What is this used for?

[Heli-Ice]

What kind of Police work is/was this aeroplane used for? Is it still in operation?

http://www.airliners.net/open.file/1164173/M/

http://www.airliners.net/open.file/1164171/M/

[jonnyloove]

The aircraft in question is a light observation aircraft. It is currently being used in jordan in large number teaching the iraqi airforce and army pilots. Its a very stable platform for observation and FLIR camera. Its also employed in border areas for observation duties.

Kick the tyres Light the fires.:p

[Blues&twos]

Have a look at this for more info

http://encycl.opentopia.com/term/Edgley_Optica

[FH1100 Pilot]

The aircraft in question is a light observation aircraft. It is currently being used in jordan in large number teaching the iraqi airforce and army pilots. Its a very stable platform for observation and FLIR camera. Its also employed in border areas for observation duties.
Jonny, you *may* be mistaken here. The airplane you are referring to is the Seabird http://www.seabirdaviationjordan.com/ A lot of people refer to it as the Optica, but I believe the design is new and different. And mate, I think the Seabird got its start in Australia, while the Edgley is veddy, veddy British.

Differences? For one thing, the Edgley Optica was a nose-dragger and had that ducted-fan propulsion as well as a two-boom tail design a la Cessna Skymaster (or more accurately, OV-10A).

While the designers of the Seabird may have taken their inspiration from the Optica, the Seabird probably owes more of its actual design to the old Republic Seabee. Like its near-namesake, it has a more conventional unshrouded pusher prop configuration mounted high above the single-boom tail, is a tail-dragger, and the spring-steel main landing gear struts poke out from the fuselage, not from under the wing as in the Edgley.

It is too bad that the Optica never acheived any real success in the market. It was a unique design that could have worked well for police departments all over. But you'll never convince them to forego the ability to hover, oh no! No matter how compelling the numbers are, policeguys will always want to be able to land and help apprehend the perps, not just circle above helplessly like little girly flying metermaids.

[Heliport]

It's an Optica.

Registration: G-BMPF
Current Reg. Date: 01/07/1987
Previous ID:
First Reg. Date: 14/04/1986
Status: De-registered
De-Reg. Date: 19/09/1991
Reason: Cancelled by the CAA
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Manufacturer: OPTICA INDUSTRIES LTD
Type: OA7 OPTICA
Serial No.: 010
ICAO 24 bit aircraft address (hex):
Popular Name: OPTICA
Generic Name: OA7
Aircraft Class: FIXED-WING LANDPLANE
Engines: 1 - 1 x LYCOMING IO-540-V4A5D
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ownership Status: Owned
Registered Owners: BROOKLANDS AIRCRAFT COMPANY LTD
OLD SARUM AIRFIELD
SALISBURY
SP4 6BJ
UNITED KINGDOM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

MTOW: 1315kg
Total Hours: 1125 at 31/12/1989
Year Built: 1986
CofA / Permit: TRANSPORT (PASSENGER)
C of A Expiry: 14/01/1993

[Flying Lawyer]

FH1100


A fatal crash of the first production model Optica while its suitability for police use was being evaluated didn't help.


See: Hampshire Police (http://www.hants.gov.uk/hchs/optica.html)



FL

[Ascend Charlie]

My brother (qualified US Navy test pilot) was aked to do an evaluation on it.

He couldn't get out of it fast enough, assessed it as dangerous and not to be considered for purchase. But the vis was great, same as a B47.:sad:

[jonnyloove]

Jonny, you *may* be mistaken here. The airplane you are referring to is the Seabird http://www.seabirdaviationjordan.com/ A lot of people refer to it as the Optica, but I believe the design is new and different. And mate, I think the Seabird got its start in Australia, while the Edgley is veddy, veddy British.

Differences? For one thing, the Edgley Optica was a nose-dragger and had that ducted-fan propulsion as well as a two-boom tail design a la Cessna Skymaster (or more accurately, OV-10A).

While the designers of the Seabird may have taken their inspiration from the Optica, the Seabird probably owes more of its actual design to the old Republic Seabee. Like its near-namesake, it has a more conventional unshrouded pusher prop configuration mounted high above the single-boom tail, is a tail-dragger, and the spring-steel main landing gear struts poke out from the fuselage, not from under the wing as in the Edgley.

It is too bad that the Optica never acheived any real success in the market. It was a unique design that could have worked well for police departments all over. But you'll never convince them to forego the ability to hover, oh no! No matter how compelling the numbers are, policeguys will always want to be able to land and help apprehend the perps, not just circle above helplessly like little girly flying metermaids.

F100
Thanks for the correction. I see them quite often across hear. I guess i am due the eye test!!

Jonny

[LowTime]

I remember watching some Sci-Fi film in the late 80's, early 90's , where the bad guys used one of those to track the good guys. Can't remember the name of it tho. :)

[Graviman]

My brother (qualified US Navy test pilot) was aked to do an evaluation on it.
He couldn't get out of it fast enough, assessed it as dangerous and not to be considered for purchase. But the vis was great, same as a B47.:sad:

For what reason Ascend Charlie? If the thing was prone to spin, or couldn't recover from a spin it would have been easy enough to modify wing twist, include a dorsal fin or tweak the CofG.

I'm just amazed such a promising concept was droped with no follow up. Maybe Slingsby felt at the time it had been too risky, but that was some time back...

Mart

[Shawn Coyle]

A very good friend of mine was one of the test pilots on the project. The airplane died because management was basically out of control- had phenomenal projections for sales, wouldn't listen to actual problems on the aircraft that were being told to them by the test team, and so on. Typical of the situation where the chief designer is the boss of the company - no one could tell him his baby was (slightly) ugly.
Very expensive (at the time), had no differential braking, needed to shift weights from the tail boom to the nose when you changed passenger loads, doors popped open all the time, etc...
Pity it wasn't sorted out.

[fly911]

I agree that it is a shame that this unique airplane got off to such a rocky start. I understand that it will be back in production in the not too distant future. I am hoping that is true. The problems mentioned here are not uncommon to revolutionary new designs. I recently spent some time having a close up look-see. Quite remarkable design. All things being equal, I would rather fly the optica than a similar sized Cessna or Piper; No wings in the way, 270 degree field of view, engine and prop noise behind you, etc. An excellent platform for instruction as well. There are more pictures at www.facebook.com/optica.optica (http://www.facebook.com/optica.optica) This is a page I put together for Optica fans, of which I am one.



http://hphotos-snc3.fbcdn.net/hs440.snc3/25299_100987386604386_100000793761638_26922_4708072_n.jpg