New British jet trainer design revealed
 

Royal Aeronautical Society | Insight Blog | Paris Air Show - Day Zero


Good to see an innovative military aircraft design from a UK design team!


http://aerosociety.com/Assets/Images...jet%20reds.jpg

Interesting concept - I wish them well, but can almost feel the heel of the big operators grinding already

Ah the new AlphaHawk!

I'd fly it. Given the right price of course.

BV:ok:

Hopefully they are carefull about which F1 teams they talk to- some F1 teams burn some serious money.

Hmmm, have I heard that one before? ....can't put my finger on it......:E

Seriously, like Wander, I wish them well. Perhaps a LIFT type aircraft is a good candidate for plug and play airframe with interchageable engines and wings, and a lean development process, is way overdue, but I always wonder if these "better, faster, cheaper" start ups can ever deliver, or be given the chance to try?

I would like to see more fly offs, and some start ups given a chance. More money up front, but could lead to savings down the line.

The AAR training probe location requires a rear-view mirror for the Instructor.

"Left a bit, Hoskins. No! Your other left, you clot!"

And add a bit of S. 211!

And a bit of Pampa as well.

As good as the Hawk is, and I think it has set the standard for AJTs for many years, it is looking pedestrian when compared to the M.346/Yak-130 and T-50. While the latest variants can adequately do the job, I still wonder why BAES did not start to look at a new design 10-15 years ago when it was clear that the RAF would need to replace the T.1. After all, it is how Hawker Siddeley were perfectly placed back in the early 1970s when the subject of a Gnat replacement came up, because they were well into designing something ideal for the task.

Yeah, I know; BAES don't seem particularly interested in designing new aircraft.

Re the thread title, is it a design or a concept just now?

Courtney ... Looks like a 'concept' at this stage ;)

Dart Jet | A Modular Jet Trainer for the 21st Century

Outline spec here ...

DART Basic Trainer | Dart Jet

Do we need a Tucano replacement? I'd have thought they have ample life remaining - unless somebody knows better.

RV1
 

They are already being replaced. The T6 II will be in service in the next few years.

The Tucano's lack of immersion suit suitability may have, indirectly, helped to sound the death knell!

BV:eek:

BV - are you implying that requirement was not written into the spec for the Tucano. Amazing!

Wander00
 

I'm not a Tucano expert so I couldn't possibly comment.

BV:E

I know, and if you told me you would then have to kill me............

Please excuse what may be a stupid question, but is the MoD replacing the Tucano with what is basically the aircraft that "lost" the competition to the Tucano (ie the PC-9)? I seem to recall at the time that the Pilatus was said to be the preferred choice of the RAF: was this really true or just BAe propaganda?

PBW

The popular story, as I've always heard it, is that the PC-9 was the preferred military option, but as the Tucano was to have been built in Belfast it was the preferred political option. Jobs came to Belfast and so too did the opportunities for the IRA to bomb the production line, and at least one Tucano was destroyed at the factory.

The T-6 is a totally different aircraft to the PC-9; think Harrier II to tin wing Harrier.

I was at Leeming when CFS did the fly-off. They recommended the PC-9. I recall one of the instructors telling me that they had to do a re-fly-off, as they hadn't given the 'right answer' (Tucano) the first time, but that they weren't going to change their minds. They had to pretend the Tucano would have a bunch of upgrades for the refly-off, whilst one of the main requirements was Proven Technology. A farce.
I have no objection to the politicians deciding on one option over another for 'big picture' reasons, but Government spending is in the mess it's in because they refuse to admit true reasons and lie about it.

Didn't BWoS also propose a turbofan JP replacement, which all the QFIs favoured?

There wasn't a hope in hell of the B-N Fircracker or the paper Australian design winning, so it was a straight contest between the PC9 and the Tucano. Not that 'straight' though, as the Tucano need lots of modification and was always going to win due to the Thatcher government's decision to build the things in Belfast.

When they first flew to Scampton, they had to be parked at a remote spot until it was certain that 'the boyos' hadn't left a little gift inside...:\

I did hear that they'd found someone's sandwiches in one of them - and that build quality was somewhat variable.

Beags, BWoS did indeed propose a turbofan replacement but I don't think all the QFIs were on-side. The problem with the BWoS proposal was (I believe) that they had employed a geriatric 2* ex-QFI to advise, hence the decision on side-by-side seating. Worse than that was an attitude to performance that is best summarised as "modern engines are twice as efficient as the old ones, so we have been able to take out half the fuel and you will still get an hour out of it!"

PC-9 was a clear winner in the fly-off but then it did not have the Belfast connection, nor was there a desire to reward Switzerland for all its support during the Falklands campaign.

Build quality on the initial Tucano deliveries reflected a decision to re-employ some dockyard mateys who were checked out on building ships and therefore available for work. Apparently, if you can weld and rivet steel plates, you can do aircraft work as well. I heard from one of the engineers about wiring looms that had been closed off with insulating tape, dropped rivets painted to the fuselage floor, missing fasteners etc. The first ac was in a hangar for a long time while a CWP fixed 75+ major faults.

There was a lovely story doing the rounds at the time about the S/L project officer (Ian W*rm**d), who was apparently thrown out of a meeting by the AOC for his response to a question about what the new aircraft should be called, as 'Tucano' was a bit too Latin for some. "Sir, what about calling it the PC-9? " :D