New British jet trainer design revealed
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Angels 20 and climbing
Posts: 81
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
New British jet trainer design revealed
Royal Aeronautical Society | Insight Blog | Paris Air Show - Day Zero
Good to see an innovative military aircraft design from a UK design team!
Good to see an innovative military aircraft design from a UK design team!
Finally the team aim to reduce costs and development time by partnering with non-aerospace companies such as Formula One teams
.....saving development costs ......'mix and match' airframes with 90% commonality
Seriously, like Wander, I wish them well. Perhaps a LIFT type aircraft is a good candidate for plug and play airframe with interchageable engines and wings, and a lean development process, is way overdue, but I always wonder if these "better, faster, cheaper" start ups can ever deliver, or be given the chance to try?
I would like to see more fly offs, and some start ups given a chance. More money up front, but could lead to savings down the line.
And a bit of Pampa as well.
As good as the Hawk is, and I think it has set the standard for AJTs for many years, it is looking pedestrian when compared to the M.346/Yak-130 and T-50. While the latest variants can adequately do the job, I still wonder why BAES did not start to look at a new design 10-15 years ago when it was clear that the RAF would need to replace the T.1. After all, it is how Hawker Siddeley were perfectly placed back in the early 1970s when the subject of a Gnat replacement came up, because they were well into designing something ideal for the task.
Yeah, I know; BAES don't seem particularly interested in designing new aircraft.
As good as the Hawk is, and I think it has set the standard for AJTs for many years, it is looking pedestrian when compared to the M.346/Yak-130 and T-50. While the latest variants can adequately do the job, I still wonder why BAES did not start to look at a new design 10-15 years ago when it was clear that the RAF would need to replace the T.1. After all, it is how Hawker Siddeley were perfectly placed back in the early 1970s when the subject of a Gnat replacement came up, because they were well into designing something ideal for the task.
Yeah, I know; BAES don't seem particularly interested in designing new aircraft.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: East Sussex UK
Age: 66
Posts: 6,995
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Courtney ... Looks like a 'concept' at this stage 
Dart Jet | A Modular Jet Trainer for the 21st Century
Outline spec here ...
DART Basic Trainer | Dart Jet
Dart Jet | A Modular Jet Trainer for the 21st Century
Outline spec here ...
DART Basic Trainer | Dart Jet
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Penzance, Cornwall UK
Age: 84
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Do we need a Tucano replacement? I'd have thought they have ample life remaining - unless somebody knows better.
Last edited by Rosevidney1; 16th Jun 2015 at 18:43. Reason: polish
RV1
They are already being replaced. The T6 II will be in service in the next few years.
The Tucano's lack of immersion suit suitability may have, indirectly, helped to sound the death knell!
BV
The Tucano's lack of immersion suit suitability may have, indirectly, helped to sound the death knell!
BV
PBW
The popular story, as I've always heard it, is that the PC-9 was the preferred military option, but as the Tucano was to have been built in Belfast it was the preferred political option. Jobs came to Belfast and so too did the opportunities for the IRA to bomb the production line, and at least one Tucano was destroyed at the factory.
The T-6 is a totally different aircraft to the PC-9; think Harrier II to tin wing Harrier.
The T-6 is a totally different aircraft to the PC-9; think Harrier II to tin wing Harrier.
I was at Leeming when CFS did the fly-off. They recommended the PC-9. I recall one of the instructors telling me that they had to do a re-fly-off, as they hadn't given the 'right answer' (Tucano) the first time, but that they weren't going to change their minds. They had to pretend the Tucano would have a bunch of upgrades for the refly-off, whilst one of the main requirements was Proven Technology. A farce.
I have no objection to the politicians deciding on one option over another for 'big picture' reasons, but Government spending is in the mess it's in because they refuse to admit true reasons and lie about it.
I have no objection to the politicians deciding on one option over another for 'big picture' reasons, but Government spending is in the mess it's in because they refuse to admit true reasons and lie about it.
Didn't BWoS also propose a turbofan JP replacement, which all the QFIs favoured?
There wasn't a hope in hell of the B-N Fircracker or the paper Australian design winning, so it was a straight contest between the PC9 and the Tucano. Not that 'straight' though, as the Tucano need lots of modification and was always going to win due to the Thatcher government's decision to build the things in Belfast.
When they first flew to Scampton, they had to be parked at a remote spot until it was certain that 'the boyos' hadn't left a little gift inside...
I did hear that they'd found someone's sandwiches in one of them - and that build quality was somewhat variable.
There wasn't a hope in hell of the B-N Fircracker or the paper Australian design winning, so it was a straight contest between the PC9 and the Tucano. Not that 'straight' though, as the Tucano need lots of modification and was always going to win due to the Thatcher government's decision to build the things in Belfast.
When they first flew to Scampton, they had to be parked at a remote spot until it was certain that 'the boyos' hadn't left a little gift inside...
I did hear that they'd found someone's sandwiches in one of them - and that build quality was somewhat variable.
Beags, BWoS did indeed propose a turbofan replacement but I don't think all the QFIs were on-side. The problem with the BWoS proposal was (I believe) that they had employed a geriatric 2* ex-QFI to advise, hence the decision on side-by-side seating. Worse than that was an attitude to performance that is best summarised as "modern engines are twice as efficient as the old ones, so we have been able to take out half the fuel and you will still get an hour out of it!"
PC-9 was a clear winner in the fly-off but then it did not have the Belfast connection, nor was there a desire to reward Switzerland for all its support during the Falklands campaign.
Build quality on the initial Tucano deliveries reflected a decision to re-employ some dockyard mateys who were checked out on building ships and therefore available for work. Apparently, if you can weld and rivet steel plates, you can do aircraft work as well. I heard from one of the engineers about wiring looms that had been closed off with insulating tape, dropped rivets painted to the fuselage floor, missing fasteners etc. The first ac was in a hangar for a long time while a CWP fixed 75+ major faults.
There was a lovely story doing the rounds at the time about the S/L project officer (Ian W*rm**d), who was apparently thrown out of a meeting by the AOC for his response to a question about what the new aircraft should be called, as 'Tucano' was a bit too Latin for some. "Sir, what about calling it the PC-9? "
PC-9 was a clear winner in the fly-off but then it did not have the Belfast connection, nor was there a desire to reward Switzerland for all its support during the Falklands campaign.
Build quality on the initial Tucano deliveries reflected a decision to re-employ some dockyard mateys who were checked out on building ships and therefore available for work. Apparently, if you can weld and rivet steel plates, you can do aircraft work as well. I heard from one of the engineers about wiring looms that had been closed off with insulating tape, dropped rivets painted to the fuselage floor, missing fasteners etc. The first ac was in a hangar for a long time while a CWP fixed 75+ major faults.
There was a lovely story doing the rounds at the time about the S/L project officer (Ian W*rm**d), who was apparently thrown out of a meeting by the AOC for his response to a question about what the new aircraft should be called, as 'Tucano' was a bit too Latin for some. "Sir, what about calling it the PC-9? "