Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Military Aviation
Reload this Page >

Air Cadets grounded?

Wikiposts
Search
Military Aviation A forum for the professionals who fly military hardware. Also for the backroom boys and girls who support the flying and maintain the equipment, and without whom nothing would ever leave the ground. All armies, navies and air forces of the world equally welcome here.

Air Cadets grounded?

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 18th Jan 2018, 19:07
  #4041 (permalink)  
Olympia 463
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Originally Posted by cats_five
The T31 is tiny - I've been in one and I only just fitted in. I'm under 5'6". If a Cadet flight can be two strapping people weighing almost 100kg each with parachute then a T31 isn't the ship to use.
That's rubbish - hundreds if not thousands of young men have happily fitted into the T31. I don't think anyone weighing 100kg would qualify as an average adolescent, No one ever carried a chute in a T31 in my time - did you? I'm 6ft 2in 70 Kg and I fitted into a T31 perfectly.

If you are worrying about broken ships you should be worrying about crashworthiness and all the glass ships knock spots of the older ones in that respect.
Oh God! No one builds aeroplanes to be crashworthy. If you start from a premise like that you will end up with a very strange plane indeed.

I can see I am wasting my time on this forum. I asked a few pertinent questions in my last input and have got no answers at all, from which I conclude you are all politicians.

Why not get real and stop whingeing after the cushy rides you got in Vikings at the taxpayers expense? I know that building new T31's is now unlikely, but unless a similar cheap aircraft can be sourced or designed, the ATC will no longer be able to do what it was best at - giving youngsters a new confidence in themselves.
 
Old 18th Jan 2018, 19:21
  #4042 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Missing skills

I think what the advocates of returning to wooden gliders are missing is there are very few people with the skill set to work with wooden structures.

Back in the days of the T21 wood structures had not long disappeared from RAF Service the DH vampire being an example the result of this was a knowlage base that could deal with the wooden gliders.

There was no of the RAF main stream operation of the glider type structures until the Grob 115 Tutor turned up ( and these are maintained under EASA145 by private contractors)

A return to wooden Aircraft would be a disaster due to the lack of understanding of the type of structures and how to repair and maintain them, is not the way forward............ I say this with some regret as my first flying training was on the Kirby cadet.
A and C is offline  
Old 18th Jan 2018, 19:59
  #4043 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Westnoreastsouth
Posts: 1,826
Received 32 Likes on 28 Posts
Originally Posted by cats_five
The T31 is tiny - I've been in one and I only just fitted in. I'm under 5'6".
Blimey Cats - how much head room do you want in a glider ??
Open cockpit gliders had 93 million miles of headroom

With apologies to the car manufacturer who originally used that advert LOL

I am certainly not advocating a return to wooden gliders but I was 6 foot and flew the T31 easily from either cockpit !
longer ron is offline  
Old 18th Jan 2018, 20:01
  #4044 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Oxford
Age: 85
Posts: 458
Received 4 Likes on 4 Posts
It does appear that there has been some lack of understanding on glass fibre structures!!!
T21, T31, Prefect etc. were great but, as you say - "Not the way forward". Surely in this day and age we can come up with an appropriate aircraft!!

Bill
Bill Macgillivray is offline  
Old 18th Jan 2018, 20:26
  #4045 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: Head in the Clouds
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Appropriate glider!

Originally Posted by Bill Macgillivray
It does appear that there has been some lack of understanding on glass fibre structures!!!
T21, T31, Prefect etc. were great but, as you say - "Not the way forward". Surely in this day and age we can come up with an appropriate aircraft!!

Bill
We did, but their Airships screwed it up by not looking after the contract to maintain it in an airworthy condition😱
Freda Checks is offline  
Old 18th Jan 2018, 21:23
  #4046 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Somerset
Posts: 182
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Aluminium

All this talk of how to fix fibreglass and wood. What's wrong with aluminium? I did quite a few flights in the Blanik and it was lovely - aerobatic too. I'm no expert but there seem to have been plenty of these around for years.
Blackfriar is offline  
Old 18th Jan 2018, 21:59
  #4047 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: 11 GROUP
Age: 77
Posts: 1,345
Likes: 0
Received 79 Likes on 27 Posts
repairing broken Mk3's

The MGSP knew what they were doing, but in actual fact the number of 'broken' machines in the system was very few when one considered the large number of real training flights (leading to solo) completed. The jolly old 'wheel box' area was the usual suspect and not just from a heavy arrival as the grass could conceal unhelpful objects that could cause damage. Most of these 'repairs' were done at the schools when the team in their 3 tonners visited. The aerolite was cured by simple 'bulb heaters' made out of plywood.
The MGSP guys would have easily adapted to 'glass' because they already completed scarf joins in ply and 'extending' the scarf ratio would have been an extension of their normal skills.
When I attended SM for a course there were no actual broken airframes to practice repairs on (such was the low rate of attrition) and so the guys would repair ply cabinets from the billets.
WE forget that before the schools were actually 'tasked' for AE work most ATC glider flights were dual training for the A&B, therefore it only enhances both the suitability of the equipment, standard of training, sturdiness of the fretwork fighter, and the overall fantastic volunteer organisation not hindered by crats. I am not sure when the T21 started to get its nose weight mod, however there were a few around that were original and had certain 'light pilots' limitations. Not for long at Kenley; a local mod saw a lead seat pan made and kept in the caravan ready for use.
POBJOY is offline  
Old 18th Jan 2018, 22:09
  #4048 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: 11 GROUP
Age: 77
Posts: 1,345
Likes: 0
Received 79 Likes on 27 Posts
The British Blanik

Well we missed the boat on that (should have license built it) and saved 20 years of trying to modernise. In fact we could have customised it for a total winch launch operation with a simple strut mod, and enjoyed more flying when the wind got up.
POBJOY is offline  
Old 18th Jan 2018, 23:04
  #4049 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: At home
Posts: 1,232
Received 3 Likes on 3 Posts
Originally Posted by cats_five
Why on earth would a basic simple glider need mods for the military?
To meet the MAA requirements for accessibility and inspection of control linkages perhaps? The elevator bellcrank on a lot of gliders is completely out of sight if there is no inspection window.
Mechta is offline  
Old 19th Jan 2018, 00:08
  #4050 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Munich MUC/EDDM
Posts: 6,641
Received 74 Likes on 46 Posts
POBJOY,

As a long-time backseat Blanik driver, I’m interested in your comment. What was the mod you referred to?
India Four Two is offline  
Old 19th Jan 2018, 03:45
  #4051 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Wildest Surrey
Age: 75
Posts: 10,813
Received 94 Likes on 67 Posts
Originally Posted by Olympia 463
OK, so there is no problem fixing busted glass ships. I reserve my judgement on that point though.

Why is it necessary to have a glider costing megabucks which is required only to do circuits? Albeit 6 minute circuits, as opposed to the T31 which usually did about 4 mins. That's a lot of money for two minutes extra in the air. How do you justify that to the taxpayer? Will pupils go solo in two thirds of the time in a Viking? I doubt it.


The ATC is not a gliding club where the solo pilots expect to be taught thermal and ridge soaring and field landings so that they can go on cross countries. Once a Cadet has had his three solos that's it for 90% of them I guess. They never fly solo again. Why not just go back to the good old T31 which was cheap as chips to make and repair? We all know that the really tricky bit of flying is landing. You would agree I think that landing a K13 is a probably lot easier than a Viking, and therefore can be taught more quickly.

I maintain that the whole idea of how flying should operate in the ATC needs a root and branch review. What exactly are you trying to do?
Totally agree; I've been saying the same thing all along but then nobody ever takes any notice of me maybe because I advocated the use of (horror of horrors) microlights to supplement (just supplement not replace) Air Cadet flying and in fact was a 'recognised' (by HQAC) microlight AEF pilot in the '90s as well as being a P2 when I was a staff cadet many years before.
(By the way, even winch launched cadets only do one solo nowadays to qualify)
chevvron is offline  
Old 19th Jan 2018, 03:51
  #4052 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Wildest Surrey
Age: 75
Posts: 10,813
Received 94 Likes on 67 Posts
Originally Posted by POBJOY
Well we missed the boat on that (should have license built it) and saved 20 years of trying to modernise. In fact we could have customised it for a total winch launch operation with a simple strut mod, and enjoyed more flying when the wind got up.
When the Blanik was first suggested, it was totally ruled out because it was built in what was then an Iron Curtain country (can't have 'communist' machines in RAF markings can we) so Slingsbys came up with the UK equivalent in the T53 and we all know what a disaster that was.
chevvron is offline  
Old 19th Jan 2018, 03:56
  #4053 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Wildest Surrey
Age: 75
Posts: 10,813
Received 94 Likes on 67 Posts
Originally Posted by Bill Macgillivray
It does appear that there has been some lack of understanding on glass fibre structures!!!
T21, T31, Prefect etc. were great but, as you say - "Not the way forward". Surely in this day and age we can come up with an appropriate aircraft!!

Bill
Todays microlights sometimes use fabric such as 'Ultralam' on structures made of lightweight alloy tubing and which are very strong and rigid.
I used to love the smell of dope, but would it not be possible to copy the structure of a T21 or T31 using these materials?
chevvron is offline  
Old 19th Jan 2018, 05:10
  #4054 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 1,464
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by chevvron
When the Blanik was first suggested, it was totally ruled out because it was built in what was then an Iron Curtain country (can't have 'communist' machines in RAF markings can we) so Slingsbys came up with the UK equivalent in the T53 and we all know what a disaster that was.
There has since been a spar failure in flight (2010) which lead to fatalities, and Blaniks were grounded while it was investigated. I believe eventually a scheme to remedy the problem was devised, but it cost more to implement than the gliders were worth so very few now fly.
cats_five is offline  
Old 19th Jan 2018, 05:11
  #4055 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 1,464
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by longer ron
Blimey Cats - how much head room do you want in a glider ??
Open cockpit gliders had 93 million miles of headroom

With apologies to the car manufacturer who originally used that advert LOL

I am certainly not advocating a return to wooden gliders but I was 6 foot and flew the T31 easily from either cockpit !
I was in the back seat and it was a struggle getting in & out, not helped by the feeling it would have been awful easy to put a food through the floor!
cats_five is offline  
Old 19th Jan 2018, 05:18
  #4056 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 1,464
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Olympia 463
<snip>
Oh God! No one builds aeroplanes to be crashworthy. If you start from a premise like that you will end up with a very strange plane indeed.
<snip>
I guess you've not heard of JAR 22. Of course aeroplanes of all types are designed & built to be crashworthy, that is to say they protect the occupants as best they can. Of course it's not the only requirement, but it certainly is one.

Using the right sort of foam cushion (Confor, Dynafoam) is also very important in gliders as it reduces the risk of back injury in a heavy landing.

As with cars standards change (improve) over time. The standards now for new designs are better than they were when the Vikings were designed, and I would be astonished if they were not better than the T21/T31.
cats_five is offline  
Old 19th Jan 2018, 05:24
  #4057 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 1,464
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Mechta
To meet the MAA requirements for accessibility and inspection of control linkages perhaps? The elevator bellcrank on a lot of gliders is completely out of sight if there is no inspection window.
I've seen a few gliders with inspection windows in the underside of the wings but never the tail end of the fus.

Yet another reason to put them on the G-register rather than cut additional holes in the structure which in itself will generate a pile of paperwork.
cats_five is offline  
Old 19th Jan 2018, 07:42
  #4058 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: across the border....
Posts: 181
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Yes, and the RAF love their paperwork......except that which proves airworthiness......and even if they had it.......they destroy it.
squawking 7700 is offline  
Old 19th Jan 2018, 07:46
  #4059 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 1,464
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by squawking 7700
Yes, and the RAF love their paperwork......except that which proves airworthiness......and even if they had it.......they destroy it.


Don't get me wrong. Maintaining and repairing gliders on the G-reg does generate paper, but less than the MAA apparently does, and there is no requirement to cut extra holes outside any mandated by the maker for various checks, and so on. The gliders would also have a sensible life, not 2,700 launches which someone mentioned above.


However I found myself wondering this morning if the paperwork to prove how many launches / hours each glider has exists.
cats_five is offline  
Old 19th Jan 2018, 08:39
  #4060 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: across the border....
Posts: 181
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Yes, it does make you wonder - with the documented admission from 2FTS that documentation (see what I did there) had been destroyed, just what details have been retained?

Could, or did, VGS CO's, especially Syerston based, ever, even out of idle curiosity, have a look at maintenance and repair records?
I can't believe that no one anywhere in the VGS network ever suspected anything, if they didn't, it perhaps highlights the naivety of blindly accepting an aircraft in to your care.

I've always taken particular interest in the maintenance and repair of anything I've flown, both the physical maintenance or repair itself and that the paperwork's in order - if you're flying it you want to make sure everything's in order as much as practicably possible.
squawking 7700 is offline  


Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.