New to Forum

[Guest SD_Flyer]

Hello all from San Diego,

 

I've never been to Australia but I hope to soon. We are working to develop a new training aircraft based on the Meyers 200D (http://www.MeyersAircraft.com) and be a contender in the RAAF Air 5428 competition to replace the CT4.

 

Please feel free to check out our web site at http://www.TestrakeAviation.com

 

We are seeking partners in Australia for this endevour.

 

Steve

 

 

[Guest Glenn]

Hi Steve and welcome aboard.

 

I've moved your introduction to a new thread so that it can be seen easily

 

 

[nzom_pilot]

Hi Steve

 

Welcome to TAA, the friendliest place in Aussie skies, enjoy your time here with us.

 

 

[Guest OzChris]

Hi Steve welcome to TAA

 

Quite a project you have going there...good luck with it!

 

 

[Guest Dean747]

Gday Steve welcome aboard

 

 

[Guest Darren Masters]

G'day Steve and welcome to the forum mate

 

 

[Guest SD_Flyer]

Thanks all ... I'm looking forward to meeting you all.

 

 

[VHKDK]

G'day Steve and welcome to TAA.

 

 

[djpacro]

An interesting project, Steve. Many years ago I was involved with the CT-4 bid for the USAF contract.

 

I wonder if Mooney will trot their trainer out again?

 

 

[Guest SD_Flyer]

Hi Dave,

 

I haven't heard a peep out of Mooney with regard to trainers. They were having some financial difficulties (like who isn't these days?) and they invested a ton of money into the Acclaim S (an impressive airplane). I wouldn't be surprised if we don't hear from them on Air 5428.

 

I have a question ... There tends to be two schools of thought in ab initio flight training for military pilots. It seems to me about two-thirds of the world's flight schools start students off in side-by-side trainers (ala CT-4, Grob, SF-260, C-172), while the rest use tandem aircraft (T-34, TB-30, CJ-6, Yak-18, Zlin, etc).

 

Which way do you think they will go for Air 5428?

 

Steve

 

 

[djpacro]

Its been 20+ years since I've been involved with anything like that and I haven't even looked at the current requirements. I guess that any opinion of mine would be worthless.

 

Good luck with it all.

 

 

[Guest g_i_jack029]

Welcome and enjoy the site

 

 

[Guest OzChris]

For what its worth, in my opinion an ab initio trainer that is side by side is far better than the tandem config. My main reason for this is that for an ab initio student, not limited to but more so than in experienced pilot training, accurate communication is vital, since most communication happens through non-verbal forms (in general life, but particularly while under stress), easy in a side by side config, however in a tandem non-verbal communication is just not possible to decipher.

 

 

[djpacro]

Absolutely correct OzChris however this is much more than a civil basic pilot training aircraft. The ab initio trainer must be considered as part of an integrated solution. One point is that this is the aircraft used at the start but there's no definition of how far this one aircraft will take a military pilot towards the end point as a weapons system operator - enough from me - there are probably other forums where this would be discussed in some detail. Pilatus was at Avalon with the PC-21 as was some-one with a glass cockpit SF-260 however Raytheon seems to be prominent in this race as the only one I've seen (could be others, I've taken little interest) with a total solution.

 

I'm only interested in the pilot training aspects myself. I find a rolled up newspaper to be a good communication tool as instructor in the rear seat of a Decathlon.

 

 

[Uncle Chop Chop]

Welcome Aboard Steve!