Leon ...

In 1997 seven Chipmunks were converted with 180 HP Lycoming O-360-A1A engines. Apart from being able to confirm that the FAP deployed them for use as Initial Pilot Screening (which I understand was very similar to the RAF FSS) I'm afraid I can't catagorically say if they were aerobated.

Dora-9 might know, should he pop up on this thread :ok:

Cheers ...

Coff.

Any chance of some of these instead?

http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviatio.../7/0084780.jpg

CGB ... Santa's Wish List has closed for this year mate ;)

Bu&&er. Now where's that winning lottery ticket? :sad:

It wouldn't surprise me to learn that tailchasing has been taken out of the dumbed-down post-Marston report UAS syllabus, but surely not for anything beyond that?

Thanks Coff

The only reference I could find was at 2:40 of this Chipmunk-porn video (of which I'm sure you'll enjoy!). There is a Lycoming Chippy doing a formation loop at 2:40:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ILylmS5Ivp8

With some 20 years instructing under my belt, having flown fast jets with HUDs, Chippies and Bulldogs with good old analogue instruments, 737 and cirrus with full glass cockpits, personally I think we should all start on analogue instruments. Fast jet and complex airliners need them. But there is no substitute for basic training.

Many thanks Leon ... Consider yourself 'rehabilitated' off the Naughty Step with that little video clip :ok:

I meant the EFT syllabus. I expect the UAS's are now the only ones with time to even consider tail chasing these days.

New fangled ways
 

Whatever system comes in during the next few years suffice to say it'll be different in many ways to its predecessor.

Different isn't always bad it just needs an open mind to adapt to it.

For better or worse (and it's very easy to find fault, quite another thing to find workable solutions) the system has enough of the right people in the right places to ensure the product coming out the other end will still be just fine.

The next generation may not be able to use astro-navigation and a dalton computer to navigate to Timbuktu and back but I reckon they'll cope fine with whatever is thrown at them. It's a brave new world out there.

Can our collective New Years resolution be to quit whining and just accept change?

BV:cool:

UKMFTS
 

Foreboding? Is that the feeling you get when deep down you look at what has been done to RAF aircrew training over the last few decades and see what is likely to happen in the next few years? Sometimes I think our trainee aircrew succeed despite our training system, not because of it. I doubt that much of the current training is DSAT compliant due to "make it happen" attitudes of VSO when pressured by financial constraints of the past decades. What the civilian contractors have planned will probably be inflexible and too taut financially to meet the variable needs of the Services. But what is really a concern is it might take another Haddon-Cave inquiry in ten years time to expose the folly of the decision to go in the direction planned by MOD and UKMFTS. I truly hope I am wrong - but foreboding?
kbc


Nearly Forgot - Happy New Year to all!!

Elbit Systems Flight Training solutions
 

Happy New Year all

Take Elbit Systems model for the IDF/AF. The same airframes as Ascent will for EFT and BFT ; Grob 120 and T-6. On the RW side its the Bell 206B.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zRHdeHni5Ic

(Quick note Elbit are pitching the Bell 407GX for the rotary wing aspet of MFTS)

Ken,

My comment wasn't a challenge to the RAF, the RN Obs course is part of MFTS and thus open to all. It was more about the RAF trying to establish a cadre that would only be about 25 -30 strong (eventually). Career management would be a nightmare. I hadn't realised you had lots of WSOs in the other fleets as the RAF stopped WSO training some years ago.

I believe that if we don't give the current/future generation of aircrew a glass cockpit then they will feel cheated and underwhelmed. Put an old duffer in a glass-cockpit machine and watch them falter over the myriad of menus and button pushes - put a youngster in the same machine and its 'duck to water' time.

We have to move on with our fleets. We found that with Hawk T2 studes that although they were poorer at 'head down' work than their T1 peers, their ability to cope with Typhoon cockpits was much improved by the T2 studes than the T1 - there were of course exceptions, but they were the future 'exceptional' pilots.

LJ

Coff,

Returning to your earlier post about the merits of the types chosen. The ME platform was always going to be the most challenging to select. The EFT platform has to prepare the students for 3 types: T6, Phenom and whatever the rotary platform is chosen to be. I know little of the rotary world so I will say no more about that. Students from the T6 will progress only to the Hawk T2 so platform suitability for that role is relatively straightforward to ascertain. The students from the ME platform choice will graduate from it onto Shadow/Avenger, E3/Air Seeker, A400M, Voyager, C130 etc. And then there are the Islander/Defender variants. To get a 'one size fits all' ME trainer was always going to be interesting!

I have flown the Phenom 100 and, like many others, before I flew it I had doubts about whether its asymmetric flying qualities would be adequate to teach ME students. However, at low speeds large rudder inputs are required to counter the asymmetric thrust if the aircraft is flown wings level, and the rudder pedal forces are manageable. Also, the loss of thrust requires a significant reduction in the pitch attitude in order to maintain the required speed. The major consideration is roll control. The aircraft has no lateral stability (dihedral effect) and there is no propwash over the wings. Therefore, once stabilised there is no aileron deflection required to maintain a constant bank angle. However, it does feature a spring interconnect such that when a large rudder pedal input is made a lateral control force is required in the opposite sense in order to maintain the required aileron angle so some opposite force on the yoke is needed. The other aspect with respect to roll is that if 5 deg of bank is applied towards the live engine then the aircraft can be flown essentially rudder free. Overall, and considering the range of roll control strategies required by the in-service ME platforms for flight on asymmetric power the Phenom can, in my opinion, provide satisfactory training in flight on asymmetric power.

LJ,

I agree totally about the fact that our next generation trainers need glass cockpits (although there will be some scratching of heads for students then graduating onto platforms with analogue cockpits such as the Islander/Defender but there are other solutions). However, if we want good, capable pilots we still need to teach them the basics of how to fly and apply good airmanship because they will need to be able to cope with reversionary modes if they are to be truly effective. Please note that I am not implying that you have said otherwise! Piloting skills will always be about flying an aeroplane and will always be required for high calibre operators. Rely too heavily on automation at ones peril!

Happy New Year

L

Lomcevak ...

Many thanks for your very informative contribution ... very interesting from a practical 'piloting' standpoint in respect of the Phenom. Just goes to show that the appearance of an aircraft can be deceptive in terms of assumed handling characteristics ... you have to fly it to know ;)

I'm sure we'll find out more on this topic as 2016 unfolds. Let's hope there will be more airframes available than has currently been speculated here ... ;)

Just a passing thought ...

With the prospect of Mil ME students being 'farmed' out to civilian training schools before the new MFTS is up and running ... along with an influx of Ascent civilian licensed FW MFTS QFI's ... perhaps it's time for RAF aircrew to log flight times in their F414's 'Chock' to 'Chock' as opposed to 'Wheels Off' to 'Wheels On' ... :uhoh:

Best ...

Coff

Oooh you devil! Maybe in fact the civvies should change to adopt the mil system where flight time means flight time! ;)

LOMCEVAK,
In '41 the USAAC drove that message home by making us fly our first 60 hours in the Stearman with no ASI on the panel !


CoffmanStarter and TorqueoftheDevil,

In my day, we always logged "chock to chock" as a taxying accident was treated exactly the same as a flying accident. Don't know the position now.

Happy New Year ! Danny42C.

There's quite a good report on the G120TP in the current issue of Pilot