|
New British built trainer, the Swift, central to the RAF’s green agenda.
New aircraft
The first British civil aircraft to be wholly designed, manufactured and certified in the UK in more than two decades has found an unexpected role as a testbed for the Royal Air Force’s future technologies. Startup Swift Technology Group’s (STG) eponymous Swift light aircraft, due to make its first flight later this year, is set to be at the center of the service’s push to achieve net-zero carbon emissions in 2040, ahead of the UK’s legislated target of 2050. The Swift has been selected for Monet, a UK Royal Air Force (RAF) Rapid Capabilities Office (RCO) project exploring greener propulsion alternatives and considering the environmental effects of operating with those powerplants. Among the technologies being considered are all-electric battery power, hydrogen fuel-cell propulsion, hybrid-electric configurations, as well as synthetic fuel use in combustion engines. Swift was selected in part because several of those propulsion technologies are part of the Swift’s development road map. The company has defined an architecture for the aircraft to support alternative power systems and has selected two as-yet-undisclosed UK-based partners to support the work. Under development at the former RAF Coltishall, England, the Swift is an all-composite, two-seat, low-wing, aerobatic-capable aircraft that the company hopes will appeal to the pilot-training and general aviation market. Interest in the aircraft from the general aviation industry has been encouraging, STG officials say. Concept design for the development of the aircraft has been taking place over the last decade and is now “mature,” the company tells Aviation Week. After the planned first flight this year, certification—meeting the Euro-pean Union Aviation Safety Agency’s CS-23 requirements for Normal, Utility, Aerobatic and Commuter aircraft—is expected in 2025-26, with the different propulsion options to be offered later. If successful, it will be the first British aircraft to be certified since the Avro RJ series of regional airliners. The Monet project is “complementary to our goals,” says David Stanbridge, founder and managing director of STG, adding that the Monet efforts are seen as a way to refine the aircraft further. Crucially, STG has an eye on proposing Swift to meet the RAF’s ambition to deliver an electric-powered, fully aerobatic training aircraft that would replace the Grob G 115 Tutor aircraft that are currently in service. That fleet is used for preservice flying training, grading and assessment, as well as support of the RAF’s University Air Sqdns. and Air Experience Flights. That broader program, called Project Telum, aims to deliver such an aircraft by around 2027; work on Project Monet could put the Swift in a good position for Telum. The company also received an innovation loan from the UK Defense Ministry’s Defense and Security Accelerator (DASA) (AW&ST July 26-Aug. 8, 2021, p. 52). Company officials say the Defense Ministry assessments for securing the DASA loan and now the Monet work “validate” its approach to development. STG says the “timing is right” for a new light training aircraft, noting that pilot-training requirements are expanding and calling for more training to be done on fewer platforms. The Swift, the company says, will feature a large cockpit for a broader demographic of pilots to fit comfortably, while its aerobatic capability “will broaden the scope of training that operators can provide to customers,” including upset prevention and recovery training. The RCO will have access to two Swift aircraft as part of the trials, as well as access to the company’s technology development. Flight assessment will be performed by test pilots from both Swift and the Defense Ministry. Other partners in Project Monet include: Babcock, the current provider of the Grob Tutor fleet as well as an MRO provider; CFS Aero; Zero Petroleum; electric powertrain specialist Delta Cosworth; and Uplift360, a recycling technology company. “Monet will be an exciting journey into the future of sustainable flight for the RAF,” said RAF Group Capt. Peter Hackett, the military head of flight test for Team Tempest. “We will develop and understand the technologies to enable future military aircrew and air cadets to begin their journey into aviation, and yet not adversely impact the world we all share.” In addition to Project Monet, the RAF is continuing to explore the use of sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) and synthetic alternatives. In early April, Eurofighter Typhoons were refueled in midair with a 43% blend of SAF provided by an RAF Airbus A330 Voyager tanker. As well as reducing the service’s carbon emissions, the synthetic fuel efforts are aimed at lessening reliance on supply chains. https://aviationweek.com/defense-spa...s-green-agenda |
I can see a lot of the Spitfire's elliptical wings and tailplane in the link's photograph!
|
Now if our potential future enemies will simply agree to make a similar commitment, we'll all be laughing!
|
Originally Posted by jolihokistix
(Post 11425013)
Now if our potential future enemies will simply agree to make a similar commitment, we'll all be laughing!
|
Someone has to say it : "SHOW ME THE MONET!"
|
We hear about several of these types of proposals (and they are only proposals) per year for this and that project like this and the 'Aeralis Modular Trainer'.
I'll believe it when it happens. |
Originally Posted by stevef
(Post 11424983)
I can see a lot of the Spitfire's elliptical wings and tailplane in the link's photograph!
|
Interesting article: Swift Progress
|
Originally Posted by stevef
(Post 11424983)
I can see a lot of the Spitfire's elliptical wings and tailplane in the link's photograph!
|
If successful, it will be the first British aircraft to be certified since the Avro RJ series of regional airliners.
Seeing as the RJ was certified in 1993 and is really a derivative of a 146 I’d argue that it will be the first British built and designed certified aircraft since the FLS Sprint Club in 1994. |
"...first British aircraft to be certified since the Avro RJ series of regional airliners."
Not quite. The GameBird (https://gamecomposites.com/gb1/ ) was designed, built and tested in the UK from 2013 to 2016. It was certified by EASA while the UK was still in EASA. Sadly, the UK did not suit the company owner and the project was relocated to the USA where it is doing well, something like 50 aeroplanes delivered. I know because I was the part of the team from 2013 to 2015. The Airlander was designed, built and tested in the UK from 2010 to 2017. I know because I have been part of the team from since 2015. We have yet to certify it, which will be under CAA, but that will happen. Not a popular project in this forum I know but it is there and progressing in the UK. https://www.hybridairvehicles.com/ne...edia/overview/ |
Some views of it including the cockpit layout.
https://flyer.co.uk/swift-reveals-ne...tion-aircraft/ |
https://cimg6.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....25ef15bb0.jpeg
Sadly, it doesn’t look right…in fact, the back end is fugly in the extreme! :yuk: |
Originally Posted by Lima Juliet
(Post 11425844)
Sadly, it doesn’t look right…in fact, the back end is fugly in the extreme! :yuk:
|
Originally Posted by jolihokistix
(Post 11425013)
Now if our potential future enemies will simply agree to make a similar commitment, we'll all be laughing!
Guess its a Swift (if you pardon the pun lol) response to the set criteria of zilch emissions etc then again its a platform that can be built on. Cheers |
the back end is fugly in the extreme https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....d86dd74a2f.jpg |
With a fiendishly clever weight-saving bicycle wheel configuration.
|
Is thet a cartoon with the eyes just popping over the coaming?
|
Looks like a Diamondstar that hit a brick wall.
|
The agenda can be whatever shade it wishes to be, but it needs to be about war fighting. We need to stop navel gazing and distracting ourselves with issues of the day and regain an emphasis on killing the countries enemies and protecting the nation - its not fashionable, its merely necessary. Let BA & Virgin differentiate with rainbow flags and tree plantings.
|
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 :ok:) 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. |
Originally Posted by Big Pistons Forever
(Post 11426257)
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 :ok:) 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 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. |
Originally Posted by unmanned_droid
(Post 11426476)
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.
|
I've still got the cap they gave me at their mock-up at Sywell. I believe it was the 2013 LAA Rally. How time flies. I said Time.
|
Originally Posted by Video Mixdown
(Post 11426270)
a stream of childish comments by people who seem proud of their small-minded ignorance and prejudice against anything new.
|
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: https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....f1c792166.jpeg 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: https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....3ffc0e46a.jpeg Or the Aura-Aero Integral: https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....1eb2b919f.jpeg In comparison, the Swift’s dimensions are all wrong… :yuk: |
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. |
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. |
Originally Posted by Flying_Scotsman
(Post 11427028)
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 |
Originally Posted by charliegolf
(Post 11427055)
Numpty Q... Don't the batteries come on racks, like older avionics boxes did? If so, buy more batteries- keep em charged. Be like an actual refuel. You're welcome!
|
Originally Posted by Flying_Scotsman
(Post 11427028)
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.
|
Originally Posted by NutLoose
(Post 11427021)
And the E flyer 2 as far as I can see isn’t aerobatic and neither is the other one
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! |
Originally Posted by Flying_Scotsman
(Post 11427028)
"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. |
Electrical failures, Loss of Thrust, Engine Fires and Cockpit fires might all come under the one boldface drill !!!!
|
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 |
Originally Posted by Bob Viking
(Post 11427501)
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 https://www.euronews.com/next/2023/0...open-in-europe |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 17:28. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.