That’s stalling. Clean (clean), approach and final turn (both configured).
You make a valid point about the envelope. I refer to my previous point - EFT is now a RW feeder course with add on courses for those going to the Tucano and King Air. You could remove Spinning and Aeros and not hugely damage the effectiveness of the end product. Admittedly that’d be rubbish. And the RAF would look stupid.
That’s stalling. Clean (clean), approach and final turn (both configured).[/quote]
Spinning is stalling, just with style 
Because the risk of spinning in on the finals turn is higher (flaps, low speed, higher RPM), going up to altitude in that configuration then playing round the wing drop builds awareness of the risks and helps ensure that you treat that configuration with respect. I’m actually struggling to remember whether I ever did recovery from a fully-developed spin with flaps, but I think I did. Recovering from any spin also shows just how much altitude you lose in the process, which is typically more than the 500’ you are likely to have available to you as you turn onto final.
I did it a while ago and it is possible that spinning with flaps down was outside the PPL syllabus when I did it (I did it in a C152 aerobat - not even sure if it is a permitted manoeuvre to be honest) but such flying was useful and it really should be part of any course in my opinion.
That’s stalling. Clean (clean), approach and final turn (both configured).[/quote]
Spinning is stalling, just with style
Because the risk of spinning in on the finals turn is higher (flaps, low speed, higher RPM), going up to altitude in that configuration then playing round the wing drop builds awareness of the risks and helps ensure that you treat that configuration with respect. I’m actually struggling to remember whether I ever did recovery from a fully-developed spin with flaps, but I think I did. Recovering from any spin also shows just how much altitude you lose in the process, which is typically more than the 500’ you are likely to have available to you as you turn onto final.
I did it a while ago and it is possible that spinning with flaps down was outside the PPL syllabus when I did it (I did it in a C152 aerobat - not even sure if it is a permitted manoeuvre to be honest) but such flying was useful and it really should be part of any course in my opinion.[/quote]
Pertinently for this discussion, that’s not how the RAF/Army/FAA do their business.
Aerobatics with the gear down?
Gear “fixed” down = higher RPM = greater fuel burn. Higher noise levels = not good for hearing degradation.
Engine failure at altitude (real or for practice) = less range with gear down.
[quote=“MikeJenvey” post=21780]Aerobatics with the gear down?
Gear “fixed” down = higher RPM = greater fuel burn. Higher noise levels = not good for hearing degradation.
Engine failure at altitude (real or for practice) = less range with gear down.[/quote]
Ahhh, noise. The RAF have an answer to that problem - not a great one, but its quite effective.
As for the latter, for years we’ve been doing PFLs with RPM high, turning an aircraft with decent glide performance into a winged brick. Only now have we gone back to RPM low.
Hopefully sense will prevail, but you can’t guarantee these things.
Oh have we? :dry:
Oh have we? :dry:[/quote]
It may depend on who’s flying it.
(the previous restrictions on its day to day use have been lifted somewhat)
[quote=“the silverback” post=21727] Would the RAF get/pay for an aircraft exclusively for the ATC/UAS
[/quote]
Missed this first time around. Yes they would. AEF flying has quite a high profile and seems to have friends in the right places. It is also relatively cheap. The Tutor replacement (UAS/AEF - a bit later than for MFTS) could well be quite interesting, and slightly left-field.
Sorry to bring this back from the dead.
But it’s the most relevant thread.
Does anyone know the life expectancy of the tutor with use for air cadets.
Looking some related training stuff. But dont want to spend a fortune if the tutor has an end of use date before 2025
I know the contracts out to tender atm.
No solid information yet, I’m afraid, and what I do know is commercial in confidence. As @AlexCorbin says, proj. Telum is continuing… The parameters make it look likely that something very like the Tutor will be the successful candidate.
What sort of stuff are you buying?
To be fair I like the tutor. If I had expendable income for a GA aircraft the G115 would be up there as an option probably a Vans RV7 would win though
You could probably pick up the Vans a lot cheaper!
Yeah Grobs are silly money
And we could build our own as a project
Ok so this link tells me everything I need to know about Proj TELLUM.
BUT
It raise several questions about something called Proj VENTURE and the overall lack of effectiveness of any aviation discussion happening above HQAC level.
Some of the points they are making like how wonderful and useful the PTTs are is absurd.
The stats make for sober reading too. In black and white how pathetic the offering of aviation has become.
@MikeJenvey might find the letters at the end about ACTO35 interesting, but I imagine you might have seen this already.
Thanks - yes, some new snippets - didn’t know that they had managed to make it high risk(!) but most of the material seems to have become defunct (e.g. the MoU with BGA). You can’t compare MAA versus CAA (& BGA) which seems to be the 10 mile high stumbling block.
That document raises more questions than it answers… A very sorry state!
Most of that is now ancient history. And remember, we have had a new Comdt 2FTS since then.
indeed
according to the slide 516 Cadets flow in 2017 and 815 in 2018
that isn’t even the whole of our Wing - and although accept that is a 58% increase realistically only 2% of the Cadet population…is it really a USP if only 1 in 20 get to do it?
the wording surrounding the air worthiness around non-service aircraft also so woolly - the talk of Permit to Fly aircraft not meeting their standards (as non-qualified persons can complete maintenance) is got round easily - only approve Certificate of Airworthiness aircraft!
which baffles me more when discussing the various options of BGA aircraft
if the aircraft is serviceable and has all of the required and certified EASA
documentation to provide demonstrable assurance of airworthiness, then use of all
airworthy aircraft should be permitted;
seem there was never any interest in civil flying either…
given the benefit received by the Service, this activity should be conducted in
Military registered aircraft but that is a matter of taste rather than safety