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.

Phenom

Old 27th Jul 2018, 18:57
  #21 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 15,867
Good post LJ.

NutLoose is offline  
Old 27th Jul 2018, 19:01
  #22 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Quite near 'An aerodrome somewhere in England'
Posts: 25,412
Lima Juliet wrote:
The whole MFTS thing has been a ‘train crash’ slowly evolving in front of our eyes.
Indeed. But will it ever improve? Despite Anglesey Bob's protestations, I very much doubt it.

When the whole farce of MFTS falls over, as it surely will, how many of us old farts who predicted this nonsense will say "We told you so...."
BEagle is online now  
Old 27th Jul 2018, 19:21
  #23 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: In the State of Denial
Posts: 767
It is rather tragic to think that only a short time ago the RAF could provide its own training in-House, using QFIs that had recent frontline experience (although there were a few that had skulked around Lincolnshire seemingly for ever!) A QFI tour was a ‘rest’ from the frontline & continuous deployments & afterwards you returned able to take on instructional duties on the OCUs.

Now the training system has ground to an almost total halt, the often unsuitable aircraft provided in tiny numbers unable to cope with any surge in aircrew numbers. Students in the system are facing years of holds, even prior to EFT, so are VWing as a result. Meanwhile outflow is accelerating as the airlines up their recruitment & the effects of restrictions on flying pay (sorry, retention pay), pensions & below inflation pay rises come home to roost.

Almost a ‘perfect storm’ in aircrew numbers is in prospect and the RAF has seemingly lost the ability to do anything training-wise to solve it.
Ken Scott is offline  
Old 27th Jul 2018, 21:39
  #24 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 15,867
Personally I think the DA42 with Garmin 1000 is a better aircraft for ME training than the Phenom.
If you're thinking Turboprop, the Twotter is a nice aircraft.


https://www.vikingair.com/twin-otter...SAAEgI0IfD_BwE
NutLoose is offline  
Old 28th Jul 2018, 02:21
  #25 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Axminster Devon
Age: 79
Posts: 149
Twotter very nice and ten times more interesting to learn on. Yet it is 30% more expensive (or thereabouts) and I would have thought a lot more expensive than that in life costs.
rlsbutler is offline  
Old 28th Jul 2018, 04:02
  #26 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Near the coast
Posts: 1,604
BEagle and LJ

Firstly let me say that the part of MFTS that I have experience of is working fine. A decent sized fleet of new jets with a huge new building, decent sims and new engineering facilities is not a terrible place to work.

Secondly I should add that I am not qualified to comment on any of the other areas of MFTS so my optimism may well be misplaced.

My final point which I keep trying to make, poorly it seems, is that I personally will take no joy in seeing MFTS fail if it comes to that, I don’t think anyone should. It is the only training system we have right now and the hopes of hundreds of aspiring pilots and the future of the Air Force rests on it. Not to mention that a lot of my tax pounds have been spent on it and if it fails we won’t get them back.

BEagle it is not just you old farts who can see the problems. Us young(er) folk can see them too. It’s just that, for those of us that work in the system, I feel there is no point complaining or pointing out the faults when it won’t change anything. It just makes people go to work feeling miserable.

So, in summary, excluding the FJ aspects which I do know about you are almost certainly right about the other bits but I for one will not sit and rub my hands with glee at the prospect of its impending failure.

BV
Bob Viking is offline  
Old 28th Jul 2018, 09:41
  #27 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 15,867
Originally Posted by rlsbutler View Post
Twotter very nice and ten times more interesting to learn on. Yet it is 30% more expensive (or thereabouts) and I would have thought a lot more expensive than that in life costs.
665 dollar Canadian per hour

https://www.vikingair.com/twin-otter...costs#Per-Hour


and a lot more versatile.
NutLoose is offline  
Old 28th Jul 2018, 10:40
  #28 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Germany
Posts: 1,967
Personally I think the DA42 with Garmin 1000 is a better aircraft for ME training than the Phenom
Horrid little aeroplane that refuses to maintain level despite being trimmed to the extent handling I think is taken out by the ability to plug in a pretty reasonable autopilot. Taxiing is a nightmare too, no tiller and easy to read up tyres with a poor rudder/brake pedals design. I would say, the Bling air 350 was a very nice aeroplane with adequate performance and mass to be a decent step between EFT aNd the FL.

Very very reliable engine the PT6 too.
VinRouge is online now  
Old 28th Jul 2018, 10:53
  #29 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Near the coast
Posts: 1,604
This thread is in danger of getting a bit like a Volvo driver trying to convince a VW driver which car is best now!

Maybe Ascent/Affinity just got bored of all the opinions thrown at them and drew a name out of a hat.

Next up let’s all try to agree on the best fighter aircraft ever built.

BV
Bob Viking is offline  
Old 28th Jul 2018, 11:02
  #30 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 613
I, like BV, would like MFTS to work. What does seem odd though are the decisions made. It seems a missed opportunity to think afresh and streamline the training. Why not all start on T-6C for example?

As for the Prefect, why chose an aircraft you can over-torque so easily? And the Phenom feels like you are wrestling it across the sky (perhaps that’s how all ME ac fly?).

Hope they sort it all out.
Deliverance is online now  
Old 28th Jul 2018, 12:02
  #31 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 15,867
Firstly let me say that the part of MFTS that I have experience of is working fine. A decent sized fleet of new jets with a huge new building, decent sims and new engineering facilities is not a terrible place to work.
And in that, as it does as with the Tanker contract make one wonder why, if a company can build a new facility, and supply and operate a training regime while making a healthy profit on the length of that contract, why the RAF could not do the same where no profit is required both cheaper and with service personnel.
NutLoose is offline  
Old 28th Jul 2018, 12:12
  #32 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Near the coast
Posts: 1,604
Nutty

Jam today versus jam tomorrow.

We needed new training aircraft across the spectrum. I have no idea how much Phenoms, Prefects, Junos and Texans cost but I have a fair idea how much Hawks cost.

If we’d managed to afford new aircraft I would bet good money we would have been operating out of manky old buildings in perpetuity.

No government wants to stump up billions in one go. Spreading the cost (even if it turns out to be far more expensive in the long run) is how governments work.

You know all of this as well as I do.

BV

Bob Viking is offline  
Old 28th Jul 2018, 12:35
  #33 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 15,867
I agree Bob, but the company involved with the Phenom is probably leasing them, or if purchased has factored in those costs.
NutLoose is offline  
Old 28th Jul 2018, 14:11
  #34 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Wherever it is this month
Posts: 1,155
Originally Posted by Bob Viking
No government wants to stump up billions in one go. Spreading the cost (even if it turns out to be far more expensive in the long run) is how governments work.

You know all of this as well as I do.
Thankfully, PFI is now largely discredited - and rightly so, as governments always could borrow far more cheaply than businesses. Unfortunately it was discredited slightly too late in the day to stop the AirTanker and MFTS contracts, the latter signed when IPS was at a historic low, and as you rightly say we are stuck with the consequences.

Firstly let me say that the part of MFTS that I have experience of is working fine. A decent sized fleet of new jets with a huge new building, decent sims and new engineering facilities is not a terrible place to work.
The only test of that is whether FJ OCU slots are being filled on time with suitable candidates...

Last edited by Easy Street; 28th Jul 2018 at 17:20.
Easy Street is offline  
Old 28th Jul 2018, 14:29
  #35 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 3,822
BV

As ever a reasoned and balanced post. My concern on what I hear about Valley and what the spotters would seem to back up are the low numbers of actual jets that fly from the line on a day to day basis. On some spotter sites it states it is as low as 6 aircraft. Now seeing as we bought 28x Hawk T2s and less than half of that seems to be the ‘batting average’, are you really that confident on that rosie picture you are painting?

Here is the spotters log on 13 Jun which was described as an exceptionally good day recently:
Locals all Hawk T.2
ZK028/S, ZK013/D, ZK010/A, ZK011/B, ZK029/T, ZK026/Q, ZK024/O, ZK022/M, ZK012/C, ZK018/I, ZK020/K, ZK037/AB, ZK035/Z, ZK036/AA, ZK031/V, ZK025/P, ZK015/F
Even 17 out of 28 isn’t exactly amazing I would offer?

Now with all of the Saudis, Qataris and other nations buying training courses, plus our own pilots, then QFI workups and everything else like STANEVAL going on, are we really convinced that 17x Hawks on a daily basis is going to crack it? Not forgetting that the RN are also needing FJ pilots in reasonable numbers also.

BTW - I agree that our training system is the future of the Service, so why have we allowed it to slowly decline into a training fleet The NAO grilled the MOD on this 3 years ago: https://www.nao.org.uk/report/military-flying-training/

The video is here: https://www.parliamentlive.tv/Event/...1-168735a1b10b
Lima Juliet is offline  
Old 28th Jul 2018, 14:36
  #36 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: uk
Posts: 485
Not sure that the Phenom windows are much different to the Jetstream and that was used for formation on METS for years
deltahotel is offline  
Old 28th Jul 2018, 20:11
  #37 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: In the State of Denial
Posts: 767
As I recall on the Jetstream you could see your wingtips at least, I would imagine that would be less likely to be possible on a swept wing jet like the Phenom. Add in the throttle lag of a jet & I can’t see it as being an ideal ab-initio formation trainer.
Ken Scott is offline  
Old 29th Jul 2018, 08:07
  #38 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Outside the Fence
Age: 67
Posts: 306
Ken,

When I was taught formation flying, or indeed taught others on Fast Jet OCUs one never looked at your own wintips for reference. If one could manage to formate (and AAR )in the British F4 and Tornado F3 (Bypass engines) both with a lot of throttle lag it would not be a problem in the Phenom. Having done hunderds of hours of formation in the Dominie the problem is always loosing sight, especially cross cockpit. Formation flying should be taught to ALL pilots at Basic Flying Training prior to streaming, but that is another story!
Dominator2 is offline  
Old 29th Jul 2018, 08:16
  #39 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Germany
Posts: 1,967
Originally Posted by Dominator2 View Post
Ken,

When I was taught formation flying, or indeed taught others on Fast Jet OCUs one never looked at your own wintips for reference. If one could manage to formate (and AAR )in the British F4 and Tornado F3 (Bypass engines) both with a lot of throttle lag it would not be a problem in the Phenom. Having done hunderds of hours of formation in the Dominie the problem is always loosing sight, especially cross cockpit. Formation flying should be taught to ALL pilots at Basic Flying Training prior to streaming, but that is another story!
Id prefer the time and money spent landing something like a king air to train the guys to land on grass or dirt and the changes it makes to the planning cycle, considerations, risk management. The closest you operationally get to other multis aircraft is battle/fighting wing. Close multis formation seems to be a hang up from cold war days. Not sure it's necessary in this day and age.
VinRouge is online now  
Old 29th Jul 2018, 08:42
  #40 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Quite near 'An aerodrome somewhere in England'
Posts: 25,412
ME aircraft which require air-to-air refuelling in the receiver role have to be flown in close formation. Fewer types are so equipped these days, of course.

Teaching night close formation to new VC10 co-pilots who hadn't had the benefit of traditional BFTS training was often quite demanding...
BEagle is online now  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.