. Now the aircraft has 27 year old paint, the Wing made no money, and the general fund received zero. I just mention this as an example of why folks at the Unit level roll their eyes when something comes at them from HQ.
I guess my point here is that if HQ is going to take more control of things at the Unit level, they’re going to have to significantly increase the staff to handle all the little details. There’s more involved than simply answering the phone or some emails from a website with flat fee quotations.
The CAF is a great organization! The only reason I’m not as active as I once was is the fact that I’m involved in several privately owned projects now that are taking my time and resources.
Having a big warbird transport is not necessarily near the top of an airshow promoter’s wish list. Throw in the fact that USAir was sending its DC-3 in Piedmont Airlines colors out for basically no cost, as well as the FAA’s DC-3, and the interest sinks even lower.
To make up for this took some wheeling and dealing, being extra nice to some VIPs at the show, etc. One thing that could make or break us financially was our physical location on the airshow ramp, and that took some schmoozing too. These kinds of things required a close working relationship with the airshow staff. Could the same thing be accomplished from HQ?
When the issue of being restricted to only selling “aircraft specific” souvenir items at shows started to become a hassle, I contacted some other Wings to see if we could address the issue as a whole organization. We all agreed it was a problem, but it seemed like herding cats would’ve been easier than coming up with an actionable plan.
One time I was contacted about having our aircraft in a movie. The production company needed a “1940s airliner” in one small exterior scene. I was negotiating a nice little compensation package, including having the aircraft repainted to our specification at no cost to us. The paint on the aircraft was over ten years old at the time and getting kind of ratty looking.
But as it turned out, HQ required a large fee payable to the general fund that was in no way negotiable for any motion picture work. I can understand that it’s not desirable to cheapen our product, but that inflexibility blew the deal. It was just a small made-for-cable production and the scene was simply deleted from the script. Now the aircraft has 27 year old paint, the Wing made no money, and the general fund received zero. I just mention this as an example of why folks at the Unit level roll their eyes when something comes at them from HQ.
I guess my point here is that if HQ is going to take more control of things at the Unit level, they’re going to have to significantly increase the staff to handle all the little details. There’s more involved than simply answering the phone or some emails from a website with flat fee quotations.
The CAF is a great organization! The only reason I’m not as active as I once was is the fact that I’m involved in several privately owned projects now that are taking my time and resources.
Tue Oct 09, 2007 1:43 pm
bdk wrote:So you are suggesting that the CAF open some Starbuck's franchises to generate income for aircraft operations? At what point does making income then become the primary focus of the organization and airplanes secondary? That's what the accountants would do to the organization. Given time there would be no money for flying.John Beyl wrote:Where is it written that the only source of revenue the CAF must have is through aviation and aviation related events? That thinking will be its downfall. Consider how many people think about aviation or are even remotely interested in it, maybe 1% to 5% of the total US population at best. That means the remaining 95% to 99% of the population is being ignored. Ouch! Keep in mind that not all those individuals represented in the 1% to 5% group are interested in warbirds so in reality we are probably dealing with a number much smaller than that estimation suggests. A business of some kind in a sector with broad appeal such as cars, music, food where that companies income is used to subsidize the growth and long term viability of the parent non-profit (The CAF). The problem is it requires an open mind, a willingness to modify or change its current “business” structure and a willingness to accept a small amount of risk. It would take time as this type of shift does not occur all at once and needs to happen in small, well adjusted steps. After a “Beta” model proves the viability of the concept, it is slowly deployed to larger and larger audiences. What kind of business it is would be completely dependent on ones own imagination…the catch is it has to have mass appeal…unfortunately for us involved in warbirds, aviation does not fit that description.
That is precisely what I am suggesting! I can't answer the accounting question other than there are ways to deal with how much, and to where the raised funds get allocated.
John
Tue Oct 09, 2007 3:19 pm
When you have people volunteering time at the local or Wing level to fly, maintain, work the P.X., sell rides, in multiple aircraft,you can't manage and sell all of this from a thousand miles away-it would be even more of a logistical nightmare! It would take all of the fun out of it and you would loose all your volunteers and sponsors.
Steve
Steve
Tue Oct 09, 2007 9:08 pm
A few (hopefully constructive) thoughts about the future of the CAF.
The sucessful formula for the future may be right in front of the CAF, I think that the days of competeing to be one of the single display aircraft is a losing proposition. I think that the CAF (and intrepid Skyraider owners for that matter) need to provide turn-key acts to promoters. I.E. Tora, Army Heritage Foundation, Four Horsemen etc. The CAf could (and should) organize 3 or 4 multi aircaft/unit acts based around a theme, Polesti, Vietnam whatever. If you provide this type of "act" the CAF can seperate themselves from all of the single aircraft operators. With an "act" vs a single aircraft type appearance/flying, the fee can be much more flexible and it would be very easy to include multiple wings in this type of "joint venture".
more to follow, I am a horrible typist.
The sucessful formula for the future may be right in front of the CAF, I think that the days of competeing to be one of the single display aircraft is a losing proposition. I think that the CAF (and intrepid Skyraider owners for that matter) need to provide turn-key acts to promoters. I.E. Tora, Army Heritage Foundation, Four Horsemen etc. The CAf could (and should) organize 3 or 4 multi aircaft/unit acts based around a theme, Polesti, Vietnam whatever. If you provide this type of "act" the CAF can seperate themselves from all of the single aircraft operators. With an "act" vs a single aircraft type appearance/flying, the fee can be much more flexible and it would be very easy to include multiple wings in this type of "joint venture".
more to follow, I am a horrible typist.
Tue Oct 09, 2007 9:15 pm
Eric I'm liking the sound of that!
And they have to be able to go out on the road!
And they have to be able to go out on the road!
Tue Oct 09, 2007 10:09 pm
A few (hopefully constructive) thoughts about the future of the CAF. PART 2
Something that has been on my mind for some time is that I think that the mix of aircraft types that the CAF has is not as effective as it could be. In an organization with a fleet of aircraft the size of the CAF, there should be many more L-Birds, T-6s and Beech 18s. For the following four reasons.
1. These aircaft are required to maintain and train the pilot staff of the CAF. I think the proficiency of the pilots in the CAF is pretty good but of course, be much better. The cornerstone of proficiency has always rested with the T6 for the fighters and Beech 18 for the bombers. There are too many units that have "big" airplanes, and no way to evaluate and maintain the highest standards.
2. The "rides program" has become much, much more difficult to execute in the last year or so. I think that ( with the execption of the WIX crowd) there are a lot of people at airshows who could never afford a ride in a B25 or Mustang, but would love to go for a ride in a T6 or Beech 18. The pilots that need the practice/currency should be flying all sorts of small shows, no apprearance fee, just rides revenue. Get someone else to pay for our proficiency and probably turn a profit as well.
3. L-Birds, should be the #1 recruiting tool for the CAF. For the most part, no mid time private pilot has a chance of ever flying the big iron for the CAF. We should have some way to provide a long term way to progress, fly the L-Bird for a couple of years, transition to the T6, who knows were that might lead. Hell, you might even bring some home grown mechanics along the path.
4. Most important, the standard of the fleet needs to be raised a notch, a number of wings could have benefited greatly, from having maintained a T6 or Beech 18 for a while before getting something much bigger. I think one of the concerns of the CAF should be that a wing can buy a TBM or B25 without having the infastructure or maintanence talent needed to maintain it properly.
Something that has been on my mind for some time is that I think that the mix of aircraft types that the CAF has is not as effective as it could be. In an organization with a fleet of aircraft the size of the CAF, there should be many more L-Birds, T-6s and Beech 18s. For the following four reasons.
1. These aircaft are required to maintain and train the pilot staff of the CAF. I think the proficiency of the pilots in the CAF is pretty good but of course, be much better. The cornerstone of proficiency has always rested with the T6 for the fighters and Beech 18 for the bombers. There are too many units that have "big" airplanes, and no way to evaluate and maintain the highest standards.
2. The "rides program" has become much, much more difficult to execute in the last year or so. I think that ( with the execption of the WIX crowd) there are a lot of people at airshows who could never afford a ride in a B25 or Mustang, but would love to go for a ride in a T6 or Beech 18. The pilots that need the practice/currency should be flying all sorts of small shows, no apprearance fee, just rides revenue. Get someone else to pay for our proficiency and probably turn a profit as well.
3. L-Birds, should be the #1 recruiting tool for the CAF. For the most part, no mid time private pilot has a chance of ever flying the big iron for the CAF. We should have some way to provide a long term way to progress, fly the L-Bird for a couple of years, transition to the T6, who knows were that might lead. Hell, you might even bring some home grown mechanics along the path.
4. Most important, the standard of the fleet needs to be raised a notch, a number of wings could have benefited greatly, from having maintained a T6 or Beech 18 for a while before getting something much bigger. I think one of the concerns of the CAF should be that a wing can buy a TBM or B25 without having the infastructure or maintanence talent needed to maintain it properly.