MFTS - 'Getting Sticky'
Not convinced about platforms.
Grob120 too much like a basic AC rather than an elementary one. Not relevent to the majority user. Pointless waste of money.
Not a ME dude but phenom too like a biz jet and not a trainer. Asymmetric training??
This is what happens when you let a bunch of business men with no military flying experience use their vast experience to design you a trg system.
Total hoop in my opinion.
Grob120 too much like a basic AC rather than an elementary one. Not relevent to the majority user. Pointless waste of money.
Not a ME dude but phenom too like a biz jet and not a trainer. Asymmetric training??
This is what happens when you let a bunch of business men with no military flying experience use their vast experience to design you a trg system.
Total hoop in my opinion.
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: uk
Posts: 57
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Poor choice of platforms!
Who owns the airframes? Mil or contractor?
Why buy from 3 different manufacturers?
Why not go T6 and B200 King Air for better value or Super Tuc and Phenom?
120TP - is basically a PPL cruiser with a turboprop, aero strakes allover it and winglets. Still has poor Grob Tutor like design issues like very wide canopy arches, only available in hard to see white scheme and given large wingspan will be bumpy at low level. Martin baker at Farnborough 2012 said it could not be flown with 2 up and fuel.
SF260 TP same engine more useable!
Indian AF prefered the PC7 for similar money to 120TP
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Europa
Posts: 612
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Argentina's G120TP - gear up
Just delivered and re-assembled locally:
Cost around 20 million Euros for 10 basic 120TPs (no EJ seats or glass cockpits):
http://sphotos-e.ak.fbcdn.net/hphoto...52098999_n.jpg
Note older G120 canopies with obscured rear view and large canopy frames - even more than G115e:
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?f...type=3&theater
Gear up ldg:
http://aeropuertocordoba. blog spot .com.ar/2013/09/incidente-de-grob-120tp-en-cordoba.html
Cost around 20 million Euros for 10 basic 120TPs (no EJ seats or glass cockpits):
http://sphotos-e.ak.fbcdn.net/hphoto...52098999_n.jpg
Note older G120 canopies with obscured rear view and large canopy frames - even more than G115e:
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?f...type=3&theater
Gear up ldg:
http://aeropuertocordoba. blog spot .com.ar/2013/09/incidente-de-grob-120tp-en-cordoba.html
Last edited by angelorange; 23rd Sep 2013 at 22:38.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Behind the wire.
Posts: 307
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Roland,
You can't compare the T6C with the PC21. It's like comparing a Hawk T1 with a T2. They are for all intents and purposes a different generation of AC.
They've made a calculated decision that the capabilities (and price) of the PC21 aren't required when we have the Hawk T2. There is an argument that the PC21 is so advanced that you can go straight onto an OCU after flying it. Which would rather render the whole of the Valley setup useless. There is a middle eastern airforce that is actually trying this route.
Personally I think the T6C fits nicely in the stream considering the end post is set so firmly in concrete (T2).
I don't know a lot about the 120 (I'll do some googling) but if the screenshots posted above are correct I think it's a half-arsed effort at a glass cockpit. Is it really retractable and a turboprop??? For an EFT AC.... are you serious? WTF. You don't need performance at EFT. This will just lead to us crashing a fair few.
Ps. Beagle your comment above couldn't be more spot on. But why break a habit of a lifetime and actually ask those in the know at the coal face.
You can't compare the T6C with the PC21. It's like comparing a Hawk T1 with a T2. They are for all intents and purposes a different generation of AC.
They've made a calculated decision that the capabilities (and price) of the PC21 aren't required when we have the Hawk T2. There is an argument that the PC21 is so advanced that you can go straight onto an OCU after flying it. Which would rather render the whole of the Valley setup useless. There is a middle eastern airforce that is actually trying this route.
Personally I think the T6C fits nicely in the stream considering the end post is set so firmly in concrete (T2).
I don't know a lot about the 120 (I'll do some googling) but if the screenshots posted above are correct I think it's a half-arsed effort at a glass cockpit. Is it really retractable and a turboprop??? For an EFT AC.... are you serious? WTF. You don't need performance at EFT. This will just lead to us crashing a fair few.
Ps. Beagle your comment above couldn't be more spot on. But why break a habit of a lifetime and actually ask those in the know at the coal face.
HE
I seem to remember reading an air test report in Flight on the G120 which seemed pretty positive. Then again, as someone mentioned to me recently, "if it looks right, it will fly right" - there is something awkward looking with all those extra bits around the tail. Only time will tell.
As for:
A few years ago I did EFT on the JP3 - seemed to work pretty well back then and I don't remember there being that many crashes.
I seem to remember reading an air test report in Flight on the G120 which seemed pretty positive. Then again, as someone mentioned to me recently, "if it looks right, it will fly right" - there is something awkward looking with all those extra bits around the tail. Only time will tell.
As for:
For an EFT AC.... are you serious? WTF. You don't need performance at EFT. This will just lead to us crashing a fair few.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: at home
Posts: 412
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Helicopters under MFTS?
Anybody have any news on replacement for squirrel and griffin at DHFS? It's getting a bit adjacent to the end of the present contract. Or is DHFS continuing with what it has?
Are there any issues with a prospective Hercules or Atlas jockey not handling a prop type between elementary training and OCU? (Not being a pilot myself)
Last edited by Davef68; 27th Sep 2013 at 16:58.
Df68,
Look at it another way; most ME ac don't need to bother with Low Level or Stores dropping. Why not have an ME trainer that can teach jet, glass cockpit handling and leave all that pesky LL/Para/Tier3+ trg to the prop boys on the frontline?
Cynically I would suggest that it just forces the frontline types to take on more of a trg burden whilst the MFTS contract provides the barest of essentials.
Look at it another way; most ME ac don't need to bother with Low Level or Stores dropping. Why not have an ME trainer that can teach jet, glass cockpit handling and leave all that pesky LL/Para/Tier3+ trg to the prop boys on the frontline?
Cynically I would suggest that it just forces the frontline types to take on more of a trg burden whilst the MFTS contract provides the barest of essentials.
5F6B
They do at present, but not under the MFTS proposal where they are apparently proposing to use a small business jet. I'm beginning to wonder if the MFTS team actually have any ME pilots on their team!!
SVK
Given the size of our future ME aircraft fleets, one could say that the majority of ME pilots through training will need to be able to do low level. C130, and A400 will be the largest two ME fleets. And doing low level in the Phenom is going to be..... interesting!
They do at present, but not under the MFTS proposal where they are apparently proposing to use a small business jet. I'm beginning to wonder if the MFTS team actually have any ME pilots on their team!!
SVK
Given the size of our future ME aircraft fleets, one could say that the majority of ME pilots through training will need to be able to do low level. C130, and A400 will be the largest two ME fleets. And doing low level in the Phenom is going to be..... interesting!
Gentleman Aviator
Anybody have any news on replacement for squirrel and griffin at DHFS? It's getting a bit adjacent to the end of the present contract. Or is DHFS continuing with what it has?
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've been told that Director of Flying Training, plus the head of Ascent and a civil servant associated with MFTS are visiting 4 Sqn to to explain UKMFTS and the role of 4 Sqn within the construct post the Sqn instructor reset period.
Makes me wish I was still at Valley
Makes me wish I was still at Valley
I understood (3rd hand, admittedly; been a while since I was at Valley) that they called a halt to student flying in order to qualify and requalify all their instructors, so that they actually had enough ACLs/bounces/IREs/etc to handle what they required.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,892
Received 2,830 Likes
on
1,208 Posts
Surprised at the Phenom, we have a couple based here and they are tiny inside and do not exactly have a feeling of solidity about them.
Considering they have operated the 125 sucessfully before you would have thought new build or secondhand late models such as the 800 would be better. Built like brick sh*thouse and last.
Still think for single seat small aerobatic trainer with piston turboprop choice and retracts it has to be the SF260.
Considering they have operated the 125 sucessfully before you would have thought new build or secondhand late models such as the 800 would be better. Built like brick sh*thouse and last.
Still think for single seat small aerobatic trainer with piston turboprop choice and retracts it has to be the SF260.
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: France
Age: 34
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
5 forward 6 back is absolutely correct. Student flying was stopped (on paper) to allow the staff to be trained. Morale amongst mates training on the sqn has been hit hard.