UAE bins BAE

[Clockwork Mouse]

I see that, against expectations, the UAE has just eliminated BAE and the Hawk from its new training jet procurement competition.
Could this be because BAE now feel unable to play according to middle eastern rules, ie offering sweeteners, after the liberal chattering classes backlash over the Tornado deal with the Saudis? Bet the Koreans and Italians have no such scruples.

[6Z3]

Hardly surprising really. On practically every count, Hawk stands little chance in any competition for a modern advanced jet trainer, which of course is why the UK MoD elected not to hold a competition for its UKMFTS AJT.

[Jackonicko]

What absolute and utter tosh.

The modern Hawk (LIFT/127/128 etc.) is an excellent trainer for any modern fast jet pilot, if expensive.

Despite a high price tag, Hawk has won trainer competitions again and again, and deservedly so, and the RAF's selection of 128 to meet the AJT requirement is a rare example of common sense over narrow bean-counting.

The relevance of the T-50's supersonic speed capability can be guaged by the amount of supersonic sorties in the current USAF T-38 training syllabus.

Apart from the issues referred to by Clockwork Mouse, above, one might wonder whether the UAE has calculated that one of the other candidates represents a better dedicated trainer for its 80-strong fleet of F-16E/Fs, or perhaps whether the decision reflects the muddled thinking that saw them cling to the dual-role trainer/light attack Mako for quite so long.

[wokkameister]

Ahhhh Jacko!

Long time no speak. I see your still banging the 'It provides jobs in SW England, it must be the best solution' drum.
Havent heard that since you berated the tried, tested, and often demanded Chinook in favour of the 3 engined Merlin.
Don't know much about jets, so you may well be right this time, but personally, I wouldn't have anything to do with BAe/Westlands if my life depended on it.

My opinion, not saying its right

WM

[Jackonicko]

Ah, Mr WokkaMeister,

We meet again.

Your characterisation of my position on Merlin is wrong, however.

I'm a huge fan of the Chinook. If you want a heavylift helo with triple hooks and massive capability, then I'd say "Buy Chinook and accept no substitute."

And I'd be the first to say that the RAF would be the poorer without its Chinook force, make no mistake.

But do we need more Chinooks?

Is the Chinook a more suitable aircraft where you need availability, speed and a much smaller noise signature?

I don't think so, and I can see a useful role for more Merlins, especially if they're fully folding and marinised, like the last Eyetie cabs.

The Chinook and the Merlin are complementary, which is why the US Army is absolutely right to be buying CH-47Fs while the Marines get VH-71s for the Presidential mission (and the USAF should be Merlinning for CSAR-X).

As to the Hawk, the jobs it provides are in 'Black Pudding and Whippet' land, not in the SouthWest, and the long line of satisfied customers ought to reassure you as to the aircraft's qualities. And I'd sooner trust a BAE Hawk than a South Korean T-50 or an Italo-Russian M346.

I'm not one of those 'British is always best' merchants, and will happily beat a range of rhythms on my drum.

But I worry that your simplistic 'British-built is always inferior' beat will be too monotonous to stand for long...... :p

[Modern Elmo]

The Chinook and the Merlin are complementary, which is why the US Army is absolutely right to be buying CH-47Fs while the Marines get VH-71s for the Presidential mission (and the USAF should be Merlinning for CSAR-X).

The only reason why those VH-71's exist is because Chimpy Jr. wanted to do Tony B. a political favor.

The Merlin has a crummy payload fraction, a high center of gravity, and the fuel tanks are in the wrong place.

And please tell us why or how a Merlin could be a lot quieter than an H-47.

[Jackonicko]

If you can ask that, you clearly haven't heard either helicopter, mate.

[MrBernoulli]

As far as I'm concerned, BAe can go scratch for scorpions. Buffoons think that the MoD is there to provide for their fecking pensions. About time someone, UAE or otherwise, told them to go swivel.

[Exrigger]

And there was me thinking that BAES are like Boeing, Airbus, Northrop Grumman, Lockheed Martin, Westlands and all those car manufacturers making and selling all their wares for the love of the job and are non profit making and all pay for their own pensions out of their own pockets, god am I embarrassed now :O.

[Jackonicko]

BAE have, on occasion f*cked up.

BAE have, on occasion, delivered aircraft with less than stellar capability, or aircraft that have been flawed by major problems.

But they have done so no more than Boeing, Lockmart, or any other manufacturer.

And yes, since they ceased to be a nationalised company they have existed to make profits and to maximise shareholder value, and not to serve the RAF (which was once a major driver). Since then, they've filled gaps between programmes by moving into support, which they provide on a basis that is driven by profit and short term interests (investors today aren't in it for the long haul).

It's been many years since BAE was the de facto industrial arm of the MoD, and in my view a degree of 'arm's length' distance and a slightly adversarial attitude is useful.

But BAE is not the great satan, and if you took the chance to visit the Typhoon line at Warton, and the design offices, you'd find that there are good, dedicated people who are dedicated to providing you blokes with the kit you need, who are enthusiasts for aviation and the UK military, and who go the extra mile if there's work to do on a UOR.

All this Bungling Baron Boris stuff is jolly amusing, but the blokes who work for BAE are among your more steadfast and loyal supporters among the tax-paying public (just as we specialist journos are), and include large numbers of ex-servicemen.

Unlike many Conservative Politicians, who talk the talk on defence, but who are not committed to the Forces, or defence spending, except as a political thing. But who seem to be able to do no wrong in many people's eyes here on PPRuNe.

[6Z3]

Tosh? You talk to me about Tosh?

[jindabyne]

Well trousered Jacko! I fail to understand (not difficult these days) the reasoning for remarks such as those made by Mr Bernoulli - especially as his profile and other posts suggest a greater level of intelligence and awareness. But then we are in a virtual crewroom I suppose.

[Brain Potter]

Chewing this one over in a bar, I was told by senior QFI colleague that Hawk 128 is a bit of a millstone around the neck of MFTS. It is a very expensive beast and was forced on the partner companies as a pre-condition. The operator's preference would be for the Aermacchi M311/M346 combination to provide the total FJ training solution. However, Sir Sydney Camm once said that aircraft have 4 dimensions - length, height, span and politics.

[PPRuNeUser0211]

Brain potter, I'm inclined to agree. I agree with Jacko that the hawk (especially the modern variety) is a fantastic bit of kit, and a good training platform. However..... it's not part of the training system that the bidders want to provide, so they're having to design around having the hawk, rather than starting from the ground up which is surely the preferable solution...

[6Z3]

My money too would have been on the M311/346 combo; but then again I might have been swayed if a better case were put forward by a competitor in a fair and balanced competition, and with the benefit of the wider Requirements picture. It is common knowledge that BAe made it clear that they would not have participated in a competition had the MoD elected to have one. Now there's confidence for you. There's also a mega corporate bully.
.
The MoD's well reasoned recommendation - to hold a fair and balanced competition - went in to the Cabinet, and the decision to ignore best practice and select H128 was the Cabinet's decision, completely against that advice. And it took the Dec(TA), IPT, Customer 2 and the whole FJ community by complete surprise. Thereafter UKMFTS were compelled to write the URD/SRD in conjunction with BAe in order to ensure that we didn't ask for more than the H128 could achieve. Barking, or what.
.
I'm not saying H128 isn't going to be a fine training platform; I'm saying we'll never know just how much better a competitor might have been over the period of UKMFTS (25 years). Well actually we will know, when other nations (like UAE perhaps) make their choices without the baggage of British politics.
.
Tosh? Maybe. But if you want to read some real tosh? Go back 5 posts and read #10 by someone who clearly writes with an agenda.

[WasNaeMe]

……..”But BAE is not the great satan, and if you took the chance to visit the Typhoon line at Warton, and the design offices, you'd find that there are good, dedicated people who are dedicated to providing you blokes with the kit you need, who are enthusiasts for aviation and the UK military, and who go the extra mile if there's work to do on a UOR.

All this Bungling Baron Boris stuff is jolly amusing, but the blokes who work for BAE are among your more steadfast and loyal supporters among the tax-paying public (just as we specialist journos are), and include large numbers of ex-servicemen.”……..

If one was to poll ‘T’Bungling Baron’ (to quote one learned colleague on here....) one would be surprised by the number of ex-servicemen employed by said employer. Is it the intention of persons ‘unknown’ to deny the employment of ‘ex servicemen’? Who fore would all you self confessed ‘experts’ suggest provides the ‘UK’ solution to UK military issues? Who awards the contracts?

[BEagle]

It wasn’t a happy time oop at ‘t werrks.....

“Seth”, bellowed ‘t Bungling Baron Waste o’ Space “what do ‘t little brown boogers in Derrbeye think they’re oop to? Buyin’ soom Eytie jet? Well, ah’ll go to ‘t foot o’ owerr sterrs”

This was, in fact, something of a rhetorical question. For, as Seth knew only too well, ‘t Baron’s offer of a ‘a nice little sweetenerr’ had fallen on deaf ears in the Gulf. Despite ‘t Baron’s protestations that his nice new Rolls was “Nowt to do wi ‘t Saudi TypHoons, tha’ knows”, it seemed that others were beginning to worry that ‘t Baron’s wealth was beginning to exceed that of his company.

Seth wisely declined to comment, lest his master’s foul temper worsened. Even Boogeroff, ‘t Baron’s ageing and flatulent whippet merely whimpered plaintively at the outburst, before loosing off an alphabet of vitamins concealed in a noxious cloud of barely digested ram’s testicle tart which he’d quietly stolen from ‘t Baron’s breakfast tray.

The Baron mused further about his recent trip to ‘t land o’sand an’ brass’, as he put it – and his meeting with the local Emir...

“Now Abdul, lad, have another pig pancreas pie an’ a nice drop of dandelion an’ burrdock an’ we’ll have another look at ‘t price”, he announced to the Emir.

“But, Baron, we wish to buy a modern aeroplane at a sensible price”, came the reply.

“Nay, nay, lad. Tha’ needs a well proven British design, tha’ knows. Didn’t old Mad Maggie tell thee as such?”

“Indeed, over a quarter of a century ago we bought such things as you say. What, pray, have you designed since then which is new?”

“Well, ‘t lads have coome oop wi’ a new nose ferr ‘t ‘awk. An’ soom nice new TVs in ‘t cockpit”

“But Baron, an old camel with a new saddle is still an old camel”, said the Emir.............

As indeed it truly is.

[Modern Elmo]

About the Merlin’s alleged lower noise and suitability for Search And Rescue missions: Here’s a comparison of disk loadings for SAR rotorcraft candidates:

http://www.aerospace-technology.com/projects/s92/specs.html

S-92

max. Gross Weight ( internal load ) – 11,862 kg
Rotor radius – 8.6 m



CH-47D-47E

http://www.army-technology.com/projects/chinook/specs.html (http://www.army-technology.com/projects/chinook/specs.html)


max. Gross Weight - 24,494 kg
rotor radius - 9.15 m ( each rotor )

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merlin_helicopter

Merlin HM1

Max. takeoff weight (?) – 15,600 kg
Rotor radius – 9.3 m

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V-22_Osprey#Specifications_.28MV-22B.29 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V-22_Osprey#Specifications_.28MV-22B.29)

MV-22B

Max. takeoff weight – 27,400 kg
Rotor radius – 5.8 m ( each rotor )

Let’s compare disk loadings:

S-92 – 51.1
Chinook - 46.4
Magical Mystery Merlin – 57.4
V-22 – 129.7

I suppose Merlin was designed with a smaller diameter rotor to facilitate shipbard operation. However, higher disk loading has its drawbacks:

Quoting from the sometimes reliable Wikipedia:

“Disk loading

Disk Loading is the pressure (weight force divided by disk area) maintained over the swept area of a helicopter's rotor. A heavy helicopter with short rotors will have more disk loading than a light helicopter with long rotors.”

Higher disk loading also implies more noise and higher velocity and pressure downwash in hover, 'cuz highly loaded rotors is probably turning at higher angular velocity to induce/transmit equivalent (air mass*velocity^2)/2 to a smaller diameter virtual column of air, compared to a helo. with lower disk loading – Elmo

P.S. What is Merlin’s disk r.p.m. when three engines are operating? Does anyone know?

[wokkameister]

Nice.
Don't really care what the Merlins RRPM is, but the Wokka's is 225RPM.

WM

[Gaiscioch]

‘Twas never a happy time where those from t’land of all things south were concerned, too busy bothering themselves wi’ Poofter Frogs & house prices to bother wi’ real isues methinks…

T’was surely not as was stated by noble squire Beagle…‘…a nice little sweetenerr’….???

T’was but destined fert first world market methinks……. Not ‘ter worry…. ‘Southern knobs who know nowt ‘bout werks ’’ll put us right cos they’ll know better, havin’ more knowledge & experience than us northerners.. After all the centre of aircraft design is in the Sou… Oops… erm I mean North … right?

Good’t see Mr Bernouli has a rational take on things….. Sooner you realise what t’real world is ’bout instead of what’s in your little imagination, sooner you’ll know what makes world go round lad….

As for ‘Seth’….One thing Northerners (Yorkies & Lancies) are renowned for… Is a realistic take on things…not the deluded ramblings of Southerner has-beens…

[Exrigger]

BAE can't win anyway which way it would seem, when they produce something it is allways late, rubbish, out of date and expensive. When the MOD buys it, it is because they are forced/blackmailed into buying the product because it is saving british jobs, when others overseas buy the products it is because they are provided with 'sweeteners', not because the product is any good, when they lose a sale it is because they did not give a 'sweetener' or a big enough one.

Again I must be thick but why would America in particular and all the other countries accept 'sweeteners' for buying out of date, expensive, late, inferior to American products, seems a bit of a paradox.

[x10ge]

No it wasnt a happy time and as long as we have the great 'consultants in AAR' giving us 'qualified' information on the training fleet then it never will.
Can you stick to your undoubtebtly excellent advice to blue jobs that want to convert the civvy fleet and leave the job of selling a training 'system' to the people that do it well. For goodness sake stop knocking the one British industry that we still have.
You obviously don't think much of the North but by my timing from EGVN to the home of the Hawk in a 'British Built VC10' is 21 minutes.
John (Redundancy obviously pending)

[BEagle]

Oh dear, some of 't clog and whippet lot seem reet proper blazin' at 't mention of 't Bungling Baron......

Brize Norton to Dunsfold, Surrey (home of the Hawk) is a lot less than 21 min. Tha' knows.

Now then, time terr see to 't pigeons, by 'eck.

[6Z3]

For goodness sake stop knocking the one British industry that we still have
.
I hope no one is under the mistaken illusion that:
't werrks is an all British industry (perhaps 60% of it ain't), or that

winning Hawk export orders necessarily saves jobs for British workers (the receiving country are more than likely to build them themselves under contract), or

choosing Hawk for MFTS over, say M346 necessarily saved more jobs for British workers at home (not if the 346 was built in the UK under contract).
.

[Exrigger]

Beagle you mentioned:


[“Well, ‘t lads have coome oop wi’ a new nose ferr ‘t ‘awk. An’ soom nice new TVs in ‘t cockpit” “But Baron, an old camel with a new saddle is still an old camel”, said the Emir............. As indeed it truly is.

I think you will find this analogy can be applied to the Chinook (1960’s technology, so old hat now), the F15E (1970’s technology, so old hat as well) to name but two. I do not hear any comments about these companies, who I am sure their management make money in exactly the same way as BAE, probably make more as well.

[Brain Potter]

If the government wish us to have a particular aircraft because it is in the national interest then so be it - they are elected to make those decisions. However, they also are increasingly expecting the defence budget to be run along commercial lines and are funding it accordingly. Therefore if this procurement is being made for political reasons, rather than commercial/defence reasons then the extra cost should be funded from outside the defence budget.

It is also a little irksome to see BAE Systems receiving contracts on this basis when they have happily sold-off all their inherited family silver - HS125, Airbus, Rover etc - without any thought for national interest.

Politics was just as big a factor in the procurement of the A400M - which some people around here are very quick to defend.

[knowitall]

"the receiving country are more than likely to build them themselves under contract"

i would suggest that the manufacture of the component parts involves far more work than the final assembley of the aircraft its self

[backseatjock]

Exrigger - interesting arguement until you consider that the US Department of Defense is BAE's biggest customer, accounting for just under 50% of the company's annual income.

Think you will find that same BAE is the biggest (by some margin) overseas supplier to the US armed forces. And the USN is the largest operator of Hawk, albeit a Boeing-built variant, specifically adapted for carrier operations.

Suggest it's not quite as black as the picture you and others paint.

[backseatjock]

knowitall - understand actual final assembly of a military aircraft is typically between 15-20% of the total work, although many assume it to be much higher.

[John Farley]

The Hawk was a remarkable step forward as an advanced trainer when it first appeared thanks to its airframe. The instructor could see, the handling was safe and straightforward and the engine and wing were extremely well matched. Indeed as the first swept wing with low induced drag it gave the old Hunter men a very hard time as they were not used to pulling high g for more than a turn or two before the speed dropped and they could take a breather. The Hawk’s 6g until you ran out of fuel was quite another matter.

The cockpit and equipment fit was gradually developed (indeed Warton did a better job at that than I believe Kingston would have done) and turned the later versions into excellent trainers. But now the wing aerodynamics cannot offer a lead in experience to high alpha types.

The FBW Yak-130 and M-346 allow high alpha training plus the Yak offers variable stability and airborne simulation of other service types. As such they seem to me to be real instructional tools for a modern QFI/QWI.

I am sad to say that the Hawk and FA2 wings are no longer up to tomorrow’s job – but not many designs that date from the 60s have done as well for so long. In fact probably none if one is honest.

[BEagle]

Indeed, John!

Not to mention that it was vastly safer for most AFTS students than the lovely Gnat (no STUPRECC-ing) - and a darn sight easier to maintain!

Although with its frankly appalling compass system (in pre-AHARS days) and greater fuel capacity, it had vastly greater potential for getting its pilots utterly lost in the wildest parts of Viet-Taff.

And WHY no offset-TACAN? What idiot allowed that....:mad:

[John Farley]

You are right of course BEagle and I did not go into details about the poor original T1 cockpit fit for many reasons. The Dunsfold pilots were mainly concerned to get ADD and fuel flowmeters fitted as the former allows a good instructor to teach everything about flying the wing and the flowmeter how and why we deal with jet engines the way we do.

Sadly neither was in the RAF spec because the OR staff of those days, who clearly had no grasp of angle of attack, said they learnt to fly properly without it and it was just a Dunsfold/Harrier fad that had no part to play in flying training. Since it was not in the spec we were forbidden to clutter up the cockpit with such stuff even if it was free.

[Captain Gadget]

BEags, JF

I did TWU at Chiv in 1983 when the fleet was mixed - I guess about a third of the jets had AHRS at that time. The training value conferred by this circumstance was beyond measure.

No, I am not referring to the level of skill that we all acquired in low level navigation with a compass that didn't work in turns (or at all, after you had done the first couple) - banging a six-inch nail into the coaming to use as a sundial, combined with even an RAF issue aircrew watch, would probably have made a better navigation aid!

I mean the equally valuable skill imparted to the abo pilots in 'negotiating' with the groundcrew for an AHRS jet! Much beer changed hands, to be sure.

Gadget :ok:

[BEagle]

Yes, pre-AHRS was a shock to those of us brought up on "Heading and time - and put yer map away, Bloggs!". Fortunately, Viet-Taff has plenty of unique features to use as landmarks, so we just used those instead of maps.

The Chipmunk had a better compass than the pre-AHRS Hawk. IIRC, to resunch the poxing thing you were supposed to press the mysterious orange button, then fly straight and level for a minute. Useful idea in a TWU jet, that!

Some Air Wheel once wrote "The deficiencies of the Hawk compass system were well know before the aircraft entered service"...:rolleyes:

So why wasn't it fixed before the Hawk entered service?

We had a visiting Israeli assessment team at Valley who said that they couldn't believe that an aircraft manufacturer could come up with something as useless as that awful compass system.

[John Farley]

So why wasn't it fixed before the Hawk entered service?


Hey BEags come on. You probably know the answer to that question better than most who post here.

I refuse to be drawn into more specifics about this issue than what follows - not because I am afraid of limiting my career (ha!) but just because I have better things to get on with today.

In those days there was something called GFE (Government furnished equipment) which was often specified by the customer as having to be fitted.

The T1 was a Hawker aeroplane (pre BAe) and the chaps in that org on a daily basis really did do their best for the user (not the customer) but sometimes they had no control over events.

A2E2 was the clearance to service authority not Hawkers.

Over the years many in A2E2 did not always agree what they were told to clear.

Neville Shute (who knew a thing or two about the aviation industry and life) had one of his characters (an RAE boffin) say that you could not maintain your professional integrity as an engineer in the aircraft business unless you had a private income.

I had a UK civilian (1 or 2 star) project director write to my company and formally complain that my job was to fly aeroplanes and not to publicly express views that went against his procurement policy over a bit of kit for the GR5 at his meeting in the US (would you believe that kit also told you which way the aircraft was pointed). Despite the subsequent unpleasantness I was much chuffed when on that occasion the technical case I made won the day. In those days technical merit did not always win out over political expediency.

[Double Zero]

Mr.Farley,

we all know what you say is spot-on as usual; the only bit which concerns me is " in those days " ! --- Has it got better then ??!!

I did think one word which ( unless I've missed it as usual ) was noticeably absent from the Hawk debate here is ' commonality ' - given that there's still a relatively large T1 fleet, and the 128 buy not that big.

Re. The variable stability training you mentioned, I suppose the lessons from the Astra Hawk project are too old technology now ?, or BAe just didn't feel like it...

I can't help thinking the civil serpents are hoping to get away without a future advanced trainer programme, as A, they reckon you can do anything with simulators, B, they keep hearing ' no more manned aircraft soon '...

[John Farley]

Andy

These days I don't think anybody would try and provide variable stability without starting with an aircraft that had FBW as its basic control system

As Stanley Hooker said many moons ago "We decided not to do a hydraulically controlled TV set."

JF

[Jackonicko]

JF,

(With due humility)

Is variable stability/specific type stimulation really all that useful and/or applicable to an advanced trainer? I can see some relevance to the 'one-frontline-type' air force, where its trainers could 'ape' the type that all students are going on to, if the potential problems can be overcome.

But if your students are likely to be 'output' to different types, how can you practically simulate all of those types? What are the implications for instructors and their currency - they'll be flying a Tornado one sortie, an F-16 the next, and all in a cockpit that gives few cues as to what it's simulating.

How can you easily and practically fly formations with students destined for different types?

If you can't fully simulate a given type, is it really helpful anyway? If you have a trainer with a centre stick, for example, is it worth accurately simulating the handling characteristics of an F-16?

Knowing the constraints and limitations applied to ops in the ASTRA Hawk and Varistab Basset, what are the airworthiness and certification implications of a reprogammable FCS?

I see a great deal of pressure from the users to be able to download more training from the OCU stage - but not from the 'type conversion' element of the course. There's an obvious need for IFF, radar emulation, etc, but I don't see much pressure for 'type simulation'.

The Hawk 128 (and the generation of 'awks that includes the Aussie, Bahraini, Indian and South African aircraft) seem to offer what you need for advanced training and some downloaded OCU type stuff.

Is supersonic performance really any more useful than the USAF have found it on the T-38 (its exploited for one sortie in the syllabus) and would high Alpha capabilities beyond those offered by the Hawk really be useful for the advanced training role?

[Double Zero]

John,

As usual a few simple words from you ( FBW etc in this example ) make me realize I knew the reason, but didn't KNOW I knew the reason !

Jackonicko makes a fair point I think about simulating types - I always wondered how a relatively fast jet pilot could be conviced he was handling a C-130 even if the control inputs are the same...Not sure which force steps from F-16's to Tornado's though, except in overseas tours.

No doubt it will all be done with holograms any day now.:rolleyes:

I quite fancy a hydraulic T.V. John, after all I have a literally brilliant wind-up torch !

Your mention of Neville Shute is very acute - there was a man who was a ( sensible ) dreamer and engineer / flyer - a rare mix but it ought to be required on some people's C.V's...

Andy

[John Farley]

Jacko

I was referring to VS in the context of teaching people to fly in the pure sense not the applied one.

Most of your remarks are related to the issues that surround conversion to type, currency and so on for which there is no substitute for using either the real aeroplane or a modern full mission simulator.

I had my QFI hat on where I have a student who only knows the type of handling he has experienced in his limited (one or two) types to date. Good ones wonder what it would be like to handle (not operate) a Hercules a VC10 a MiG-29 you name it. At present all they can experience is bar chat from those who may have relevant experience.

The difference in handling such types (from the pilot’s point of view) is down to a relatively small number of issues, weight (inertia), wing sweep (lift curve slope) stall characteristics (type of aerofoil/wing design and any vortex lift possibilities) plus aircraft response to throttle movement. In other words what you would notice in trying to fly each type for a few moments in straight and level, in a steep turn on landing approach and so on. VS offers the opportunity to patter all that and so both educate/motivate the stude as well as seeing if he is somebody who should be kept away from small twitchy types etc etc.

The issues you raised about airworthiness are certainly relevant to Astra Hawk (a hydraulically controlled TV set) but would not exist with a FBW design.

JF

[Jackonicko]

That's interesting, JF, though other TP types have expressed grave reservations about the certification/airworthiness requirements of the kind of software that would be required for a reprogrammable-in-the-air FCS, or for specific type simulation, which is what Aermacchi are pushing.

I like the sound of your LP 16 ('different types of handling'), and as a journo and an enthusiastic PPL that's the one I'd like to experience during my famil flight in the M-346 (after LL tailchases and aeros 2), though I can't help but wonder whether it would be, or needs to be, a core part of the syllabus.

[John Farley]

There could be a touch of semantics re the term 'reprogramable in the air'. I would not envisage that rather the QFI would 'select' a set programme. Not quite the same thing and something that is common and fundemental to any FBW type. For example there are aircraft out there today where putting out the the IFR probe changes the handling characteristics and one that I flew which does ditto when you select gear down.

[MDJETFAN]

Belatedly just noted an earlier comment that Koreans would have no scrupples while negotiating a purchase. I beg to differ. Some years ago, I sold some jetliners to a major Korean Airline. During the negotiations, they wouldn't even go to lunch with us and addressing each other was very formal. After the deal was signed, the jackets came off, we became bosom buddies and taken out for a traditional Korean meal to celebrate.

[GK430]

The contenders at DXB
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v156/Emirates/Z-GE.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v156/Emirates/Z-m.jpg

maybe not selling, but not outperformed:D
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v156/Emirates/Z-Reda.jpg

[jindabyne]

JF/Bgs

Interesting debate - Running Horse at 1800 on 6th Dec with others to discuss further?

[BEagle]

Sorry - shall be in Tchermany again!

M346 is the dog's whatsits, in my view - see the Flight International write up!