Best current RAF Aircraft
HP
Let’s at least compare like with like.
If you’re going to talk about 50’ in a helicopter let’s talk about 100’ and 500+ knots in a FJ.
Whilst I’m sure the helo is still exciting I can assure you the FJ at OLF heights definitely is.
BV
If you’re going to talk about 50’ in a helicopter let’s talk about 100’ and 500+ knots in a FJ.
Whilst I’m sure the helo is still exciting I can assure you the FJ at OLF heights definitely is.
BV
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: York
Posts: 737
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Utter hoop! I’ve been lucky enough to do both, but can assure you that in its day, rotary at 50ft agl (not msd, so forget about the trees and wires - but don't hit them) at 160kts was far more exciting!
Were the brakes stuck on? 🤔
Always a touch embarrassing when you burst the tyres at low level! 😳
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: UK
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's irrelevant talking about how great FJ low level is (was....) and saying that flying anything other than FJ is inferior, because it doesn't even happen anymore (in the RAF....) and the whole point of this thread is basically saying the closest thing today to the flying in the heyday, the frequency of flying, the flying experience, hands on manual machines, exciting missions and all the rest, is by going Herc or rotary.
They aren't FJs but let's compare like with like? Typhoon and F-35 to Phantom, Hunter, Buccaneer, Hawk and Tornado, 500 knots at 100'...etc Apples and oranges. You're on the ground in the sim more than you are in the air today on FJs.
They aren't FJs but let's compare like with like? Typhoon and F-35 to Phantom, Hunter, Buccaneer, Hawk and Tornado, 500 knots at 100'...etc Apples and oranges. You're on the ground in the sim more than you are in the air today on FJs.
"Mildly" Eccentric Stardriver
What's rotary doing at 50'? "If you don't hit your wheels on the ground every hundred yards, you are not low flying" Anyone on 72 in '69/'70 will recognise the author of that phrase.
The Bird
Aside from the fact I last flew at 100’ and 500kts on Thursday should we at least get the word from a current RAF Herc pilot as to the relative merits?
You’re right that you will probably get more annual flying hours on the Herc than FJs nowadays, but should we talk about how many minutes/hours of actual hands on flying you get and how much of that is at LL?
150 hours of FJ flying in a year might be better than 90 minutes of hands on Herc time at LL in a similar period even if it isn’t at LL.
Obviously I am plucking numbers out of thin air but that’s why I say a current Herc person should comment.
As much as I believe you about the fun of LL rotary flying it’s outside the scope of the current conversation.
This isn’t about Willy waving but trying to pretend a Herc person will spend 350 hours at LL every year and that FJ pilots will be sat in the sim every day is a little disingenuous.
BV
You’re right that you will probably get more annual flying hours on the Herc than FJs nowadays, but should we talk about how many minutes/hours of actual hands on flying you get and how much of that is at LL?
150 hours of FJ flying in a year might be better than 90 minutes of hands on Herc time at LL in a similar period even if it isn’t at LL.
Obviously I am plucking numbers out of thin air but that’s why I say a current Herc person should comment.
As much as I believe you about the fun of LL rotary flying it’s outside the scope of the current conversation.
This isn’t about Willy waving but trying to pretend a Herc person will spend 350 hours at LL every year and that FJ pilots will be sat in the sim every day is a little disingenuous.
BV
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: In the State of Denial
Posts: 1,077
Likes: 0
Received 144 Likes
on
28 Posts
As I said earlier in this thread the trouble with LL, and especially in the C130, is the extended planning cycle on JAMPA and then only half the time is spent hand flying, the other half reading the map.
Now, when I was in the Falklands we transited everywhere at LL, free Nav with no planning - that was fun flying - but it was over 25 years ago, when some of the posters on this thread were actually still in the RAF...!
Now, when I was in the Falklands we transited everywhere at LL, free Nav with no planning - that was fun flying - but it was over 25 years ago, when some of the posters on this thread were actually still in the RAF...!
As I said earlier in this thread the trouble with LL, and especially in the C130, is the extended planning cycle on JAMPA and then only half the time is spent hand flying, the other half reading the map.
Now, when I was in the Falklands we transited everywhere at LL, free Nav with no planning - that was fun flying - but it was over 25 years ago, when some of the posters on this thread were actually still in the RAF...!
Now, when I was in the Falklands we transited everywhere at LL, free Nav with no planning - that was fun flying - but it was over 25 years ago, when some of the posters on this thread were actually still in the RAF...!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2021
Location: Norfolk
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As I said earlier in this thread the trouble with LL, and especially in the C130, is the extended planning cycle on JAMPA and then only half the time is spent hand flying, the other half reading the map.
Now, when I was in the Falklands we transited everywhere at LL, free Nav with no planning - that was fun flying - but it was over 25 years ago, when some of the posters on this thread were actually still in the RAF...!
Now, when I was in the Falklands we transited everywhere at LL, free Nav with no planning - that was fun flying - but it was over 25 years ago, when some of the posters on this thread were actually still in the RAF...!
500 kts at 100 ft on Thursday, I take it that was in a Hawk?
So after all the discussion, is the answer to my question still FJ even today?
From around 65 years ago:
Long before the days of GNSS, INS, automated planning systems and the like - just paper charts, G4F compass and stopwatch. Single seat, 'German' LL Wx and no navaids.
I wonder whether many RAF pilots could match that sort of skill these days? OK, I know that high speed FJ LL isn't the be-all and end-all that it used to be, but surely it's a skill worth maintaining?
Flying training within the (RAF) Swift FR5 force was realistic. Legs between targets were normally flown at 420 knots rising through 480 to 540 knots (up to a maximum of 600 knots when desirable and practicable in simulated hostile airspace) according to the task. Officially, operational training was carried out at the lowest permissible height in Germany (then 250 ft above ground level) in preparation for lower heights in war,
To train for rapid response in war, planning might be carried out against the stopwatch, with 30 minutes the standard time allowed to plan a three-target sortie over 380-400 miles. Each target had to be covered in one pass, at tacticsl speed and height, ideally with an IFREP transmitted (even blind) whenever the facility was available as soon as possible thereafter.
I wonder whether many RAF pilots could match that sort of skill these days? OK, I know that high speed FJ LL isn't the be-all and end-all that it used to be, but surely it's a skill worth maintaining?
BEagle
Many of today’s pilots would still be able to do what you describe using a map and stopwatch (it wasn’t that long ago that we were still teaching it). But why would we?
With modern planning systems we could plan for ten targets and be ready in 15 minutes. I could pretty much guarantee time over target accuracy to the second as well. Weather permitting, as was always the case.
I might as well ask if the pilots of yesteryear could have managed a swing role mission involving self designated LGB targets, Brimstone deliveries, AMRAAM tactics and all manner of other tasks.
The answer to all of the above is that all of the pilots could cope with all of the tasks. If they were trained to do so.
The basic qualities of the pilots have not changed over the years. The tasks and requirements have.
Why am I still having to tell you this?!
BV
Jamie, yes it was in a Hawk.
With modern planning systems we could plan for ten targets and be ready in 15 minutes. I could pretty much guarantee time over target accuracy to the second as well. Weather permitting, as was always the case.
I might as well ask if the pilots of yesteryear could have managed a swing role mission involving self designated LGB targets, Brimstone deliveries, AMRAAM tactics and all manner of other tasks.
The answer to all of the above is that all of the pilots could cope with all of the tasks. If they were trained to do so.
The basic qualities of the pilots have not changed over the years. The tasks and requirements have.
Why am I still having to tell you this?!
BV
Jamie, yes it was in a Hawk.
Jamie,
Low-Level is a means to an end. What I mean by that is that it gets you in position to do what your supposed to be doing (employing weapons, picking up or dropping stuff at various places).
As such, it is not the be all end all. In a modern fast jet it is not even close to the the most stimulating part of the role. You will be way more stimulated at medium level in a 60 ship Red Flag package, opposed by 20+ red air and a dense SAM belt, than you will be blasting through the Mach Loop for the 20th time.
Or consider dropping weapons danger close CAS, coordinating both within your element, and outside, where the precision and timeliness of your employment has real world effects on if the good guys or bad guys live or die. There are many more examples.
I’d suggest that you should be asking more questions about what people find stimulating/satisfying about their current roles, than dreaming about 40 year old (and now largely irrelevant) aircraft and employment methods.
Low-Level is a means to an end. What I mean by that is that it gets you in position to do what your supposed to be doing (employing weapons, picking up or dropping stuff at various places).
As such, it is not the be all end all. In a modern fast jet it is not even close to the the most stimulating part of the role. You will be way more stimulated at medium level in a 60 ship Red Flag package, opposed by 20+ red air and a dense SAM belt, than you will be blasting through the Mach Loop for the 20th time.
Or consider dropping weapons danger close CAS, coordinating both within your element, and outside, where the precision and timeliness of your employment has real world effects on if the good guys or bad guys live or die. There are many more examples.
I’d suggest that you should be asking more questions about what people find stimulating/satisfying about their current roles, than dreaming about 40 year old (and now largely irrelevant) aircraft and employment methods.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: In the State of Denial
Posts: 1,077
Likes: 0
Received 144 Likes
on
28 Posts
But that was in the C130 from 25 years ago, surely the J model today has made that easier/faster?
Not quite. Twenty-five years ago we did it all by hand, the Nav’s had a bit of string with minute marks on so that we could do non-straight legs down the valleys. Planning cycle was around 3 hrs as I recall.
Today it’s all done on computer, lots of lovely maps printed out, route run through another computer to ensure no conflicts at LL. Planning cycle around 3 hrs.
Computers have improved the quality of the product but not speeded things up.
Join Date: Jan 2021
Location: UK
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Miss the Fin....100 ft / 500 kts....Mach Loop...Star Wars Valley...Caliente...the purple haze....even Happy Valley and the sand pit....such memories, T-shirts and stories...however (reluctantly!) have to admit, IMHO ugly as it looks, the F-35s do look impressive turning over the house in the circuit at Marham...