Author Topic: Interesting Article  (Read 483 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Fouga

  • Guest
Interesting Article
« on: October 09, 2006, 12:55:30 am »
was reading through one of the Monthly Aviation mags when i noticed an Article saying that this baby is being mooted to replace ths F5 fleet of the Swiss Air Force, anybody else se this? Il get the name of the Mag later





Offline SousaTeuszii

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 225
    • View Profile
Interesting Article
« Reply #1 on: October 09, 2006, 04:40:31 pm »
Hi Fouga,
I imagine the PC 21 will only replace the F5 in its LIFT role as the F5s are pretty much demobbed from the AD role by the F18s. Pilatus have designed this aircraft to be the only one available that can complete all training aspects from Ab Initio all the way up to LIFT. It will be interesting to see if the Swiss replace their PC7s, PC9s and F5s with the PC21.
ST

Offline pilatus

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 548
    • View Profile
Interesting Article
« Reply #2 on: October 10, 2006, 02:27:56 pm »
i think the PC21 is a brilliant plane and i also think the aircorps would have done well to have waited and bought this type instead of the PC9!the sf260s would have been good for a few more years!
above and beyond

Offline sealion

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 456
    • View Profile
Interesting Article
« Reply #3 on: October 10, 2006, 11:04:49 pm »
Quote (pilatus @ 10 Oct. 2006,14:27)
i think the PC21 is a brilliant plane and i also think the aircorps would have done well to have waited and bought this type instead of the PC9!the sf260s would have been good for a few more years!

Are you a pilot?
What do you base your opinion of the PC21 on? It was not available at the time,(2000) and the DF needed a token armed trainer capability for the upcoming EU presidency.

Offline SousaTeuszii

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 225
    • View Profile
Interesting Article
« Reply #4 on: October 10, 2006, 11:49:44 pm »
So basically you are saying that the training aircraft programme was ruled over by a percieved need for a token gesture to provide an ineffective capability that would never be allowed to be depolyed as opposed to the actual everyday and future training requirements. That sounds about right 'stir_the_pot'