New UK modular jet trainer development?

[wellsprop]

Good point on car design being a nightmare. I changed the headlight on my Skoda, something that is a fairly common job, I had to take half the front of my car off (possible hyperbole...)!

 

In theory the change in aerodynamics caused by swapping wings is simply not a problem anymore. Flight control software can be left to deal with that. 

 

Although then that does raise the question, why not just build one aircraft and use the software to limit the performance envelope, that way you could theoretically change an aircraft from a supersonic advanced trainer to an introductory jet trainer literally by pressing a button.

 

Even homebuilt aircraft can now have envelope protection built in using the latest Garmin systems.

[Red Dot]

Jamie,

 

I understand your points, but if an aircraft engine is swapped, the same type of engine is put back.

 

This new aircraft implies you could unbolt an engine and refit a different type. That is not feasible. Think of all the fuel line changes,  electrical connections, software, instrumentation differences etc. 

 

R/C aircraft are totally different from military jets so comparison is not possible.

 

By the way, building cars in modules is not the same as modular design. The latter implies that you could fit a Golf door to a Polo, if that is what you fancied.

 

I still 100% think this new aircraft is not possible. I guess we will have to wait 25+ years to see. I bet it never leaves the CAD screen.

 

Andy

[wellsprop]

8 minutes ago, Red Dot said:

This new aircraft implies you could unbolt an engine and refit a different type. That is not feasible. Think of all the fuel line changes,  electrical connections, software, instrumentation differences etc. 

 

I'd have to double check, but I believe that is exactly what is possible with the B787 and the Trent 1000/GE GenX. 

 

Obviously the aircraft cant have a mix of the two engines, but the engines are interchangeable, the aircraft jsut needs to be told which engines it has.

[Red Dot]

i stand corrected if that is the case

 

Andy

[Jamie @ Sovereign Hobbies]

3 hours ago, wellsprop said:

that does raise the question, why not just build one aircraft and use the software to limit the performance envelope, that way you could theoretically change an aircraft from a supersonic advanced trainer to an introductory jet trainer literally by pressing a button.

 

It's more that swept wing jets have some less than ideal characteristics at the bottom end of the flight envelope e.g. how they stall and how they should be handled. This is something that is hard to mimic with an aircraft that has fundamentally better manners (i.e. a straight wing). It's generally not recommended to fly swept wing jets without proper training in their foibles and bad habits, but equally you don't do basic training in swept wing aircraft because low hours pilots are expected to need a forgiving aircraft.

 

As for engine interchangeablity, I would assume that the engine modules would take care of the engine differences. All you'd want to pass between fuselage module and engine module would be fuel connection and a big multiplex plug. The engine module would need to contain not just an engine but the equivalent of a car's Powertrain Control Module that looked after the engine by communicating with a controls and data interface computer in the cockpit which provided fly-by-wire demands from the starter, ignition and power controls, as well as extinguishers and so on and handled engine data handoff to the glass cockpit.

[Graham Boak]

In the case of airliners, the engines are not closely integrated with the airframe aerodynamics.   Changing the engine to an exactly equivalent type, should one exist in this perfect world, is certainly possible (see F-16) with some problems, but these can be allowed for in advance.  Not quite modular...    However to change from a basic trainer to an advanced will require considerably more thrust, and hence more air which requires larger intakes and hence a redesigned fuselage to cope with the airflow, and a larger nozzle which will change the back end, additional cooling intakes and vents.  If you attempt to produce something that will compromise these features, the resulting design will not be optimised for one or either roles.  There is noting actually new about the idea of modular jets: they have been studied before, probably by every major design centre in the world.

 

The handling of swept wings isn't that significant - the world's air forces have survived without trainers having any more than minimum sweep wing for decades (T-39, Hawk, MB339, L-39).  Any awkward handling issues are coped with by the autostability systems on modern fighters anyway.  Relaxed stability on advanced performance types mean there is no more manual reversion: unstable aircraft will not suffer the slow reactions of a pilot.

[junglierating]

Ok well this has got some knickers in a twist....as for being modular i guess it depends on the extent. Potentially if the method of fixing the wing to the fuselage is identical then you could swop between straight and swept wings...why ? You could swop just about anything as long as mating faces er...mate.Presumably fly by wire so no nasty rigging to contend with just lots of shimming instead ....nice for the grubbers  😁

As I ssid previously re the gem engine you could tailor the same basic engine and i dunno change the front end to achieve some engine characteristic...it has potential I guess but in todsys mini RAF ...er why.

Meanwhile red dot clearly isnt a jingo istic flag waving brit......else he wouldn't be so supportive of the leonardo trainer.....me im meh about it....i work for them .....i think Italians are fab ....just not the Helicopter division 

😂😂😂

[wellsprop]

1 hour ago, junglierating said:

Just not the Helicopter division 

😂😂😂

 

🤔 Thats fighting talk 😉😂

[junglierating]

Just now, wellsprop said:

 

🤔 Thats fighting talk 😂

Gen 😜

[Red Dot]

Contrary to popular belief (!!l I would be happy to buy British, but why reinvent the wheel at huge cost, both in terms of.money and time?

 

AWACS anyone?

 

Andy

[exdraken]

3 hours ago, Red Dot said:

, but why reinvent the wheel at huge cost, both in terms of.money and time?

 

AWACS anyone?

 

Many more cases around the world...

But I do not completely agree here!

 

Reinventing, improving upon something, develop something further etc.. this is what generally drives engineering and progress.  And British companies cannot sell other companies' AWACS, stealth fighters, helicopters and jet trainers to generate income, knowhow, taxes, etc...  etc... 

 

That does of course not mean just copying... or taking an existing design,  cutting it into pieces and call it modular...

 

 

[Red Dot]

When you read the Aeralis website, they are a company that has been chosen to come up with a modular aircraft concept. They won't actually make the aircraft.

 

It seems to me like they are simply trying to make money as consultants by trying to prove a concept.

 

Which in these hard times, is a waste of money. Surely this type of contract will get cancelled by the forth coming defence review?

 

I agree that we do need engineering progress, but it is better to spend scant funds based on expanding our existing knowledge, not re-inventing the wheel

 

Andy 

 

[ChocolateCrisps]

54 minutes ago, Red Dot said:

When you read the Aeralis website, they are a company that has been chosen to come up with a modular aircraft concept. They won't actually make the aircraft.

Where are you getting this from? They've been given a three year contract to develop the basic concept - from their website it doesn't seem like their plan is anything other than going on to actually produce the design after that, provided it seems feasible.

 

"With a view to full-scale production, the AERALIS project has the scope to directly create over 200 new UK high-value design and manufacturing jobs, supporting a further 3800 in the UK supply chain."

That sounds to me like they're planning to make something!

 

And regarding the Defence Review - given the timing of the contract, I suspect that this is something which is going to be funded as a result of the Review, not cancelled by it!

[Red Dot]

Really? 200 people from an unknown start-up company are going to design and manufacture the RAFs new trainer?

 

I wonder what BAe has to say about that?

 

Andy

[Nocoolname]

It 'is' a good idea.

 

'flexible modularity' that is designed to allow interchangable parts on production aircraft to suit changing operational demands is a very good idea. If you can switch out parts of the actual aircraft as easily as you can switch out ordinance on a multi or swing role aircraft that would really increase your strategic and tactical options.

 

The problem, though, is that the journey from concept to product is extraordinarily complicated and where it has worked in the past has been due to having the right, the same - and consistently 'high' - expertise leading the initiative from start to finish, like the proverbial golden thread, but this rarely happens these days due to a... ahem... 'modular' approach to 'product management' whereupon a 'concept' is given over to another group that may not necessarily appreciate the nuances around the original idea (that cannot often and certainly not easily be translated into a set of model kit like instructions) and as such, not only lead to the development failing but do so in a way in which the narrative points the finger at the 'idea' rather than those involved in the execution.

 

I've seen a lot of news reports of people being assigned from a 'project profession pool' to take command of such disparate and complicated subjects on the basis that being able to apply PM principles to launching a corporate policy or a bakery automatically qualifies them to direct the delivery of a concept aircraft or a Death Star.

 

So a great concept - modularisation of an aircraft - may fail because of a poorly thought through approach to the 'modularisation' of its development and delivery.

 

But maybe things are sharper in the defence industry and its all slick from idea to flight?

 

I wouldn't know given that my day job is ruining model kits and eating pizza! 😬

[Nocoolname]

On 3/19/2021 at 11:54 AM, Jamie @ Sovereign Hobbies said:

 

Why? Swapping wings, for example, would be far more challenging were the whole lifting area different geometry which moves the centroid of lift around a lot and requires a different fuselage. A common way to combat that on variable geometry wing aircraft is to have a substantial broad-chord inboard wing area which does not change shape, and only sweeping part of the span greatly limits the migration of the lift vector - which is exactly what the concept above shows.

 

There's a good reason why no variable geometry wing production aircraft have the pintles anywhere near the longitudinal axis of the aircraft.

 

As for wings just physically coming off and going back on conveniently, we can take instruction from radio control modellers who almost invariably have to make their models come to pieces and still have control surfaces easy to rig and derig - and they've done it for decades although now many R/C models are more sophisticated than many fullsize light aircraft.

 

Likewise with engines, providing some fixed limits of thrust vectors and CofG envelope, I can't think why power modules couldn't be fitted and unfitted with some common attachments, fuel connections and multiplex plugs. Afterall airliners are designed to allow exactly this - there's no getting away from tubing and cables, but no airline would touch an aircraft with a bargepole these days if it wasn't fairly straight forward to remove and replace an engine. 

 

In the politest possible way, I don't think much from the automotive industry is relevant - they build cars in modules and assemble them without really much of a care for who has to try to do anything beyond ultra-basic servicing. That removing a gearbox or engine from a modern car is a job sent straight from hell is more a reflection of different priorities in that industry. People who need to have brand new cars depreciating like egg sandwiches in the sun don't care how awful it is to take apart because they'll have traded it for another by the time the warranty runs out. Aircraft operators buy aircraft expecting to have to take them apart.

Jamie

 

That's a whole ton of maths and physics that my brain can't accommodate. Thanks so much for doing what I just couldn't. The world is a safer place with me being a pizza eating robot rather than working in something important like aircraft (except at scale where I'm quite good at breaking things) 😀

 

The pictures also reminded me that I have a 1/72 Tu-22 in the stash still waiting for some attention. 😉

[junglierating]

On 3/20/2021 at 4:16 PM, Red Dot said:

Contrary to popular belief (!!l I would be happy to buy British, but why reinvent the wheel at huge cost, both in terms of.money and time?

 

AWACS anyone?

 

Andy

Jobs and skills ....loose the skill and you end up dancing the pipers tune ....plenty of examples of that.

Anyway I believe you, just a different perspective....far too political nuff said  😉👍

[wellsprop]

2 hours ago, Red Dot said:

I wonder what BAe has to say about that?

BAE Systems no longer make jet trainers.

 

BAE hasn't announced any new trainer development. I doubt they are at all interested in trainers and are much more focused on Tempest. 

[junglierating]

3 minutes ago, wellsprop said:

BAE Systems no longer make jet trainers.

 

BAE hasn't announced any new trainer development. I doubt they are at all interested in trainers and are much more focused on Tempest. 

AFAIK they still make the mk2 Hawk or whatever its called.

I could be wrong but I sincerely hope the Aerospace part of BAe systems doesnt stick all its eggs in one basket ....that would be a concern 

[wellsprop]

7 minutes ago, junglierating said:

AFAIK they still make the mk2 Hawk or whatever its called.

I could be wrong but I sincerely hope the Aerospace part of BAe systems doesnt stick all its eggs in one basket ....that would be a concern 

 

I have a worrying feeling they are no longer producing any Hawk variant (I hope to be proved wrong). 

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-humber-55438942

 

The Typhoon is still in production/upgrade I think. 

[Red Dot]

I agree about losing jobs and skills Junglierating. 

 

The trouble is, so many of these "Blue-Sky Thinking" companies (God, I hate that phrase as it smacks of people that haven't done any real work), really don't have their feet on the ground, and all they do is suck up money that would be better spent elsewhere, especially in these hard times

 

Andy

 

[wellsprop]

On 22/03/2021 at 11:00, Red Dot said:

I agree about losing jobs and skills Junglierating. 

 

The trouble is, so many of these "Blue-Sky Thinking" companies (God, I hate that phrase as it smacks of people that haven't done any real work), really don't have their feet on the ground, and all they do is suck up money that would be better spent elsewhere, especially in these hard times

 

Andy

 

 

Thats a bit of a risky thought...

 

Without innovation, things dont move on, without moving on, companies lose the competitive edge and therefore, orders. 

 

R&D is incredibly expensive and consistently attracts naysayers. Yes, a lot of the big visions don't become reality - but so much of the technology is used in production aircraft.

 

BERP and EAP are an incredibly good examples of "blue sky thinking".

 

Not to mention what has happened on the avionics side!