First graduates on new Fast Jet course
First graduates on new Fast Jet course
Backwards.
The standard fit is as you see it. Two Acqui's an a centerline tank. The ACMI gubbins is all in the jet. It feels slightly 'heavier' as you fly it but nowhere near as bad as the T1 was with missiles. The RWR bit on the tail is due to it being a fairly standard export standard fuselage but it does not have all the real RWR wiggly amps. All the RWR and radar stuff is done via the datalink and is pretty good.
All in all it's a bloody good training platform and a far cry from its predecessor.
BV
The standard fit is as you see it. Two Acqui's an a centerline tank. The ACMI gubbins is all in the jet. It feels slightly 'heavier' as you fly it but nowhere near as bad as the T1 was with missiles. The RWR bit on the tail is due to it being a fairly standard export standard fuselage but it does not have all the real RWR wiggly amps. All the RWR and radar stuff is done via the datalink and is pretty good.
All in all it's a bloody good training platform and a far cry from its predecessor.
BV
Al Shinner! Brings back some happy MASUAS memories...
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Southern Jessieland
Posts: 101
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BV: All in all it's a bloody good training platform and a far cry from its predecessor.
...but it is still basically a Hawk underneath. Some clean TMk1's were used for some ACM trials with the Hawk 200 and they wupped it easily due to the weight difference.
...but it is still basically a Hawk underneath. Some clean TMk1's were used for some ACM trials with the Hawk 200 and they wupped it easily due to the weight difference.
First graduates on new Fast Jet course
Plastic.
A clean 128 vs a clean T1 would be a very even fight but would probably fall in favour of the 128 due to combat flap. Once you start putting stuff on either things change markedly.
When I describe it as a bloody good training platform I'm talking about more than its DACT ability. The Hawk has always lost to the Alphajet in BFM but I would still prefer a Hawk as a training platform any day.
Detractors will always say 'its just another Hawk' but if you get to fly it you would realise the error of your ways.
Sure it could have been better, with a bigger cockpit or composite construction but that would just cost even more. As things stand its the best training jet in service anywhere in the world right now. Once the T50 is on line in greater numbers I may revisit my statement. The M346 is also very impressive but avionics, integration and its safety record remain a sticking point.
Just my thoughts but I have flown Hawk T1, T2 and 115 as well as Alphajet and I currently work with lots of guys who've flown T38s (I've also had a good crawl over the M346 but clearly never flown it) so I know a little about what we're discussing.
BV
A clean 128 vs a clean T1 would be a very even fight but would probably fall in favour of the 128 due to combat flap. Once you start putting stuff on either things change markedly.
When I describe it as a bloody good training platform I'm talking about more than its DACT ability. The Hawk has always lost to the Alphajet in BFM but I would still prefer a Hawk as a training platform any day.
Detractors will always say 'its just another Hawk' but if you get to fly it you would realise the error of your ways.
Sure it could have been better, with a bigger cockpit or composite construction but that would just cost even more. As things stand its the best training jet in service anywhere in the world right now. Once the T50 is on line in greater numbers I may revisit my statement. The M346 is also very impressive but avionics, integration and its safety record remain a sticking point.
Just my thoughts but I have flown Hawk T1, T2 and 115 as well as Alphajet and I currently work with lots of guys who've flown T38s (I've also had a good crawl over the M346 but clearly never flown it) so I know a little about what we're discussing.
BV
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Southern Jessieland
Posts: 101
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BV
I no hesitation in accepting your excellent experience - I'm more on the theory side anyway. Does the T2 have the "Mach Step"?
I'm not knocking the Hawk - it is a basically very sound airframe with few vices, and the T1's main attribute is the lower maintenance hours than it's predecessors - not exciting but that really hits your bottom line. It would be interesting to know how the new generation of trainers and the T2 for that matter, scores on that front.
Whilst the rumble of the Aden or the possible slight denting of a target with a weapon of moss destruction would add something to the weapon training element the DACT enables you "fire" more rounds and drop more and a greater variety of weapons - though possibly the infinite amount might make you a bit blase (like digital cameras vs film camera?) or does every shot count?
And these days the simulator element must prove a great boon as well. I did some work of the Hawk FST in 1999 and heard afterwards that the chop rate had dropped dramatically. I've never flown in a Hawk but a co-worker did and said it was just like the simulator - though he had to have the rest of the day off as he couldn't stop smiling.
I no hesitation in accepting your excellent experience - I'm more on the theory side anyway. Does the T2 have the "Mach Step"?
I'm not knocking the Hawk - it is a basically very sound airframe with few vices, and the T1's main attribute is the lower maintenance hours than it's predecessors - not exciting but that really hits your bottom line. It would be interesting to know how the new generation of trainers and the T2 for that matter, scores on that front.
Whilst the rumble of the Aden or the possible slight denting of a target with a weapon of moss destruction would add something to the weapon training element the DACT enables you "fire" more rounds and drop more and a greater variety of weapons - though possibly the infinite amount might make you a bit blase (like digital cameras vs film camera?) or does every shot count?
And these days the simulator element must prove a great boon as well. I did some work of the Hawk FST in 1999 and heard afterwards that the chop rate had dropped dramatically. I've never flown in a Hawk but a co-worker did and said it was just like the simulator - though he had to have the rest of the day off as he couldn't stop smiling.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: South of England
Age: 74
Posts: 627
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
4 Posts
A2QFI
Lady and gentlemen is more my time, boys and girl is about right and the modern usage of "Guys" as a collective noun makes me vomit! It is even used by the BEEB during news bulletins.
Certainly these pilots have done a very different course to the one I instructed on at Valley in Gnats (64 to 66)! Well done and safe flying, have fun too BTW!
Certainly these pilots have done a very different course to the one I instructed on at Valley in Gnats (64 to 66)! Well done and safe flying, have fun too BTW!
It isn't a collective noun, its the plural of a common noun.
It's usage is informal, inclusive and friendly.
Suggest you put away the sickbag, listen to how people are speaking and try to understand what they mean.
Good luck and good flying to the graduates!
Rgds SOS
Last edited by SOSL; 17th Jun 2013 at 11:37.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Geriatrics of the World, Unite !
BackwardsPLT,
I was greatly heartened when I saw your Posts (#38 and #44). So far, 92 seems to have been the "stop date". Hope for us yet ! (I thought).
Then I did the sum. If you're 95 now, you were born in 1918. The Hawk 1 entered service in 1976 (Wiki). You'd be 58 then.
From your #38, I quote: "I remember the T1 being great fun clean..."
You're "'avin a larf", surely ? Come clean !
Sorry for the drift, congratulations to the four and best wishes for your future careers in whatever Air Force is left when you get to the sharp end.
Danny.
I was greatly heartened when I saw your Posts (#38 and #44). So far, 92 seems to have been the "stop date". Hope for us yet ! (I thought).
Then I did the sum. If you're 95 now, you were born in 1918. The Hawk 1 entered service in 1976 (Wiki). You'd be 58 then.
From your #38, I quote: "I remember the T1 being great fun clean..."
You're "'avin a larf", surely ? Come clean !
Sorry for the drift, congratulations to the four and best wishes for your future careers in whatever Air Force is left when you get to the sharp end.
Danny.
They all bat for the correct teams
Is correct correct these days?
How about "teams as nature intended"?
Is correct correct these days?
How about "teams as nature intended"?
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: East Midlands
Age: 84
Posts: 1,511
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"It isn't a collective noun, its the plural of a common noun.
It's usage is informal, inclusive and friendly."
Guys is a collective noun for a group of people as well as being the plural of "Guy"
Its (note lack of apostrophe) is too informal for my taste as I am not a sports person nor a member of a pop group or on the Jeremy Kyle show!
It's usage is informal, inclusive and friendly."
Guys is a collective noun for a group of people as well as being the plural of "Guy"
Its (note lack of apostrophe) is too informal for my taste as I am not a sports person nor a member of a pop group or on the Jeremy Kyle show!
I doubt if anyone would get away with addressing Mrs LB as a guy.
Even a certain paedophile knew the difference between guys and gels!
Even a certain paedophile knew the difference between guys and gels!
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: South of England
Age: 74
Posts: 627
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
4 Posts
A2QFI
It's not a collective noun any more than "boys" or "girls" are collective nouns.
You are quite right about the apostrophe ( OMG how could I have made such a blunder? ).
Keep smiling!
Rgds SOS
You are quite right about the apostrophe ( OMG how could I have made such a blunder? ).
Keep smiling!
Rgds SOS
Last edited by SOSL; 18th Jun 2013 at 17:18.
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: England
Posts: 576
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This video is on YouTube...
Just curious, but the reference to Test Pilots on the logo at the start of the film has me puzzled. Testing the course perhaps?
PS - Apologies for the link appearing twice - I only posted the link once and can't take the second one off!
