Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Pilatus PC-9M

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Ideally, I imagine, a squadron of trainers plus a squadron of jets would mean less training hours required on the jets and lower the cost of operating them. Our hovertank air corps would be well served with four PC-21s with cockpits configured like a gripen, and a squadron of gripens. And it's only "hovertank" because of defence budget, not economy.

    Comment


    • #47
      The PC9M is a great intermediate trainer, and that is the problem. It is normally part of a training system for fixed wing pilots flying jets. Is has no role for the Training of helicopter pilots for example.
      It does have a very limited air combat role but it has only the performance of an early Spitfire which was obsolete by 1942. As for CAS, it only can fire dumm rockets. It has no sensors at all.
      They are only a face saving measure to say we can defend our airspace. Do we really need them, most likely no. But then again we could ask why do we have 105 light guns?

      Comment


      • #48
        So we are debating buying jet fighters at a cost of €100's million to conduct less than 5 interceptions a year and train the pilots overseas.

        So what how many hours are the aircraft and pilots? 100 hrs ?

        Comment


        • #49
          Which is a good argument for not having trainers with no role except to fly them for the sake of flying them. By that measure every minute a pilatus spends in the air is a waste of budget.
          And yes, I think we should be seriously debating spending millions on jets for five intercepts a year.
          Not spending it without getting a squadron of someone else's air force to permanently guard our airspace is criminally insane.
          Last edited by expat01; 4 November 2016, 10:19.

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by na grohmití View Post
            I usually get banned for 1 word answers. thats not even a word.
            But it answers your question.

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by expat01 View Post
              Which is a good argument for not having trainers with no role except to fly them for the sake of flying them. By that measure every minute a pilatus spends in the air is a waste of budget.
              And yes, I think we should be seriously debating spending millions on jets for five intercepts a year.
              Not spending it without getting a squadron of someone else's air force to permanently guard our airspace is criminally insane.
              And what do we train the pilots of the Learjet, Cessnas, CASAs and Defender on?

              Comment


              • #52
                The Cessna are the basic aircraft used for Training worldwide since the 50's. Used by the majority of airline pilots to get their wings. For multi engine rating the Defender would be fine.
                No Training need for PC9's unless you have single seat high performance aircraft such as jet fighters

                Comment


                • #53
                  Does anyone see the AC insisting that new cadets have at least a current PPL and a min amount of hours before being considered for acceptance ? This might reduce the training regime somewhat.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by EUFighter View Post
                    The Cessna are the basic aircraft used for Training worldwide since the 50's. Used by the majority of airline pilots to get their wings. For multi engine rating the Defender would be fine.
                    No Training need for PC9's unless you have single seat high performance aircraft such as jet fighters
                    Except the AC Cessnas are older and harder worked than probably the instructors (never mind the students).

                    Except the Defender's owner (who isn't the AC) probably bearly give enough training hours to maintain currency.

                    The PC9s give a (very limited) armed capability.


                    Originally posted by danno View Post
                    Does anyone see the AC insisting that new cadets have at least a current PPL and a min amount of hours before being considered for acceptance ? This might reduce the training regime somewhat.
                    Is there any Air Force that does that?

                    How many PPL holders are there under 25 in Ireland (who don't already have better paid jobs)?

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      PC-9ms allow us to enforce a restricted airspace when there is a event on in the county, I would say this was the difference when they were being selected from say another marcetti type aircraft and the Fugas going. The best the Aer Corp could squeeze out of the Dept' of Finance.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        The limited armed capability/air combat role of the PC's is just that and one could not seriously be sent up against armed aircraft (balloons aside) or do CAS where any MANPADS/AAA are known/suspected to be. They do what was expected of them but do not have a wider utility to justify having 7 yet alone acquiring another one.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Well there are currently 3 different AC cadet classes at various stages of their cadetship (obviously some are in the DFTC still), total of 27 cadets.

                          Plus instructors to be trained (and I assume maintain currency so they can instruct), plus the odd air display, supporting the odd ex, etc

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            To clarify; Air Corps cadets get the equivalent of an EASA CPL with shooting and aerobatics bits added; their education is to the same EASA Frozen ATPL standards as any civilian trained pilot. When they move on and get their multi engine training, or heli training, it's in turbine aircraft, which is beyond the reach of mere civil mortals. The AC will never specify a PPL as a base for accepting cadets as they, like most air forces, regard civilian PPLs as having bad habits that have to be weaned out, which is a waste of time and money to a system designed to chop people. They start all cadets as equals, regardless of prior experience and this is a worldwide phenomenon and not confined to the AC. The USAF screens its cadets on piston engined trainers prior to formal acceptance so that it reduces the washout rate at the expensive stages and this approach also bears in mind that many USAF candidates already have PPLs and higher because it's so much cheaper and easier to do so in the USA and also because there are so many aviation organisations to join in the USA. The RAF screens cadets on Grob trainers. In fact, most militaries screen cadets on piston trainers but the Don is different, of course. The Don has always been against screening prior to formal cadetship, despite evidence from bigger and better air arms that prescreening works, but that's another argument...

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by GoneToTheCanner View Post
                              To clarify; Air Corps cadets get the equivalent of an EASA CPL with shooting and aerobatics bits added; their education is to the same EASA Frozen ATPL standards as any civilian trained pilot. When they move on and get their multi engine training, or heli training, it's in turbine aircraft, which is beyond the reach of mere civil mortals. The AC will never specify a PPL as a base for accepting cadets as they, like most air forces, regard civilian PPLs as having bad habits that have to be weaned out, which is a waste of time and money to a system designed to chop people. They start all cadets as equals, regardless of prior experience and this is a worldwide phenomenon and not confined to the AC. The USAF screens its cadets on piston engined trainers prior to formal acceptance so that it reduces the washout rate at the expensive stages and this approach also bears in mind that many USAF candidates already have PPLs and higher because it's so much cheaper and easier to do so in the USA and also because there are so many aviation organisations to join in the USA. The RAF screens cadets on Grob trainers. In fact, most militaries screen cadets on piston trainers but the Don is different, of course. The Don has always been against screening prior to formal cadetship, despite evidence from bigger and better air arms that prescreening works, but that's another argument...
                              Didn't the Marchettis (or maybe it was prior to that) replace a screening and a basic trainer (ie 2 aircraft types).

                              After the AC purchased the PC9 the feedback was that more of the washouts occurred at a later stage of flight training

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                The SF260 replaced both the Chipmunk (Basic trainer, un-armed) and the Provost (Advanced trainer, armable). The Cessna's had already been sent to the Burg for their Army Co-op and hour building role.

                                As for Sofa's "The best the Aer Corp could squeeze out of the Dept' of Finance.", he's right. Everyoe knows the PC9 replaced the SF260 and the Fouga, and as a turbo prop, could never fulfil a fast jet role.

                                The PC9 is nothing more than an armable trainer. just like the aircraft they replaced. It does what it does and it's what we have to work with.

                                As I'm still serving, I'd love to answer some of the "negative" comments here, and put some of them straight, but I cant.
                                Last edited by Claudel Hopson; 5 November 2016, 21:04.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X