New RAF Trainer
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,048
Received 2,920 Likes
on
1,249 Posts
Yes, a lesson the US learnt the hard way, with the early gunless Phantom over Vietnam, where a gun was found to be needed and fitted to later versions. Mind you, I seem to remember they were required to close to visually confirm a target first which sort of negated their advantages over their opponents.
It always struck me as odd not to learn from others experiences in originally looking at removing the one from the Typhoon.
It always struck me as odd not to learn from others experiences in originally looking at removing the one from the Typhoon.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,048
Received 2,920 Likes
on
1,249 Posts
Yes, because they wouldn't have to pay for the support structure, tooling, bays, plumbers etc over the predicted life of the aircraft, but the replacement ballast design would have cost more than fitting the gun, so it was fitted but inactive, then later on someone figured out having a working gun might actually be of some use.
Which makes you wonder if pulling out the systems designed for this plastic pig at the offset, oxygen systems, bang seats etc, will make the need for a redesign to accommodate the changes and possibly ballasting to retain the C of G necessary. Indeed, will the savings be offset or lost by the changes involved.
Which makes you wonder if pulling out the systems designed for this plastic pig at the offset, oxygen systems, bang seats etc, will make the need for a redesign to accommodate the changes and possibly ballasting to retain the C of G necessary. Indeed, will the savings be offset or lost by the changes involved.
Which makes you wonder if pulling out the systems designed for this plastic pig at the offset, oxygen systems, bang seats etc, will make the need for a redesign to accommodate the changes and possibly ballasting to retain the C of G necessary. Indeed, will the savings be offset or lost by the changes involved.
does it matter as far as MoD are concerned?
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: UK
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I believe the ejection seats and oxygen generation systems are optional on the G120TP, so no redesign will be needed, as the baseline design does not include them anyway.
Another thing the UK G120TPs do not appear to have is an autopilot, which, along with the lack of oxygen generation system, rules out downloading some of the high-level nav elements of the multi-engine cse to the G120TP.
The lack of bang seats also means we won't likely see the G120TP being used for some elements of the BFJT course, i.e. low level nav.
One question is, given the large increase in RPAS pilots the RAF will be needing due to Protector, will the G120TP be used to provide EFT to RPAS pilots, or will that continue as a separate cse on the Tutor (or be scrapped altogether once the RAF gains full control of it's RPAS training pipeline)?
Another thing the UK G120TPs do not appear to have is an autopilot, which, along with the lack of oxygen generation system, rules out downloading some of the high-level nav elements of the multi-engine cse to the G120TP.
The lack of bang seats also means we won't likely see the G120TP being used for some elements of the BFJT course, i.e. low level nav.
One question is, given the large increase in RPAS pilots the RAF will be needing due to Protector, will the G120TP be used to provide EFT to RPAS pilots, or will that continue as a separate cse on the Tutor (or be scrapped altogether once the RAF gains full control of it's RPAS training pipeline)?
Bv - I'd be interested to see the birdstrike result from this puppy at low level at 200 and something knots without a bang seat as a get out of jail free card. Wonder how thick the windscreen is? The front half of the tucano one is certainly pretty thick.
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: UK
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
By "low level nav", I was referring to "dynamic" low-level nav such as the Mach Loop, etc. Considering the low numbers (only 10) of T-6Cs we have ordered, I figured they were going to shift some of the BFJT elements onto the G120TP, but the lack of bang seats makes me doubt this.
However, there is an interesting comment from Paul Livingstone, MD of Ascent, in this month's Air Forces Monthly (September, Page 8), saying that the numbers of T-6Cs ordered (and presumably other types too?) were based on the 2010 SDSR predictions of required pilot numbers, and therefore an order of additional airframes is now being considered.
The G120TP is certainly capable of dynamic manoeuvres, just go to 7:30 and 8:30 in the below video for two clips of a G120TP doing low-level high-speed passes over an airfield - it's speed and manoeuvrability are surprising!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qXSTIxvutBc
Note that the UK will be getting the full glass cockpit version, unlike the analogue version shown in this video. One thing I worry about is complete ab-initio pilots (i.e. some who may have never even flown so much as a glider before) getting into a G120TP for their first ever experience of flying.
I know it has a power limiter, but still, especially with the glass cockpit, it could prove quite a handful. Time will tell as to whether a short bridging course is needed from the Tutor to the G120TP.
However, there is an interesting comment from Paul Livingstone, MD of Ascent, in this month's Air Forces Monthly (September, Page 8), saying that the numbers of T-6Cs ordered (and presumably other types too?) were based on the 2010 SDSR predictions of required pilot numbers, and therefore an order of additional airframes is now being considered.
The G120TP is certainly capable of dynamic manoeuvres, just go to 7:30 and 8:30 in the below video for two clips of a G120TP doing low-level high-speed passes over an airfield - it's speed and manoeuvrability are surprising!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qXSTIxvutBc
Note that the UK will be getting the full glass cockpit version, unlike the analogue version shown in this video. One thing I worry about is complete ab-initio pilots (i.e. some who may have never even flown so much as a glider before) getting into a G120TP for their first ever experience of flying.
I know it has a power limiter, but still, especially with the glass cockpit, it could prove quite a handful. Time will tell as to whether a short bridging course is needed from the Tutor to the G120TP.
Last edited by HP90; 18th Aug 2016 at 00:41.
Airpolice,
I can't see that being an issue as the techniques taught at EFT differ markedly in certain areas from PPL (notably the cct, but plenty of others) and the RAF has a very positive attitude towards non-grad recruitment (slightly selfishly because it means they Pvr later!). As for abbos flying the Grob as the first thing they get airborne in, don't think that the glass cockpit will be the limfac. However, I'll start a book now on how many months it is before the first student lands one wheels up!
I can't see that being an issue as the techniques taught at EFT differ markedly in certain areas from PPL (notably the cct, but plenty of others) and the RAF has a very positive attitude towards non-grad recruitment (slightly selfishly because it means they Pvr later!). As for abbos flying the Grob as the first thing they get airborne in, don't think that the glass cockpit will be the limfac. However, I'll start a book now on how many months it is before the first student lands one wheels up!
ISTR the Piston Provost was no slouch with the 550 BHP Leonides but, the SBA' kit could not compete with a glass cockpit'! But, nobody landed wheels up to my knowledge except almost once on the North Airfield at Shiny Palace' where a certain Bloggs' "landed on one" after knocking off the other one.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,048
Received 2,920 Likes
on
1,249 Posts
As you asked, the all tin Sia Marchetti SF260TP as used by Commander Bond.
http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-ne...-glass-cockpit
http://www.leonardocompany.com/en/-/sf-260
http://www.airliners.net/photo/Aerma...-260TP/2273809
I believe the piston variant was looked at once before but was deemed at the time to expensive.
..
http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-ne...-glass-cockpit
http://www.leonardocompany.com/en/-/sf-260
http://www.airliners.net/photo/Aerma...-260TP/2273809
I believe the piston variant was looked at once before but was deemed at the time to expensive.
..
Last edited by NutLoose; 18th Aug 2016 at 22:50.
The SF260 was considered as a Chipmunk replacement for UAS flying back in around 1970. However, political considerations favoured the Scottish Aviation Bulldog - which was the last proper RAF elementary military trainer.
BAC proposed the P-59 single jet, tandem seat jet trainer to replace the Jet Provost - but instead the RAF ended up with the slower, unpressurised turboprop Tucano for basic fast jet training.
BAC proposed the P-59 single jet, tandem seat jet trainer to replace the Jet Provost - but instead the RAF ended up with the slower, unpressurised turboprop Tucano for basic fast jet training.
Was not the Tucano chosen as a 'thank you' to Brazil for help during Op Corporate ? Then as usual an 'off the shelf' buy was modded by the UK.
I believe that creating jobs in Northern Ireland may well have been a significant factor in the selection of the Tucano for the RAF. There was an evaluation flown at Boscombe Down between the Tucano, PC-9 and Turbo-Firecracker and I believe that the PC-9 was assessed as the best option but there are often many more factors than just capability that drive procurement decisions.