RAF Alpha Jet
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: England
Posts: 165
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RAF Alpha Jet
What have we got one of these for then?
http://www.airliners.net/open.file?id=801749
...and how do I make a link work!
http://www.airliners.net/open.file?id=801749
...and how do I make a link work!
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Not too sure but it's damn cold
Posts: 179
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well as the truths come out at last I can reveal that.....
It's used as a chase aircraft for the hypersonic pulse jet stealth wonderbug out of Macrihanish, sorry Cambletown, every second Tuesday of months ending in a Y.
It's used as a chase aircraft for the hypersonic pulse jet stealth wonderbug out of Macrihanish, sorry Cambletown, every second Tuesday of months ending in a Y.
FOMere2eternity,
You haven't!
They are owned and operated by QinetiQ at MOD Boscombe Down. Originally purchased by what was then DERA, previously DRA, previously A and AEE when the RAF had a shortage of Hawk aircraft and needed to take back most of the fleet operated on trials etc to support the training fleet. Second hand Alphajets were FAR FAR cheaper than new Hawks and there were no secondhand Hawks around.
You haven't!
They are owned and operated by QinetiQ at MOD Boscombe Down. Originally purchased by what was then DERA, previously DRA, previously A and AEE when the RAF had a shortage of Hawk aircraft and needed to take back most of the fleet operated on trials etc to support the training fleet. Second hand Alphajets were FAR FAR cheaper than new Hawks and there were no secondhand Hawks around.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: England
Posts: 165
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
arty,
I'm not sure if a one-word answer would be sufficient for the original question; "What have we got one of these for then?" - response: Macrihanish [sic].
Your subsequent reply, mysteriously in brackets, should also include both a question mark and a full stop at different points.
If you want to tangle, field the first team eh?
I'm not sure if a one-word answer would be sufficient for the original question; "What have we got one of these for then?" - response: Macrihanish [sic].
Your subsequent reply, mysteriously in brackets, should also include both a question mark and a full stop at different points.
If you want to tangle, field the first team eh?
Last edited by FOMere2eternity; 24th Mar 2005 at 13:26.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: The front end and about 50ft up
Posts: 510
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I thought we had two, and that they were part of Boscombe Down wierdness. However, this website implies that we have 10 with Aircraft Test & Evaluation Sector (?) and ETPS at Boscombe, and 2 at Llanbedr, which I thought had closed. As they're on the RAF register, I'm sure some spottery website will list the individual aircraft.
I was bounced by two of these bstds at low level about a year ago, one tight down each side of the wokka at 50ft+not much.
ps I think they're kept in the same hangar as the crashed UFOs
Stout
I was bounced by two of these bstds at low level about a year ago, one tight down each side of the wokka at 50ft+not much.
ps I think they're kept in the same hangar as the crashed UFOs
Stout
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: England
Posts: 165
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pink & Pr00ne
I suspected so but hadn't seen them(?) before. At one stage it reminded me of the prize aircraft from WW2 and the Falklands - clearly Johnny Foreigner's work but wearing our roundels!
I suspected so but hadn't seen them(?) before. At one stage it reminded me of the prize aircraft from WW2 and the Falklands - clearly Johnny Foreigner's work but wearing our roundels!
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: 51N
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I believe that Qinetiq bought 12 aircraft from the GAF but only ever planned to fly 6 with the other 6 being 'spares'. The plan was that 2 would do the Jindivik chase etc at Llanbedr and 2 would be instrumented for ETPS and 2 would be CT assets for FJTS at Boscombe. Apparently ETPS needed more Hawks as the one they had was knackered and the RAF didn't have any spare, they were offered some ex BAES Hawk Mk57s export aircraft, but they were v expensive by comparison. Apparently spinning an Alpha Jet is one of the weirdest rides imaginable and that is why ETPS want to fly them.
I have heard that they are a better aircraft that the Hawk and spank it in ACT every time, can go further, can carry drop tanks, have a HUD and basic INS - so why are we training the future pilots of the RAF on a steam driven 70s Hawk? Maybe the RAF should have bought them for TWU or whatever it is called these days!
I have heard that they are a better aircraft that the Hawk and spank it in ACT every time, can go further, can carry drop tanks, have a HUD and basic INS - so why are we training the future pilots of the RAF on a steam driven 70s Hawk? Maybe the RAF should have bought them for TWU or whatever it is called these days!
To answer a few questions and add a little more detail on the QinetiQ Alpha Jets and Boscombe Down aircraft:
The PA31 is used as a comms aircraft to ferry test teams to and from off base meetings and trials. The Harvard, as has already been mentioned, is used as a photocase aircraft for parachute trials by the C-130, and by ETPS to demonstrate the stalling and lateral-directional flying qualities of a 60 year old aircraft that has a moderately large radial engine. Also, many of the ETPS students have never flown a taildragger so it exposes them to real flying!
Soiled Glove has raised some interesting points but is a little off track on some aspects. In the late '90s ETPS needed some more airframes to supplement its fleet, Fast Jet Test Squadron at Boscombe Down needed some more aircraft for continuation traning and Llanbedr needed some aircraft for chase. DERA evaluated several options and chose to buy some ex-GAF Alpha Jets to fill these requirements. ETPS did not specifically acquire the Alpha Jet because of its spin characteristics. In fact, the GAF Alpha Jets were not cleared for spinning in service as it was not a requirement for the close air support role in which they were used. Currently, there is not a spinning clearance for the QinetiQ Alpha Jets although there is a project underway to clear the ETPS aircraft to spin. The FAF Alpha Jets are very similar and are cleared for spinning. They have basically 3 spin modes. The normal erect mode is moderately oscillatory as would be expected for an aircraft with such a mass distribution. However, it can then be driven into a flat spin mode with an "eyeballs out" longitudinal acceleration of up to 3g. This is the really fun mode and I know of no other swept wing jet that is cleared to be put into a flat spin intentionally. The third spin mode is an inverted spin which is reasonably conventional for this type of aircraft. Overall, the Hunter was a more interesting aircraft to spin than the Alpha Jet except for the flat spin mode.
The Alpha Jet is definitely superior to the Hawk T1 in ACT. It has much better sustained turn performance, better unloaded acceleration, better roll performance, and better instantaneous turn at less than about 400 KIAS. You can comfortably loop it from 250 KIAS (280 KIAS is a sensible minimum in ACT in the Hawk). You should only lose in the Alpha Jet when fighting a Hawk 1v1 if you lose tally (have done that!) or inadvertently selected the speedbrakes out (my one Hawk "guns" against an Alpha Jet!). However, the Alpha Jet has a 6g limit (the Hawk is 8g) with a corner speed of approximately 300 KIAS; it is easy to overstress and you always try to drag the fight below 300 KIAS as soon as possible. Also, the Alpha Jet may depart if, at high AoA, you make large, coarse lateral control inputs without rudder co-ordination. If you depart with fuel in the internal wing tanks (i.e. during the first half of the sortie) you will probably cause structural damage as the wings tanks do not have baffles and are an integral part of the wing; you cannot intentionally stall (or spin in FAF aircraft) until the wing tanks are empty. Any departure above 230 KIAS is liable to cause other structural limits to be exceeded also. Compare all of this to the Hawk T1 which is very departure resistant with no concerns regarding speed or fuel weight.
The GAF Alpha Jets do not have an INS. The navigation system uses a doppler radar and the HUD is fed by an AHRS blended with AoA to give climb/dive angles. These are typically in error by 1 degree and may be as much as 2 degrees which, with 1:1 gearing makes the HUD totally unrepresentative of the front line aircraft and is very disorientating in cloud or at night. Most pilots who fly these Alpha Jets ignore the HUD completely. These aircraft also have no ILS and all of the instruments are electro-mechanical. My view is that these Alpha Jets have no real advantages for RAF weapons training over the Hawk T Mk 1A. An aircraft such as the Hawk 128 is what is needed.
I hope that this clears up a few points. And overall, these Alpha Jets are great fun to fly!
The PA31 is used as a comms aircraft to ferry test teams to and from off base meetings and trials. The Harvard, as has already been mentioned, is used as a photocase aircraft for parachute trials by the C-130, and by ETPS to demonstrate the stalling and lateral-directional flying qualities of a 60 year old aircraft that has a moderately large radial engine. Also, many of the ETPS students have never flown a taildragger so it exposes them to real flying!
Soiled Glove has raised some interesting points but is a little off track on some aspects. In the late '90s ETPS needed some more airframes to supplement its fleet, Fast Jet Test Squadron at Boscombe Down needed some more aircraft for continuation traning and Llanbedr needed some aircraft for chase. DERA evaluated several options and chose to buy some ex-GAF Alpha Jets to fill these requirements. ETPS did not specifically acquire the Alpha Jet because of its spin characteristics. In fact, the GAF Alpha Jets were not cleared for spinning in service as it was not a requirement for the close air support role in which they were used. Currently, there is not a spinning clearance for the QinetiQ Alpha Jets although there is a project underway to clear the ETPS aircraft to spin. The FAF Alpha Jets are very similar and are cleared for spinning. They have basically 3 spin modes. The normal erect mode is moderately oscillatory as would be expected for an aircraft with such a mass distribution. However, it can then be driven into a flat spin mode with an "eyeballs out" longitudinal acceleration of up to 3g. This is the really fun mode and I know of no other swept wing jet that is cleared to be put into a flat spin intentionally. The third spin mode is an inverted spin which is reasonably conventional for this type of aircraft. Overall, the Hunter was a more interesting aircraft to spin than the Alpha Jet except for the flat spin mode.
The Alpha Jet is definitely superior to the Hawk T1 in ACT. It has much better sustained turn performance, better unloaded acceleration, better roll performance, and better instantaneous turn at less than about 400 KIAS. You can comfortably loop it from 250 KIAS (280 KIAS is a sensible minimum in ACT in the Hawk). You should only lose in the Alpha Jet when fighting a Hawk 1v1 if you lose tally (have done that!) or inadvertently selected the speedbrakes out (my one Hawk "guns" against an Alpha Jet!). However, the Alpha Jet has a 6g limit (the Hawk is 8g) with a corner speed of approximately 300 KIAS; it is easy to overstress and you always try to drag the fight below 300 KIAS as soon as possible. Also, the Alpha Jet may depart if, at high AoA, you make large, coarse lateral control inputs without rudder co-ordination. If you depart with fuel in the internal wing tanks (i.e. during the first half of the sortie) you will probably cause structural damage as the wings tanks do not have baffles and are an integral part of the wing; you cannot intentionally stall (or spin in FAF aircraft) until the wing tanks are empty. Any departure above 230 KIAS is liable to cause other structural limits to be exceeded also. Compare all of this to the Hawk T1 which is very departure resistant with no concerns regarding speed or fuel weight.
The GAF Alpha Jets do not have an INS. The navigation system uses a doppler radar and the HUD is fed by an AHRS blended with AoA to give climb/dive angles. These are typically in error by 1 degree and may be as much as 2 degrees which, with 1:1 gearing makes the HUD totally unrepresentative of the front line aircraft and is very disorientating in cloud or at night. Most pilots who fly these Alpha Jets ignore the HUD completely. These aircraft also have no ILS and all of the instruments are electro-mechanical. My view is that these Alpha Jets have no real advantages for RAF weapons training over the Hawk T Mk 1A. An aircraft such as the Hawk 128 is what is needed.
I hope that this clears up a few points. And overall, these Alpha Jets are great fun to fly!
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: France
Age: 73
Posts: 228
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have heard that they are a better aircraft that the Hawk and spank it in ACT every time, can go further, can carry drop tanks, have a HUD and basic INS - so why are we training the future pilots of the RAF on a steam driven 70s Hawk? Maybe the RAF should have bought them for TWU or whatever it is called these days!
Allthough they have same weight and thrust, they are slightly different, the Alpha jet having a thicker wing can easily outmanouver a Hawk especialy at high level, but it can't as the hawk carry Sidewinder missiles...
I loved both aicraft, but really had the best time flying Hawks out of Chivenor... it was just great.
