FlightGlobal.com
Home
Premium
Archive
Video
Images
Forum
Atlas
Blogs
Jobs
Shop
RSS
Email Newsletters
You are in:
Home
Aviation History
1984
1984 - 0080.PDF
LETTERS Costly trainers? SIR—I have been following Flight's coverage of the competition to supply the RAF with a new basic trainer. The manufacturer's quoted prices for these aircraft seemed excessive, so I searched through my back issues of Flight and collected together the prices shown in the tables below. $ thousands 1 Civil single-engine turboprops Turbo Porter 427 Riley P210 454 Interceptor 400 500-600 Omac Mk 1 580 Beech Lightning 495-595 Cessna Caravan 595 Spectrum One 600 Smith Prop Jet (IFR) 670 2 Military turboprop basic trainers Turbo Firecracker 675-990 Fantrainer 820 Beech T-34C 950 Australian A. 10 1,000 Pilatus PC-7 1,125 Tucano 1,280 3 Twin-turboprop business aircraft Turbine Islander 639 Aeritalia Spartacus 650 Cheyenne 1A 974 King Air C-90 1,012 Piper T-1040 1,073 Cessna Caravan II 1,095 Cessna Conquest I 1,125 Commander 840 1,290 4 Turboprop agricultural aircraft Weatherly 620 TP 207 Air Tractor 400 250 Turbo Thrush 280-345 Fieldmaster 530 I have displayed the results in four accompanying groups: 1 Civilian single-engined turboprops 2 Military turboprop basic trainers 3 Some of the smaller twin- turboprop business aircraft 4 A few turboprop agricul tural aircraft. The comparison to which I would like to draw your atten tion is that between groups 1 and 2. Aircraft in these two groups are almost identical in size, powerplant, perform ance, and equipment. Yet all the civil turboprops cost around $600,000, and all the military basic trainers cost $1 million ±$200,000. Why? I see no rational reason why aircraft paid for by defence budgets should cost nearly double what a businessman pays. To drive the point home, compare groups 2 and 3. Note that a civilian can purchase an aircraft with two turboprop engines for approx imately the same amount that the RAF is to be charged for a single-turboprop aircraft. Furthermore, group 4 suggests that it is possible to build a single-engined turboprop even cheaper than group 1. Perhaps you could persuade the competitors for AST.412 to give us an explanation of their pricing. It would be educational to see an item-by- item breakdown of the costs. DOUGLAS G. GRAY 106 Monroe Street Apt 18 Santa Clara California 95050 (The disparity in prices between civilian and military sales of aircraft in Douglas Gray's groups 1 and 2 is explained by the (usually) much higher equipment fit, expecially in avionics, prefered by the military. Also the military bulk buyer will purchase a very large amount of spares at the outset. Civil ian retail buyers would not. for example, buy a spare engine, two props, three main gear legs, two nose gear legs, and 20-odd tyres with their new aircraft, but would buy spares as needed. Also, the military would buy its own test equipment, the club flyer would not. All of these "hidden" overheads add to the contract price, as does the training of ground crews. Ed.) Discussing circuits SIR—I was interested to read the letter from Mr F. J. French (Flight, December 3) regarding the matter of left- hand and right-hand circuits. I must agree that there is an additional difficulty in the use of a right-hand circuit when an aircraft is being flown from the left-hand seat. For envi ronmental reasons, which include the proximity to a large military complex, our predominant circuit direction at Doncaster is right-hand. After initial demonstration we do not find the matter a particular difficulty with our students and indeed, turn it to advantage with some success regarding airmanship, as it does at least emphasise the need for "look-out". On this very topic, I was disturbed by the comment in the article by David Mason in the same issue regarding flight into a setting sun. He states that he "squinted into the glare", but he does not mention that he put on the pair of sunglasses which his instructor's airmanship would have suggested to him that were particularly required in winter flying, even more so than in summer. PETER SKINNER Director of Flying Doncaster Aero Club Doncaster Airport Doncaster (I had my [prescription] sunglasses beside me at the time, but in the hurried search for other solutions to the problems, that simply did not occur to me. Ed) The "callous" Bristow sackings SIR—Most reports of the recent Bristow sackings of trainees, engineers, and administrative staff, do not give a full picture. Shattering as it obviously was to all those sacked, the despicably callous way in which it was done has hit the trainees perhaps most of all. The trainees were taken on as recently as September, and one of them was my son. They were recalled from college one mid-morning and told that they were sacked, that the training courses were cancelled and that they should collect their things and get out as quickly as they could. It was unbelievably callous. What a reflection on the British aircraft industry! It seems hell bent on destroying itself. If the coun try ever pulls round from the recession, where on earth are the technicians and engineers of the future coming from? If the youngsters whose enthusiasm and careers in their chosen profession have been so thoughtlessly destroyed are able to stay in the industry, they will not remain in this country, and who can blame them? Will the last engineer to leave the country please switch off the lights?" A. J. ALL AM 5 Thornton Crescent Old Coulsdon Surrey CR3 1LJ Aerobatics and safety SlR-The criticism of competition aerobatic pilots in Mr Lee's letter (Flight, December 10) is unjustified. I have attended most UK competitions in the past six years, including six British Nationals and three World/ European Championships, and I have not seen pilots having "to take an aircraft past its design limits to win competitions". Nor have I seen Mr Lee at any competition. The judging criteria make overstressing the aeroplane unnecessary. Far from being rewarded for such flying, any pilot seen overstressing his aircraft will receive, like a pilot flying too low, a caution from the chief judge and, perhaps, a disqualification. Mr Lee's claim that an "American national champion" might not have achieved a place in the top ten without exceeding the limit ations is pure supposition and probably nonsense. The limitations are not set by the strength of the crank-' shaft flange, anyway. Lycoming loosely refers to "unauthorised manoeuvres", but as the company fails to give "g" limitations for various engine/propeller com binations, or to forbid specific figures, it is impossible to know what it had in mind. Lycoming's concern over the problem (and the reaction of Britain's CAA and PFA) is encouraging, and is certainly not a "con" to squeeze money. 1 think Lycoming might find such a claim libellous. Its engines power every Western "unlimited" aerobatic aero plane. That has to be a compliment to them. PETER G. KYNSEY British Aerobatic Champion, 1983 2 Robin Gardens The Grange Redhill Surrey WHAT'S ON January 26 RAeS Test Pilots' Group: The EH. 101 helicopter, by Colin Hagur, Westland Helicopters: 7 p.m.: 4 Hamilton Place, London W1: tel 01-499 3515. January 31 RAeS Historical Group: Wings over Windermere, by P. Connon, 7 p.m.: 4 Hamilton Place, London W1: tel 01-499 3515. 106 FLIGHT International, 14 January 1984
Sign up to
Flight Digital Magazine
Flight Print Magazine
Airline Business Magazine
E-newsletters
RSS
Events
