![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
In article ,
tedster wrote: Is the Hawk 128 good enough for training pilots for fly-by-wire aircraft (is that even an issue)? Yes. And avionics-wise it's not a 1970's aircraft any more. BAE is not entirely blameless. If the company intends to stay in the jet trainer business - and it should, given the widespread international acceptance of the Hawk - it must develop a more advanced version, with thin wings and afterburners for supersonic performance, making it an even better stepping stone to high-performance frontline aircraft. But the problem with that is that then it sort of _is_ a high-performance frontline aircraft -- and has a similar price tag both when you purchase it and when you fly it. -- Urban Fredriksson http://www.canit.se/%7Egriffon/ A weapon is a device for making your enemy change his mind. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Jim Brown" wrote in message om... Ok I'm just an armchair pilot but considering the big step up between a trainer jet of any description and a front line jet, why not do away with fast jet trainers totally? Initial training could be completed on something like a PC-21 which is claimed to replicate a fast jet trainer in everything but speed and then the trainee pilots can continue training on two seater versions of whatever frontline jet they'll be flying. The cost of the extra two seaters should be covered by not having to buy/support the fast jet trainers. Comments please? Sure. The fast jet trainer is there to shorten the gap between elementary flying training and going into the fast jet world. The Hawk is used by the RAF as an advanced jet trainer. It is third in the line of aircraft that a pilot will fly before going onto the likes of Tornado or Harrier. THe first begins at Elementary Flight Training, EFT, with the Grob Tutor. They then progress to the Tucano and then to Hawk, where they learn operational tactics such as air combat manuevres, air to ground combat and low level flying. it is an operational weapons platform where they can fire AIM9,, rockets and drop dumb bombs. The Tucano T1 does not have this function and as such , the Hawk is required in this sense to provide that capability to the pilot before advancing to their operational type. The Hawk 128 will feature what is required to provide pilots with the operating environment for moden fast jets such as the Typhoon, GR4 and eventuall JSF. That will include the glass cockpit, HOTAS and improved navaids like GPS. The best way to train pilots for fast jet is probably to put them into an advanced jet trainer, rather than a turbo prop. I am sure there are pilots out there who will concur with me, but i cant say for sure - i only get to fix what they break, not break them myself! Hope this helps BMFull |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
In article ,
Jim Brown wrote: Ok I'm just an armchair pilot but considering the big step up between a trainer jet of any description and a front line jet, why not do away with fast jet trainers totally? Good question. One can also point out that there's not really any need for propeller trainers since it's quite feasible to start the pilot training on something like a Hawk which _may_ make economic sense as the fewer types you train someone on, the fewer total hours are needed. Initial training could be completed on something like a PC-21 which is claimed to replicate a fast jet trainer in everything but speed and then the trainee pilots can continue training on two seater versions of whatever frontline jet they'll be flying. I agree. A trend towards fewer types used in training should make sense, but I don't see it globally. Reasons include tradition and the baggage air forces carry in the form of aircraft they already own. -- Urban Fredriksson http://www.canit.se/%7Egriffon/ Just because something is obvious doesn't mean it's true. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
In article , Ben Full
writes The best way to train pilots for fast jet is probably to put them into an advanced jet trainer, rather than a turbo prop. I am sure there are pilots out there who will concur with me, but i cant say for sure - i only get to fix what they break, not break them myself! Sounds sensible to me. Presumably a Hawk is much cheaper to operate than a front line jet? I don't know if it's an issue, but not all pilots qualifying on a turbo prop may be suitable for fast jet work. Sticking them in a 'standard' fast jet trainer may give a better opportunity to determine whether they'll make it rather than sticking them in one of several front line two-seaters (that and the cost of a handful of two-seat trainers for each type). -- John |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Marcus Andersson" wrote in message om... Didn't the Swedish air force once have the idea that the Gripen would be used for initial flying training as well, and thus replace the saab 105 in that role? I read that somewhere sometime... BAE Systems/Saab were offering the Gripen and Typhoon as one package, the Gripen being the 2 set variant and for use as advanced jet trainer for the crews to use as a transition to the Typhoon. A good plan for aircraft sales if you can pull it off. rgds BMFull |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
John Halliwell wrote in message ...
I don't know if it's an issue, but not all pilots qualifying on a turbo prop may be suitable for fast jet work. Sticking them in a 'standard' fast jet trainer may give a better opportunity to determine whether they'll make it Thats a good point; but is fast jet flying so different this couldnt be extrapalated from their previous performance on a fast prop? Actually thinking about it the RAF use the fast jet training to select where they want to send the pilots and then type conversion is undertaken by other units. Hmm I think I've almost convinced myself its a bad idea... rather than sticking them in one of several front line two-seaters (that and the cost of a handful of two-seat trainers for each type). Also a good point but in the RAF at least there is likely to be only 3 fast jet types concurrently and one of those, Harrier/JSF, will need specialised training for new pilots anyway |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
In article ,
Jim Brown wrote: John Halliwell wrote in message ... I don't know if it's an issue, but not all pilots qualifying on a turbo prop may be suitable for fast jet work. Sticking them in a 'standard' fast jet trainer may give a better opportunity to determine whether they'll make it Thats a good point; but is fast jet flying so different this couldnt be extrapalated from their previous performance on a fast prop? Actually, not everyone think you need to put them in an aircraft at all in order to determine they'll be good fighter pilots. The Swedish air force used to make every student pilot a fighter pilot, some of which became transport or helicopter pilots when older. (Well, for a couple of decades, before that there was a washout rate.) Now, there's no upper age limit (apart from the retirement age of 60) for being a fighter pilot and some pilots are reqruited directly as helicopter or transport pilots. I think for economical reasons, mainly. -- Urban Fredriksson http://www.canit.se/%7Egriffon/ To get rid of an enemy, make him a friend. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Kitty Hawk Bound -- Posters and Such | Jim Weir | Home Built | 2 | December 1st 03 04:56 AM |
Kitty Hawk Tickets? | [email protected] | Aviation Marketplace | 0 | November 7th 03 03:20 AM |
Hawk 200 questions | Kerry Ferrand | Military Aviation | 14 | July 31st 03 11:14 AM |
CUrtiss Hawk 75 performance debate | Jukka O. Kauppinen | Military Aviation | 3 | July 16th 03 10:45 AM |
Arming Global Hawk Draws Conflicting Comments From Pentagon | Larry Dighera | Military Aviation | 5 | July 14th 03 08:51 PM |