Puma 2
What, no moving-map at 2:02? Of course not, it was removed to save money! How very short-sighted.
Having said that, still a huge fan of the Mk2.
Having said that, still a huge fan of the Mk2.
Last edited by MG; 9th Nov 2014 at 06:58.
MG,
Don't think it was even an option. I helped a bit with the Pu2 During the 'no RM' period; IIRC the only reason Pu 2 got 'glass' was that it was the cheapest and quickest way to fit the new engines; the cockpit/engine/autopilot(?) combination was already certified under CS29/FAR29. A moving map display, like a FLIR nose, were considered 'capability growth', not 'capability sustainment'. Given the number of times the programme nearly got binned I can see why cost and capability growth were ruthlessly suppressed. The problem is, of course, to integrate either a MMD or FLIR now will be very expensive, and the opportunity to do it with the aircraft in bits had passed.
However, it's excellent VFM for the RAF - it will seem even better value when compared to the cost/capability of the Merlin 4......
Don't think it was even an option. I helped a bit with the Pu2 During the 'no RM' period; IIRC the only reason Pu 2 got 'glass' was that it was the cheapest and quickest way to fit the new engines; the cockpit/engine/autopilot(?) combination was already certified under CS29/FAR29. A moving map display, like a FLIR nose, were considered 'capability growth', not 'capability sustainment'. Given the number of times the programme nearly got binned I can see why cost and capability growth were ruthlessly suppressed. The problem is, of course, to integrate either a MMD or FLIR now will be very expensive, and the opportunity to do it with the aircraft in bits had passed.
However, it's excellent VFM for the RAF - it will seem even better value when compared to the cost/capability of the Merlin 4......
Last edited by Evalu8ter; 8th Nov 2014 at 19:27.
