No Water Please
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Where the heart belongs
Age: 55
Posts: 413
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
2 Posts
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: In the State of Denial
Posts: 1,077
Likes: 0
Received 146 Likes
on
28 Posts
Bit of an issue when operating from an airfield on an island?!
I guess the key word is ‘minimise’, so no long transits over water but the Menai Straits are probably not an obstacle. Which explains how the one that flew over me this morning made it to the Lake District.
Not sure if following the flow arrow up Windermere would count as minimizing though?
I guess the key word is ‘minimise’, so no long transits over water but the Menai Straits are probably not an obstacle. Which explains how the one that flew over me this morning made it to the Lake District.
Not sure if following the flow arrow up Windermere would count as minimizing though?
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Martin_the_Martian.
Take your choice, choke, freeze or drown.........
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zon...e-years-to-fix
So how exactly do the other ten air arms around the world that operate the T-6 manage?
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zon...e-years-to-fix
"Mildly" Eccentric Stardriver
Errr. One year JP to "wings", then (for the lucky ones) onto the Gnat, predecessor of the Hawk. I didn't go that route, but many did, and that was mid sixties. Re-inventing the wheel?
Martin_the_Martian.
Take your choice, choke, freeze or drown.........
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zon...e-years-to-fix
Take your choice, choke, freeze or drown.........
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zon...e-years-to-fix
Hmm. Another great aircraft procurement decision. Is it too late to take them back and swap for some PC-21s?
M the M
I have two points:
1. The MOD did not procure the aircraft. They were chosen and bought by the contractor. It is just possible that they may have realised they need more than the initial purchase of 10.
2. I’ve said this countless times before but I’ll say it again. PC21 is overkill. It’s a great aircraft but not what was required for the job in hand.
BV
1. The MOD did not procure the aircraft. They were chosen and bought by the contractor. It is just possible that they may have realised they need more than the initial purchase of 10.
2. I’ve said this countless times before but I’ll say it again. PC21 is overkill. It’s a great aircraft but not what was required for the job in hand.
BV
the harness on this particular aircraft could not currently be fitted with a water-activated quick-release mechanism which would be required if a pilot became incapacitated in a sea survival situation.
But I think it is taking a rather extreme view in wanting this water-activated quick- release buckle. What happens when some student barfs on it? Or spills his inflight coffee?
Regarding PC-21, that aircraft is used by some air arms as an ab initio trainer and by some as an advanced trainer leading onto Gripen, F-18 etc. Therefore, it covers the whole spectrum of training. When the contractors (Affinity and Ascent) decided on platforms for MFTS the Hawk T2 was already well in service and the PC-21 would have had considerable overlap of capabilities with it. In fact, the PC-21 has some capabilities which I believe the Hawk T2 does not (synthetic air-to-ground radar). The PC-21 was more expensive than the T6 and so was not a sensible option, however good and capable it may have been.
I was involved with the proposal by Affinity to Ascent of the T6 as the platform for this role but my remit did not involve any aspects of AEA. Both the T6 and PC-21 are fitted with Martin-Baker Mk 16 ejection seats. Therefore, it begs the question why the UK T6s were not fitted with a version of the seat that used UK AEA. I suspect that it was a question of cost but some here may know more.
I was involved with the proposal by Affinity to Ascent of the T6 as the platform for this role but my remit did not involve any aspects of AEA. Both the T6 and PC-21 are fitted with Martin-Baker Mk 16 ejection seats. Therefore, it begs the question why the UK T6s were not fitted with a version of the seat that used UK AEA. I suspect that it was a question of cost but some here may know more.
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Stansted
Posts: 210
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This must be old news as the Texans have been happily transmitting over the Irish Sea for low level work in LFA17. There were several in the Lake District last week for example.
The Tucano was never cleared for flight over the sea due to a number of reasons.
The water-activated QRB sounds interesting. Something which doesn't operate when a student is strapping in on a wet day, but operates quickly enough to release him/her quickly enough to avoid drowning must be something of a design challenge.
But I still cannot understand why the RAF didn't include the optional the M-B Mk.17 lightweight ejection seat in the user requirement for the Prefect T1.
Last edited by BEagle; 12th Jul 2020 at 16:01. Reason: Syerston, not Sywell! Thanks for pointing out the fat finger error, Herod!
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
This must be old news as the Texans have been happily transmitting over the Irish Sea for low level work in LFA17.