New British built trainer, the Swift, central to the RAF’s green agenda.
The Swift, the company says, will feature a large cockpit for a broader demographic of pilots to fit comfortably
The reality is that today's young people are significantly taller and yes heavier than previous generations. A basic trainer has to fit everybody which means for a small efficient airframe the canopy is going to inevitably appear oversize. But really who cares. The things that matter are flying characteristics and serviceability. You want an airplane that has no bad habits so low time solo students don't kill themselves, but is but hard to fly well so that instructors can not only teach the basics but also assess the ability of students to progress to faster and more complex airplanes. I have always thought that the Chipmunk (a Canadian design I wish to note 
) was the best ab initio trainer eve made.
The other half of the equation is that it has to spend its time on the flight line, not in the hangar. The Grob products and I mean all of them, fail in this regard.
Electric power plants are IMO, the future for flight training. The duty cycle is well suited for this type of propulsion and having the imprimatur and resources of the RAF behind it could be the kick starter for a whole new industry. For that reason I am very disappointed by commentators who deride this initiative as some sort of RAF "woke" pandering. Strangely these folks also often seem to be the ones who bemoan the fact that Britain's once great aerospace industry is a pale shadow of its former self...........
I hope the Swift succeeds as both a military and civil trainer.
) was the best ab initio trainer eve made.The other half of the equation is that it has to spend its time on the flight line, not in the hangar. The Grob products and I mean all of them, fail in this regard.
Electric power plants are IMO, the future for flight training. The duty cycle is well suited for this type of propulsion and having the imprimatur and resources of the RAF behind it could be the kick starter for a whole new industry. For that reason I am very disappointed by commentators who deride this initiative as some sort of RAF "woke" pandering. Strangely these folks also often seem to be the ones who bemoan the fact that Britain's once great aerospace industry is a pale shadow of its former self...........
I hope the Swift succeeds as both a military and civil trainer.
The following 3 users liked this post by Big Pistons Forever:
The reality is that today's young people are significantly taller and yes heavier than previous generations. A basic trainer has to fit everybody which means for a small efficient airframe the canopy is going to inevitably appear oversize. But really who cares. The things that matter are flying characteristics and serviceability. You want an airplane that has no bad habits so low time solo students don't kill themselves, but is but hard to fly well so that instructors can not only teach the basics but also assess the ability of students to progress to faster and more complex airplanes. I have always thought that the Chipmunk (a Canadian design I wish to note ) was the best ab initio trainer eve made.
The other half of the equation is that it has to spend its time on the flight line, not in the hangar. The Grob products and I mean all of them, fail in this regard.
Electric power plants are IMO, the future for flight training. The duty cycle is well suited for this type of propulsion and having the imprimatur and resources of the RAF behind it could be the kick starter for a whole new industry. For that reason I am very disappointed by commentators who deride this initiative as some sort of RAF "woke" pandering. Strangely these folks also often seem to be the ones who bemoan the fact that Britain's once great aerospace industry is a pale shadow of its former self...........
I hope the Swift succeeds as both a military and civil trainer.
) was the best ab initio trainer eve made.The other half of the equation is that it has to spend its time on the flight line, not in the hangar. The Grob products and I mean all of them, fail in this regard.
Electric power plants are IMO, the future for flight training. The duty cycle is well suited for this type of propulsion and having the imprimatur and resources of the RAF behind it could be the kick starter for a whole new industry. For that reason I am very disappointed by commentators who deride this initiative as some sort of RAF "woke" pandering. Strangely these folks also often seem to be the ones who bemoan the fact that Britain's once great aerospace industry is a pale shadow of its former self...........
I hope the Swift succeeds as both a military and civil trainer.
One of my secondary duties whilst working at the A&AEE was that of anthropometric dummy as I worked closely with Doc Morgan and John Eatwell. Unfortunately I am tall sat down, 98%tile buttock to crown, whilst only being 6 foot stood up, so I got involved with a number of cockpit integration trials (Bulldog replacement, Vigilant, Islander and NVG auto disconnect). I'd be interested (and available for trials) if the designers of this aircraft have considered tall crew earing helmets and parachutes as that will be a military requirement. I was too tall for the Vigilant even without a helmet and with one wouldn't have fitted in some of the others with the clearances needed. I remember the Firefly and how the canopy grew in size to accept helmets and how the resultant blown canopy affected the handling (a problem solved too late to prevent it being replaced by the Grob). That high mounted tail plane and bulged canopy doesn't look good for its spinning characteristics, I do hope it had an easily jettisoned canopy or a ballistic recovery parachute fitted.
The following 2 users liked this post by VX275:
The website says the Swift will have a built in BRS - not sure how that affects how good or bad the spinning characteristics are allowed to be.
Here's another article on the Swift:
https://www.aerosociety.com/news/exc...wift-progress/
I did some work on car chassis using allowables for a flax pre-preg composite. It is not a structural material, but can be used for non-structural purposes. If used right it'll be a nice to have, but they won't be using bio resins for the high Tg cure cycles they want so that they can paint them black, which might reduce the overall green-ness of the design.
I like what they're doing and the way they're going about it. I wish I had their kit for what I want to do but the Swift design leaves something to be desired for me. Each to their own of course. I'll take this over Aeralis any day, but it must be recognised just how difficult it is to develop and certify aircraft in today's UK world.
Here's another article on the Swift:
https://www.aerosociety.com/news/exc...wift-progress/
I did some work on car chassis using allowables for a flax pre-preg composite. It is not a structural material, but can be used for non-structural purposes. If used right it'll be a nice to have, but they won't be using bio resins for the high Tg cure cycles they want so that they can paint them black, which might reduce the overall green-ness of the design.
I like what they're doing and the way they're going about it. I wish I had their kit for what I want to do but the Swift design leaves something to be desired for me. Each to their own of course. I'll take this over Aeralis any day, but it must be recognised just how difficult it is to develop and certify aircraft in today's UK world.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,020
Received 2,900 Likes
on
1,242 Posts
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Mostly in my own imagination
Posts: 477
Received 310 Likes
on
144 Posts
I’m sorry, but the Swift is one of the ugly sisters when it comes to the next generation of trainers. That also includes ones with greener credentials too. The “look right” is so important when it comes to success in the GA sector - look at how successful the Vans RV range is, as they look fantastic and people are proud to own and fly them (they also have magnificent cruise performance too).
So ask yourself this - would you want to own this dog’s dinner:
When there are better looking aircraft like Bye eFlyer2 (all electric too with up to 3.5 hours endurance) being developed at the same time:
Or the Aura-Aero Integral:
In comparison, the Swift’s dimensions are all wrong…
So ask yourself this - would you want to own this dog’s dinner:
When there are better looking aircraft like Bye eFlyer2 (all electric too with up to 3.5 hours endurance) being developed at the same time:
Or the Aura-Aero Integral:
In comparison, the Swift’s dimensions are all wrong…
Last edited by Lima Juliet; 28th Apr 2023 at 06:12.
Neither of those are British firms though - the UK is flooded with small LSA but most come from abroad, surely supporting a UK manufacturer is a good thing?
I don't think there is much wrong with its looks, I'd love to fly one.
I don't think there is much wrong with its looks, I'd love to fly one.
The following users liked this post:
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,020
Received 2,900 Likes
on
1,242 Posts
And the E flyer 2 as far as I can see isn’t aerobatic and neither is the other one
"The other half of the equation is that it has to spend its time on the flight line, not in the hangar. The Grob products and I mean all of them, fail in this regard.
Electric power plants are IMO, the future for flight training. The duty cycle is well suited for this type of propulsion....."
The only concern I would have about electric in a flying training environment is the time taken to charge. It's difficult to squeeze power in any faster than currently and this will impinge on turnaround times and achievable sorties in a day.
Electric power plants are IMO, the future for flight training. The duty cycle is well suited for this type of propulsion....."
The only concern I would have about electric in a flying training environment is the time taken to charge. It's difficult to squeeze power in any faster than currently and this will impinge on turnaround times and achievable sorties in a day.
CG
The following users liked this post:
If you truly believe they haven't thought of that for themselves, or had the issue raised by potential buyers, why not write to them about it?
The eFlyer 2 is a cruiser and built for long range 120-135kts cruising.
As for buying British - yep, I own all sorts of innovative British designs and I’m hugely proud of them. I wouldn’t feel like that if I owned a Swift (having aircraft of my own, then I feel far prouder to own those). Seeing as the Integral E is French, then I will use a French adage “Nous sommes nos choix” - we are what we we choose - and I’m certainly not a Swift!
"The other half of the equation is that it has to spend its time on the flight line, not in the hangar. The Grob products and I mean all of them, fail in this regard.
Electric power plants are IMO, the future for flight training. The duty cycle is well suited for this type of propulsion....."
The only concern I would have about electric in a flying training environment is the time taken to charge. It's difficult to squeeze power in any faster than currently and this will impinge on turnaround times and achievable sorties in a day.
Electric power plants are IMO, the future for flight training. The duty cycle is well suited for this type of propulsion....."
The only concern I would have about electric in a flying training environment is the time taken to charge. It's difficult to squeeze power in any faster than currently and this will impinge on turnaround times and achievable sorties in a day.
Recharging times
Surely removeable batteries are the way forward? Turn around times can be as quick as taking out a battery and putting a new one in. The recharging can happen overnight. Or is that too simple to work?
BV
BV
https://www.euronews.com/next/2023/0...open-in-europe