PDA

View Full Version : New British jet trainer design revealed


NorthernKestrel
15th Jun 2015, 13:27
Royal Aeronautical Society | Insight Blog | Paris Air Show - Day Zero (http://aerosociety.com/News/Insight-Blog/3197/Paris-Air-Show-Day-Zero)


Good to see an innovative military aircraft design from a UK design team!


http://aerosociety.com/Assets/Images/Insight%20Blog/Paris%20Air%20Show%2015%20Day%20Zero/DART%20%20jet%20reds.jpg

Wander00
15th Jun 2015, 13:40
Interesting concept - I wish them well, but can almost feel the heel of the big operators grinding already

charliegolf
15th Jun 2015, 14:52
Ah the new AlphaHawk!

Bob Viking
15th Jun 2015, 15:28
I'd fly it. Given the right price of course.

BV:ok:

sandiego89
15th Jun 2015, 16:11
Finally the team aim to reduce costs and development time by partnering with non-aerospace companies such as Formula One teams

Hopefully they are carefull about which F1 teams they talk to- some F1 teams burn some serious money.

.....saving development costs ......'mix and match' airframes with 90% commonality

Hmmm, have I heard that one before? ....can't put my finger on it......:E

Seriously, like Wander, I wish them well. Perhaps a LIFT type aircraft is a good candidate for plug and play airframe with interchageable engines and wings, and a lean development process, is way overdue, but I always wonder if these "better, faster, cheaper" start ups can ever deliver, or be given the chance to try?

I would like to see more fly offs, and some start ups given a chance. More money up front, but could lead to savings down the line.

Cazalet33
15th Jun 2015, 16:19
The AAR training probe location requires a rear-view mirror for the Instructor.

"Left a bit, Hoskins. No! Your other left, you clot!"

Haraka
15th Jun 2015, 16:29
Ah the new AlphaHawk!
And add a bit of S. 211!

Martin the Martian
16th Jun 2015, 12:10
And a bit of Pampa as well.

As good as the Hawk is, and I think it has set the standard for AJTs for many years, it is looking pedestrian when compared to the M.346/Yak-130 and T-50. While the latest variants can adequately do the job, I still wonder why BAES did not start to look at a new design 10-15 years ago when it was clear that the RAF would need to replace the T.1. After all, it is how Hawker Siddeley were perfectly placed back in the early 1970s when the subject of a Gnat replacement came up, because they were well into designing something ideal for the task.

Yeah, I know; BAES don't seem particularly interested in designing new aircraft.

Courtney Mil
16th Jun 2015, 15:52
Re the thread title, is it a design or a concept just now?

CoffmanStarter
16th Jun 2015, 16:10
Courtney ... Looks like a 'concept' at this stage ;)

Dart Jet | A Modular Jet Trainer for the 21st Century (http://dartmodular.com)

Outline spec here ...

DART Basic Trainer | Dart Jet (http://dartmodular.com/basic-trainer-version/)

Rosevidney1
16th Jun 2015, 18:42
Do we need a Tucano replacement? I'd have thought they have ample life remaining - unless somebody knows better.

Bob Viking
16th Jun 2015, 18:50
They are already being replaced. The T6 II will be in service in the next few years.

The Tucano's lack of immersion suit suitability may have, indirectly, helped to sound the death knell!

BV:eek:

Wander00
16th Jun 2015, 19:09
BV - are you implying that requirement was not written into the spec for the Tucano. Amazing!

Bob Viking
16th Jun 2015, 23:08
I'm not a Tucano expert so I couldn't possibly comment.

BV:E

Wander00
17th Jun 2015, 08:01
I know, and if you told me you would then have to kill me............

papabravowhiskey
17th Jun 2015, 09:20
They are already being replaced. The T6 II will be in service in the next few years.

The Tucano's lack of immersion suit suitability may have, indirectly, helped to sound the death knell!

BV:eek:
Please excuse what may be a stupid question, but is the MoD replacing the Tucano with what is basically the aircraft that "lost" the competition to the Tucano (ie the PC-9)? I seem to recall at the time that the Pilatus was said to be the preferred choice of the RAF: was this really true or just BAe propaganda?

PBW

Martin the Martian
17th Jun 2015, 09:47
The popular story, as I've always heard it, is that the PC-9 was the preferred military option, but as the Tucano was to have been built in Belfast it was the preferred political option. Jobs came to Belfast and so too did the opportunities for the IRA to bomb the production line, and at least one Tucano was destroyed at the factory.

The T-6 is a totally different aircraft to the PC-9; think Harrier II to tin wing Harrier.

Fox3WheresMyBanana
17th Jun 2015, 09:54
I was at Leeming when CFS did the fly-off. They recommended the PC-9. I recall one of the instructors telling me that they had to do a re-fly-off, as they hadn't given the 'right answer' (Tucano) the first time, but that they weren't going to change their minds. They had to pretend the Tucano would have a bunch of upgrades for the refly-off, whilst one of the main requirements was Proven Technology. A farce.
I have no objection to the politicians deciding on one option over another for 'big picture' reasons, but Government spending is in the mess it's in because they refuse to admit true reasons and lie about it.

BEagle
17th Jun 2015, 11:12
Didn't BWoS also propose a turbofan JP replacement, which all the QFIs favoured?

There wasn't a hope in hell of the B-N Fircracker or the paper Australian design winning, so it was a straight contest between the PC9 and the Tucano. Not that 'straight' though, as the Tucano need lots of modification and was always going to win due to the Thatcher government's decision to build the things in Belfast.

When they first flew to Scampton, they had to be parked at a remote spot until it was certain that 'the boyos' hadn't left a little gift inside...:\

I did hear that they'd found someone's sandwiches in one of them - and that build quality was somewhat variable.

Fortissimo
17th Jun 2015, 12:55
Beags, BWoS did indeed propose a turbofan replacement but I don't think all the QFIs were on-side. The problem with the BWoS proposal was (I believe) that they had employed a geriatric 2* ex-QFI to advise, hence the decision on side-by-side seating. Worse than that was an attitude to performance that is best summarised as "modern engines are twice as efficient as the old ones, so we have been able to take out half the fuel and you will still get an hour out of it!"

PC-9 was a clear winner in the fly-off but then it did not have the Belfast connection, nor was there a desire to reward Switzerland for all its support during the Falklands campaign.

Build quality on the initial Tucano deliveries reflected a decision to re-employ some dockyard mateys who were checked out on building ships and therefore available for work. Apparently, if you can weld and rivet steel plates, you can do aircraft work as well. I heard from one of the engineers about wiring looms that had been closed off with insulating tape, dropped rivets painted to the fuselage floor, missing fasteners etc. The first ac was in a hangar for a long time while a CWP fixed 75+ major faults.

There was a lovely story doing the rounds at the time about the S/L project officer (Ian W*rm**d), who was apparently thrown out of a meeting by the AOC for his response to a question about what the new aircraft should be called, as 'Tucano' was a bit too Latin for some. "Sir, what about calling it the PC-9? " :D

Trumpet_trousers
17th Jun 2015, 13:36
Build quality on the initial Tucano deliveries reflected a decision to re-employ some dockyard mateys who were checked out on building ships and therefore available for work. Apparently, if you can weld and rivet steel plates, you can do aircraft work as well.
There was the (apocryphal?) story of the seats being unable to be removed for servicing too, as the top of the cockpit fuselage was too narrow to get them out, which begged the question of how they were installed initially :confused:

VX275
17th Jun 2015, 14:04
When I arrived at Boscombe Down in 87 it was said that the techies apparently loved the Tucano - for all the overtime it gave them. It was also said that a Turnround servicing required the rear seat to be removed to allow access to some piece of kit located beneath it.
To be fair to the Tucano it must have one of the lowest loss rates for any RAF trainer.

andyy
17th Jun 2015, 15:23
I appreciate that the Tucano is now 20+ years old but given the numbers we have, and the required numbers in the future, is it actually necessary to replace the Tucano?

Naive question, maybe, but I just dont know how worn out they are and whether it would have been cheaper to gift them to MFTS for use until they can be demonstrated as being not fit for purpose.

BEagle
17th Jun 2015, 15:26
Trumpet_trousers wrote: There was the (apocryphal?) story of the seats being unable to be removed for servicing too, as the top of the cockpit fuselage was too narrow to get them out, which begged the question of how they were installed initially :confused:

I'd heard that too. I presume they used some form of spreading tool such as a sash cramp working in reverse, plus an FBA adjustment?

Heathrow Harry
17th Jun 2015, 15:27
"It was also said that a Turnround servicing required the rear seat to be removed to allow access to some piece of kit located beneath it."

sounds like an MG.........................

Haraka
17th Jun 2015, 16:04
The early days of the Jet Provost threw up an interesting anomaly.

1.Final action on replacing the ejection seat was mandated as to " carry out a full loose article check".


2.First action in carrying out a full loose article check .


" Remove the ejection seat".

Bob Viking
17th Jun 2015, 16:32
Bearing in mind where Ascent plan to base BFJT the fact that I alluded to earlier may have played a major part in the decision making process. Unless we just made it a May-Nov operation?!

Also the Tucanos as they currently are can hardly be said to be a 21st century training platform. They would need at least a cockpit upgrade to look the part. I'm not saying the T6 is exactly an X-Wing fighter but it is at least a little more modern. Whether the planned quantity will be enough remains to be seen!

BV:ooh:

andyy
17th Jun 2015, 16:49
Thanks for the reply BV

Plastic Bonsai
17th Jun 2015, 22:38
In my youth I worked on the AST412 project at Brough. We started out with the the P164 - side by side (well if you ask JP QFIs what they would replace a JP with) high wing, and very short. Unusually a tunnel model was made and tested and the drag was pretty awful - even after they eventually corrected for the tares. About the only useful thing I learnt from it was the drag hole effect on the tailplane and the fin - it's fuselage drag was that bad.

Finally someone saw sense and some more elegant mini Hawks were drawn but never tested. From the outset we were trying to keep the speed up to avoid the transition to Hawk speeds being too much, hence the initial designs were jets. The economy of turboprops came to the fore and we then drew aircraft not unlike the PC-9.

The PC-9 and Tucano flew in for evaluation, the Tucano clearly displayed it's Piper origins and we realized it would need an awful lot of rework structurally and a bigger engine to get a useful level speed whereas the PC-9 sold itself by taking off in about the length of the piano keys and went straight into a vertical 8.

We even had help. Looking at the fatigue requirements we wondered what sort of loadings occurred in tail chases. A quick call to a nearby base and our PC-9 met up with a JP and flew a full sortie tail chasing, performed half an hour of aerobatics over the airfield whilst the JP landed and refueled and then a second sortie with the gloves off.

When the winner was announced we were all stunned.

A couple of years later we hosted 20 Saudi PC-9s for training and delivery (they let us stick the transfers on them) that went and beat up a Tucano-less Scampton on the day they were handed over.

I know t' Baron and his minions come in for a lot of stick but some of us really wanted our Armed Forces to have the best kit bought in or even designed by ourselves.

Silly us.

carlrsymington
17th Jun 2015, 23:14
It must have been around summer 1983 & when I was at Palace Barrack's gates in Holywood,NI. (It involved sausages, burgers etc & I suspect most of the British Army in NI ate them at some point in their time here).

I heard an unusual aircraft engine noise, looked up too see what I now know to be an Embraer Xingu & a Tucano landing. :mad:

Strangely, I never seen a single production model over Belfast.

I think they made the right decision to build them in the UK.


Carl

RUCAWO
18th Jun 2015, 06:35
83-90 I was stationed in Holywood mostly on VIP security duties , watched the Tucanos virtually evey day, on day one was used as a chase plane for a short haul flight going into city with undercarriage problems , also saw the Kenyan ? ones with weapons fitted going out to play occasionally . Remember Alan Deacon being drowned in the North Channel following his ejection ,I believe he was doing stores jettison tests when one of them hit the tail-plane causing the aircraft to go out of control.

Buster Hyman
18th Jun 2015, 06:57
"Dart trainer eh? How fast does it go?"
"One Hundred and Eighty...."

:ugh: *Sorry.

Willard Whyte
18th Jun 2015, 14:43
83-90 I was stationed in Holywood

"Bloody L, you lucky get" I thought when I first read that.

sandiego89
18th Jun 2015, 14:55
Trumpet_trousers wrote: Quote:
There was the (apocryphal?) story of the seats being unable to be removed for servicing too, as the top of the cockpit fuselage was too narrow to get them out, which begged the question of how they were installed initially :confused:
Beagle: I'd heard that too. I presume they used some form of spreading tool such as a sash cramp working in reverse, plus an FBA adjustment? 17th Jun 2015 13:23

Must be one of those stories that grows over time, as the best stories usually have some level of truth- perhaps difficult to remove, but surely they can be removed- and the yellow and black handle has "removed" the seat on occasion, so obvioulsy the seat can fit between the frame. "Elbows In!" :eek: