Junglie Merlins
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: In England
Posts: 371
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The ability of any upgrade to achieve sufficent payload to meet the key lift requirements for 3 Cdo Bde is clearly essential to the credibility of the Merlin in achieving the task...as several of the previous messages have stated.
There are significant limits to how much extra power/lift can be provided in the present design - and these too are not going to be without some signifcant cost of ownership issues being raised..We have discussed the "dead" weight of the 3rd engine before, but more critically in this context are the limitations associated with the MRGB design, and the tail rotor stresses and authority.
In short, in the earliest designs of 101 as originally conceived by Westland alone, it was to have an advanced composite MRGB design which would have provided more than ample power capacity, and for "future proofing" given the accepted wisdom that op lift demand suffers annual inflation particulary if real ops are a regular part of the equation. The final MRGB design chosen was a result of Agusta having to have it as their part of the 50/50 workshare balance required and to cap programme costs...and a very conventional design was chosen with more limited capacity for development and torque/power capacity increases.
In the end the whole Advanced Engineering Gearbox (AEG) design was binned by Westland (also as a result of MoD's cancellation of the concurent W30-404 programme which was conceived to use it too) as the money and sponsorship dried up...great shame for them and UK plc.
Tail rotor stress and power issues have been with the 101 from Day 1, and despite cost efficient enhancements to deliver both safe and effective performance, and fatigue control, this issue also remains to inhibit just how much can be done to increase MAUW and associated performance and maneouverability. The Mk2 will gain in the short term as its APS weight is about to reduce following the MCSP misson system and cockpit integration, but the Mk3 (Mk4?) is going the other way particularly when you translate this into the more demanding wind over deck/SHOL issues associated with regular maritime ops (at the higher AUMs)...and one can see that achieving an effective release will be at the very least, demanding, relatively expensive, and may in the end not meet all the Cdo Bde's lift expectations.
The alternative, if really substantial development and performance improvement is to be made, is a return to the AEG and a new tail rotor design (actually an old one but never incorporated due to previous budget limits)...Will this ever happen given the very large cost associated with these modifcations..certainly not in the present financial environment....so here we go.
There are significant limits to how much extra power/lift can be provided in the present design - and these too are not going to be without some signifcant cost of ownership issues being raised..We have discussed the "dead" weight of the 3rd engine before, but more critically in this context are the limitations associated with the MRGB design, and the tail rotor stresses and authority.
In short, in the earliest designs of 101 as originally conceived by Westland alone, it was to have an advanced composite MRGB design which would have provided more than ample power capacity, and for "future proofing" given the accepted wisdom that op lift demand suffers annual inflation particulary if real ops are a regular part of the equation. The final MRGB design chosen was a result of Agusta having to have it as their part of the 50/50 workshare balance required and to cap programme costs...and a very conventional design was chosen with more limited capacity for development and torque/power capacity increases.
In the end the whole Advanced Engineering Gearbox (AEG) design was binned by Westland (also as a result of MoD's cancellation of the concurent W30-404 programme which was conceived to use it too) as the money and sponsorship dried up...great shame for them and UK plc.
Tail rotor stress and power issues have been with the 101 from Day 1, and despite cost efficient enhancements to deliver both safe and effective performance, and fatigue control, this issue also remains to inhibit just how much can be done to increase MAUW and associated performance and maneouverability. The Mk2 will gain in the short term as its APS weight is about to reduce following the MCSP misson system and cockpit integration, but the Mk3 (Mk4?) is going the other way particularly when you translate this into the more demanding wind over deck/SHOL issues associated with regular maritime ops (at the higher AUMs)...and one can see that achieving an effective release will be at the very least, demanding, relatively expensive, and may in the end not meet all the Cdo Bde's lift expectations.
The alternative, if really substantial development and performance improvement is to be made, is a return to the AEG and a new tail rotor design (actually an old one but never incorporated due to previous budget limits)...Will this ever happen given the very large cost associated with these modifcations..certainly not in the present financial environment....so here we go.
Last edited by Tallsar; 18th Jan 2011 at 17:37.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: at home
Posts: 412
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gash, no. Fundamentally underpowered... yes. Designed to hover safe twin engine in the dip for the RN when one engine goes bang. Adapted to the best of a bad deal by the RAF, who never wanted it in the first place for heavy lift utility role. My point is that marinisation of Merlin Mk3 represents extremely poor value for the taxpayer, and will leave the junglies with an even more underpowered helicopter than the RAF presently has, if the marinisation programme goes ahead.
I have never said that I would like to see CHF fold and I would much rather see them get something more suited to their role. They should have got CH-47 under SABR (or something capable of littoral ops). I would have no problem with the new buy of CH-47 (if it happens in sufficient numbers, which I doubt) going to the RN. Merlin Mk3 is not the answer - simply because it is regarded as the only option available, ........which it isn't.
I have never said that I would like to see CHF fold and I would much rather see them get something more suited to their role. They should have got CH-47 under SABR (or something capable of littoral ops). I would have no problem with the new buy of CH-47 (if it happens in sufficient numbers, which I doubt) going to the RN. Merlin Mk3 is not the answer - simply because it is regarded as the only option available, ........which it isn't.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Somerset
Posts: 282
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
however
after over 40 years we still don't have a foldable CH47 which makes me think it's impossible, if it could be done it would have been done by now, so the counter Merlin argument is a bit moot.
A marinised Ch47 is never going to happen, if you want big lift then buy CH53, at least that has a naval pedigree.
Oh they might be flying in formation with swine, coz both scenarios are about as likely.
If you want a large volume foldable, maritime helo, there's only one out there, it's in service with the UK, it's in an amphibious role already with the MMI and all the work will be done in the UK with a UK workforce to modern design standards (not from the 60's).
No other scenario is credible, the big question is who owns them in the long run, and my view on that is posted above
DM
A marinised Ch47 is never going to happen, if you want big lift then buy CH53, at least that has a naval pedigree.
Oh they might be flying in formation with swine, coz both scenarios are about as likely.
If you want a large volume foldable, maritime helo, there's only one out there, it's in service with the UK, it's in an amphibious role already with the MMI and all the work will be done in the UK with a UK workforce to modern design standards (not from the 60's).
No other scenario is credible, the big question is who owns them in the long run, and my view on that is posted above
DM
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Between Oxon and somewhere else
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GW - yes the RAF is fighting to hold on to it. We've put 10 years of effort into getting this aircraft fit for ops and the crews trained. To hand it over to the CHF at this point would be a real kick in the teeth, and frankly the "you can all move to Yeovilton and live on board" argument just doesn't cut it either.
Let's not forget the RAF has just lost a load of capability, so to lose yet more to the RN is bound to be resisted, regardless of how big a PITA the airframe is.
In the same way the CHF is now fighting for survival, so is the whole of the RAF!
Aside from serviceability issues, spares and the lack of airframes for training etc, the airframe cannot afford to lose any more payload for extraneous modifications to fit a role it will struggle to achieve post modification.
Believe me, CHF will rue the day if they take it, especially the engineers.
Let's not forget the RAF has just lost a load of capability, so to lose yet more to the RN is bound to be resisted, regardless of how big a PITA the airframe is.
In the same way the CHF is now fighting for survival, so is the whole of the RAF!
Aside from serviceability issues, spares and the lack of airframes for training etc, the airframe cannot afford to lose any more payload for extraneous modifications to fit a role it will struggle to achieve post modification.
Believe me, CHF will rue the day if they take it, especially the engineers.
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Reading
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maroonman -
"I wish them good luck as I certainly wouldn't want to be in the Freak Force at the moment (certainly one that is about to spend long periods at sea in order to be something on the new carriers!) - but if nothing else can we please, please stop fighting amongst ourselves, arguing quite rudely and looking at each other in a funny way over the briefing tables now and accept that things have to change and just move on.
We do have a real enemy to fight you know
"
The Treasury?
"I wish them good luck as I certainly wouldn't want to be in the Freak Force at the moment (certainly one that is about to spend long periods at sea in order to be something on the new carriers!) - but if nothing else can we please, please stop fighting amongst ourselves, arguing quite rudely and looking at each other in a funny way over the briefing tables now and accept that things have to change and just move on.
We do have a real enemy to fight you know
"The Treasury?
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Somerset
Posts: 282
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CH47 fold
I was not aware that the Ch47 has any kind of blade folding capability, it's a bit of a surprise....
Was it designed for ship ops or for transport etc and is there some kind of blade restraint system used?
DM
Was it designed for ship ops or for transport etc and is there some kind of blade restraint system used?
DM
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Down West
Posts: 156
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The RN engineers are more than capable of getting up to speed quickly. Don’t forget that Culdrose has the Merlin Training Facility and that is the best you’ll find anywhere, manned in the most part by guys who have operated the aircraft in the real world. There is also the Westland Customer Training facility in Yeovil, which means guys can be trained there as well as Culdrose. Where are the Junglies based? Oh that’s right, Yeovilton.
With the untimely demise of the Harrier there are numbers of personnel who are being redistributed to Culdrose and Yeovilton, so it wouldn’t be a work of great genius to relocate Merlin trained supervisors and lads with the Junglies at Yeovilton to bring the newly converted Seaking guys up to speed. So after one “out of preference area” draft the Culdrose guy returns to his preferred area and all is well.
Even with the dodgy (don’t get me started) AET set up that the RN now use, the “multi-purpose” maintainer ethos still persists, unlike the RAF who are quite “trade constrained”, there’s no place for “trade prima donnas” on the back of a type 23. What this means in the real world is that it is not unusual to find guys in the Navy who have worked on every aircraft type (fixed and rotary) in the inventory at that time (and then some), and helped every other trade when they needed to. (i.e. type flexible)
Don’t forget that the MK3 aircraft are flown in the “RAF way” at the moment, with emphasis on decanting the major dross work back to base (Benson, although usually Culdrose), while the guys at the front fly/fight the cab ( if it works for you etc etc). Culdrose already does all the “depth” MK3 work at workshops and MDMF, so to actually operate the aircraft is not a big jump in capability, “knowledge” wise, we do know the aircraft.
The training issue is mostly about getting a MK4 Seaking guy trained to work on a MK3 Merlin whilst keeping the ability to deploy, that’s easy too, just break the swap into flight/sqdn sized chunks, so 845 are still Seaking, while 846 convert and train and so on. This leaves you able to deploy a joint RAF and Navy helicopter force should it be needed during the transition.
As for the conversion of the MK3 to a marinised a/c, well someone has already mentioned manual folding on the Chinook um... (that’s how we did the Wessex but those Merlin blades are big), the folding head is actually a simple fit and the electronics should be easy to retrofit, which means that the folding tail is the only major structural mod required. All of a sudden the marinisation doesn’t seem so difficult (don’t mention MK3 corrosion resistance compared to MK1, it’s a red herring), which leaves the weight issue.
You have to ask yourselves if we are talking about a lift capability equal to the Chinook or the Seaking or are we actually filling a role somewhere in between. When we need heavy lift, we call on the Yanks with their CH53 (you know what I’m talking about) or the Russian Mil, so we are actually talking “medium” lift. The fact is that the MK3, even with the mods embodied will be able to fill the troop seats and do its job, add to all of this speculation and guess work the fact that you don’t actually know how much the mods will weigh and therefore what effect that will have, means that to say, “it won’t be able to do task A” is just meaningless speculation.
Don’t forget the contribution the Carson modded Seakings have made in theatre and if the Seaking is that bad why are the Yanks re-engineering over a 100 S61T variants (Carson fit standard) to fill the worldwide “medium” lift hole in their capability. We all know the Merlin is more capable than the Seaking and Puma (lift wise), and it certainly wees all over the NH90 and the H92, so that must mean that we have, when all’s said and done, a pretty good medium lift aircraft.
That’s that sorted, now the England football team………(laugh)
Cheers
With the untimely demise of the Harrier there are numbers of personnel who are being redistributed to Culdrose and Yeovilton, so it wouldn’t be a work of great genius to relocate Merlin trained supervisors and lads with the Junglies at Yeovilton to bring the newly converted Seaking guys up to speed. So after one “out of preference area” draft the Culdrose guy returns to his preferred area and all is well.
Even with the dodgy (don’t get me started) AET set up that the RN now use, the “multi-purpose” maintainer ethos still persists, unlike the RAF who are quite “trade constrained”, there’s no place for “trade prima donnas” on the back of a type 23. What this means in the real world is that it is not unusual to find guys in the Navy who have worked on every aircraft type (fixed and rotary) in the inventory at that time (and then some), and helped every other trade when they needed to. (i.e. type flexible)
Don’t forget that the MK3 aircraft are flown in the “RAF way” at the moment, with emphasis on decanting the major dross work back to base (Benson, although usually Culdrose), while the guys at the front fly/fight the cab ( if it works for you etc etc). Culdrose already does all the “depth” MK3 work at workshops and MDMF, so to actually operate the aircraft is not a big jump in capability, “knowledge” wise, we do know the aircraft.
The training issue is mostly about getting a MK4 Seaking guy trained to work on a MK3 Merlin whilst keeping the ability to deploy, that’s easy too, just break the swap into flight/sqdn sized chunks, so 845 are still Seaking, while 846 convert and train and so on. This leaves you able to deploy a joint RAF and Navy helicopter force should it be needed during the transition.
As for the conversion of the MK3 to a marinised a/c, well someone has already mentioned manual folding on the Chinook um... (that’s how we did the Wessex but those Merlin blades are big), the folding head is actually a simple fit and the electronics should be easy to retrofit, which means that the folding tail is the only major structural mod required. All of a sudden the marinisation doesn’t seem so difficult (don’t mention MK3 corrosion resistance compared to MK1, it’s a red herring), which leaves the weight issue.
You have to ask yourselves if we are talking about a lift capability equal to the Chinook or the Seaking or are we actually filling a role somewhere in between. When we need heavy lift, we call on the Yanks with their CH53 (you know what I’m talking about) or the Russian Mil, so we are actually talking “medium” lift. The fact is that the MK3, even with the mods embodied will be able to fill the troop seats and do its job, add to all of this speculation and guess work the fact that you don’t actually know how much the mods will weigh and therefore what effect that will have, means that to say, “it won’t be able to do task A” is just meaningless speculation.
Don’t forget the contribution the Carson modded Seakings have made in theatre and if the Seaking is that bad why are the Yanks re-engineering over a 100 S61T variants (Carson fit standard) to fill the worldwide “medium” lift hole in their capability. We all know the Merlin is more capable than the Seaking and Puma (lift wise), and it certainly wees all over the NH90 and the H92, so that must mean that we have, when all’s said and done, a pretty good medium lift aircraft.
That’s that sorted, now the England football team………(laugh)
Cheers
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: at home
Posts: 412
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
O-G,
Nice one. Which portion of the gargantuan, and ever increasing defence budget do we spunk on that lot then? You haven't even mentioned the relocation of the simulator and its civvie staff needed to train and maintain 845 and 846. You also paint an extremely rose tinted view of performance post mod. This rose tintedness also takes no account of 'Call me Dave's' timescale of a handover in just a few years. What part of 2 ac shared between 2 Sqns(including the OCF) is a good day for ac availability do you not understand?
Stick to the England Football team idea.
Nice one. Which portion of the gargantuan, and ever increasing defence budget do we spunk on that lot then? You haven't even mentioned the relocation of the simulator and its civvie staff needed to train and maintain 845 and 846. You also paint an extremely rose tinted view of performance post mod. This rose tintedness also takes no account of 'Call me Dave's' timescale of a handover in just a few years. What part of 2 ac shared between 2 Sqns(including the OCF) is a good day for ac availability do you not understand?
Stick to the England Football team idea.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: In England
Posts: 371
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OG -in making my comments about prospective CHF Merlin performance and payload...I have drawn on my understanding of the Mk3 and its performance detail...by no means was it speculation. What I cannot comment in depth is the detail of indivisible loads or specific CHF tasks that might tax the Mk4? beyond its present lift capabilities, and that before the additional weight associated with marinisation - should that happen.
Do not kid yourself that somehow the Mk3 is broadly like a Mk4 Sea King as compared to a Mk5/6 Sea King.....not so.....with a modicum of fuel and the "standard" role and defensive aid equipment installed...the term medium lift becomes very debatable if not inapplicable to many peoples thinking.
Like always in these circumstances I am sure the CHF team will make do and mend, and adapt the use of the ac as best possible...but no one should kid themselves that a modifed Mk3 will be the efficient workhorse the CHF task deserves - Shame the Puma Mk2 will not have the wider u/c track...now there would be a thought!
Do not kid yourself that somehow the Mk3 is broadly like a Mk4 Sea King as compared to a Mk5/6 Sea King.....not so.....with a modicum of fuel and the "standard" role and defensive aid equipment installed...the term medium lift becomes very debatable if not inapplicable to many peoples thinking.
Like always in these circumstances I am sure the CHF team will make do and mend, and adapt the use of the ac as best possible...but no one should kid themselves that a modifed Mk3 will be the efficient workhorse the CHF task deserves - Shame the Puma Mk2 will not have the wider u/c track...now there would be a thought!
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Will the marinised Mk3 lift more than a SK4?
Will it lift it farther?
Will it lift it faster?
If so, then great. We manage with a SK4 therefore a Mk3 will be better.
If not then something is badly wrong.
Will it lift it farther?
Will it lift it faster?
If so, then great. We manage with a SK4 therefore a Mk3 will be better.
If not then something is badly wrong.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: In England
Posts: 371
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Now there's a thought....comparison of a Carson SK Mk4 (with full carson blade release not the limited one so far available) vs Merlin Mk3 (Afghan release)....kitted out for ops, and each with fuel for 3 hours......would be fascinating
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Down West
Posts: 156
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
High Spirits,
Easy Tiger! Crew room defence planning remember, not real! As someone who was involved in the aircraft and training from before they entered service I can tell you, it’s a piece of cake to work on, you could almost take a maintainer straight from conversion training and let him loose on it. As for aircrew training, well not my area of expertise as you’ve pointed out, but all the ex Seaking pilots who I helped train all said one thing, it’s easy to fly, and the hardest part of the course was learning all the systems and black boxes.
I personally can't see the navy ever getting these aircraft, lets face it the RAF brass have played a blinder leading up to, during, and since the SDSR, whilst the navy brass have failed to impress. So have faith in your leaders they play a better game of "uckers" and we’re "mixy blobbed" to death right now.
Tallsar,
Apologies for suggesting that your comments had no basis in fact, you know what it’s like when you’re trying to make a point. I do think that the MK3 will still be significantly better (lift wise) than the MK4 Seaking, even after marinisation but Tourist makes a good point.
Tourist,
That’s the aircraft question, pretty much in a nutshell.
Cheers
Easy Tiger! Crew room defence planning remember, not real! As someone who was involved in the aircraft and training from before they entered service I can tell you, it’s a piece of cake to work on, you could almost take a maintainer straight from conversion training and let him loose on it. As for aircrew training, well not my area of expertise as you’ve pointed out, but all the ex Seaking pilots who I helped train all said one thing, it’s easy to fly, and the hardest part of the course was learning all the systems and black boxes.
I personally can't see the navy ever getting these aircraft, lets face it the RAF brass have played a blinder leading up to, during, and since the SDSR, whilst the navy brass have failed to impress. So have faith in your leaders they play a better game of "uckers" and we’re "mixy blobbed" to death right now.
Tallsar,
Apologies for suggesting that your comments had no basis in fact, you know what it’s like when you’re trying to make a point. I do think that the MK3 will still be significantly better (lift wise) than the MK4 Seaking, even after marinisation but Tourist makes a good point.
Tourist,
That’s the aircraft question, pretty much in a nutshell.
Cheers
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As an ex-MALM and a former SHFNI crewman I can assure you that there was no institutional "can't be arsed / let 'em walk" attitude on the RAF Sqns. This is simply single service jingoism.
We pushed the limits on a daily basis. Now if you said we wouldn't break the limits to stop you walking, that's different. And if your measure of a quality crew is their willingness to break the rules for non urgent / life threatening situations, then that speaks volumes of your lack of professionalism as an aviator.
And as for a MALM telling a VSO that the troops don´t need to know... whilst he might have thought that or been bloody minded enough to think that, I doubt he would be stupid enough to leave himself and his crew wide open by admitting it to a VSO.I have been delayed getting to KAF as well, and on every occasion when we were on board the a/c the crew kept us informed.
Now in the terminal with Brize movs.... that´s a different story.
And finally, nice inflammatory language here -"Loadmaster/ Flight Attendant". Which was it? One is a WO and the other an SAC. Bit different. Oh you scoundrel, you're trying to wind us up with a bit bit more playground banter
Winch Weight.
I think you have alluded to the differences between the two services which I was attempting, from a reasonably neutral position, to highlight.
I remember on one occasion getting into the back of a SK4 in S. Armagh after the requested RAF helo had turned us down due to the weather. The crewman put me on headset and I was informed by the pilot that the fault wasn't necessarily with the pilot/aircrew. Apparently prior to the formation of JHC, the RAF Flight rules and limitations were quite restrictive, whereas those employed by the Junglies were more pragmatic and common-sense biased. This in turn allowed them to press on when perhaps others could only watch from the comfort of the Mill at BBK.
WRT the Loadmaster/ Flight Attendant - well I'm not sure really. He was definitely a WO, but was quite happy dishing out the paper cups of OJ and bagrats. Is this where old MALM's end up when they are nearing their sell- by dates??
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: at home
Posts: 412
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
O-G
Apologies for a slightly over the top rant, just trying to make a point on finance. You, or Tourist might be able to answer a question though. We bought 40 Mk1 Merlin. To my (scant) knowledge 2 were written off in accidents leaving 38. I read an article, 'Shephard Group' I think. The article stated that we were converting 30 Mk1 s to Mk2 standard at a cost of 850 million. It stated that the Mk2 would be able to carry 16 troops or 12 stretchers and be effectively able to swing role from ASW.
Sounds like a good use of taxpayer dosh by the RN to me. My question though - what is happening to the other 8 airframes? Are they Christmas treed or simply too expensive to convert?
Apologies for a slightly over the top rant, just trying to make a point on finance. You, or Tourist might be able to answer a question though. We bought 40 Mk1 Merlin. To my (scant) knowledge 2 were written off in accidents leaving 38. I read an article, 'Shephard Group' I think. The article stated that we were converting 30 Mk1 s to Mk2 standard at a cost of 850 million. It stated that the Mk2 would be able to carry 16 troops or 12 stretchers and be effectively able to swing role from ASW.
Sounds like a good use of taxpayer dosh by the RN to me. My question though - what is happening to the other 8 airframes? Are they Christmas treed or simply too expensive to convert?
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Somerset
Posts: 282
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Actually we have more than 40
The RN bought 44 Merlin Mk1s, the RAF 22 Mk3s and 6 Mk3As
2x Mk1shave been written off in accidents, and the first airframe was last seen at WHL as a test asset.
So that leaves 41 for conversion, only 30 of which have been slated to go to Mk2 standard.
which leaves 11 cabs for conversion to ASAC platforms (maybe)?
DM
2x Mk1shave been written off in accidents, and the first airframe was last seen at WHL as a test asset.
So that leaves 41 for conversion, only 30 of which have been slated to go to Mk2 standard.
which leaves 11 cabs for conversion to ASAC platforms (maybe)?
DM
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Down West
Posts: 156
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HS,
No probs,
The original buy was 44 but as you said, two have been lost while in service, one PP crashed from altitude (you might remember all the crew survived by using parachutes!) and I believe they “nicked” a production aircraft to fill the slot. The Italians lost a crew and PP cab during the experimental phase and I know of at least one MK1 that missed the Canadian ship’s flight deck and got bent (a bit). There is one PP at the Dummy Deck at Culdrose and one of my workmates who’s been there recently says there’s one at Sultan. There’s the Boscombe cab as well, and now I’ve lost count! (just read DM's post, I'll go with his figure)
We haven’t heard anything concrete yet but if you look at one of the suggested configurations for an AEW (Asac) Merlin shows the fit being the same as the Seaking 7. The advantage of this is that you won’t need to have a ramp hole to allow the dome to deploy. The disadvantage as far as I can see is the proximity of the sponson (not an issue with the Seaking). This would be the obvious choice for the spare airframes to be used for and I understand that it was purely a cost thing that limited the MCSP contract to 30 a/c.
Cheers
No probs,
The original buy was 44 but as you said, two have been lost while in service, one PP crashed from altitude (you might remember all the crew survived by using parachutes!) and I believe they “nicked” a production aircraft to fill the slot. The Italians lost a crew and PP cab during the experimental phase and I know of at least one MK1 that missed the Canadian ship’s flight deck and got bent (a bit). There is one PP at the Dummy Deck at Culdrose and one of my workmates who’s been there recently says there’s one at Sultan. There’s the Boscombe cab as well, and now I’ve lost count! (just read DM's post, I'll go with his figure)
We haven’t heard anything concrete yet but if you look at one of the suggested configurations for an AEW (Asac) Merlin shows the fit being the same as the Seaking 7. The advantage of this is that you won’t need to have a ramp hole to allow the dome to deploy. The disadvantage as far as I can see is the proximity of the sponson (not an issue with the Seaking). This would be the obvious choice for the spare airframes to be used for and I understand that it was purely a cost thing that limited the MCSP contract to 30 a/c.
Cheers