Air corps in formation over Donnybrook

Terrontress

Am sitting in an office in Donnybrook and for the last hour or so there have been repeated flybys by what looks like 4 Pilatus prop planes. They have done different formations too. Anyone have any idea what it's about?

purple'n'gold

I do wish they wouldn’t show them in public, it’s just so embarrassing. People from countries who have a proper air force must think its some sort of joke, or maybe someone is making a WW2 movie.

silverharp

yeah, I work in Sandymount and the same thing last week

oglaigh

Terrontress wrote:

Am sitting in an office in Donnybrook and for the last hour or so there have been repeated flybys by what looks like 4 Pilatus prop planes. They have done different formations too. Anyone have any idea what it's about?

Eh, its called training, they do it all the time.

oglaigh

purplengold wrote:

I do wish they wouldn’t show them in public, it’s just so embarrassing. People from countries who have a proper air force must think its some sort of joke

Nearly every airforce in the world uses turboprop aircraft for training
,

or maybe someone is making a WW2 movie.

If they thought that, they`d have to be fairly stupid.

purple'n'gold

oglaigh wrote:

Nearly every airforce in the world uses turboprop aircraft for training
,



If they thought that, they`d have to be fairly stupid.

Yes real air forces use turbo prop aircraft for training, but when they are trained they have real jets to operate in.

As regards stupidity, the world is well populated with stupid people.

Terrontress

I have to say it looks very impressive to see the way they hold formation and bank up and turn. I've seen the Red Arrows a few times in the past too. It is like four machines operating as one. A collective consciousness.

I am surprised at them doing their training over such a densely populated area.

The world war 2 thing is a funny joke because there is some roar off those engines. Sounds just like one of those films.

cushtac

purplengold wrote:

I do wish they wouldn’t show them in public, it’s just so embarrassing. People from countries who have a proper air force must think its some sort of joke, or maybe someone is making a WW2 movie.

Because looking cool should be the DF's first consideration when buying & using equipment :rolleyes:

purple'n'gold

cushtac wrote:

Because looking cool should be the DF's first consideration when buying & using equipment :rolleyes:

Nothing to do with looking cool, but if we’re going to have an air force, let it be a real one not a joke. Apart from training, what use are turbo prop air craft in the modern age? And I’m talking combat/ interception here, not search and rescue etc. which should be a coast guard function.

cp251

They wouldn't be training over the city. They do most of their training away from towns for blatantly obvious reasons. Most likely they are either doing a flypast for some event or rehearsing for it.

As for them being embarrassing, as terrontress observes, they are putting on an impressive display. It's worth remembering that their predecessors, the 'Silver Swallows' won best overseas display team at Fairford airshow one year. So nothing embarrassing there.

If any overseas visitors see them, they will simply assume that they are a training squadron which is what they are in fact.

purple'n'gold

training for what? What are they going to fly when they are trained?

if only it were this. But it won't.

http://www.globalaircraft.org/planes/f-16_falcon.pl

cushtac

purplengold wrote:

Nothing to do with looking cool, but if we’re going to have an air force, let it be a real one not a joke. Apart from training, what use are turbo prop air craft in the modern age? And I’m talking combat/ interception here, not search and rescue etc. which should be a coast guard function.

Here we go again...

Proper fighter aircraft (not tarted-up jet trainers) cost millions of euro on their own. On top of that cost there's the money that would have to be spent on runways, hangars, an integrated early warning radar network, munitions, fuel & training - all for aircraft that will not be deployed abroad. Are you seriously saying that the country can justify spending hundreds of millions of euro on aircraft that will have little real-world application?

Aside from that, what would the pilots of these new jet fighters train on if not the turboprops?

The Air Corps has bought a modern capable trainer that can fufill it's needs without costing an arm & a leg. It's also trying to modernise it's helicopter fleet & bring it's operation of helicopters in line with the rest of Europe. I think it's money is better spent there, rather than looking through the big book of jets & buying something that will do little bar look good doing the fly-past at Easter.

cushtac

purplengold wrote:

training for what? What are they going to fly when they are trained?

CASAs, Cessnas, King Airs,AW139s, EC165s.......

purple'n'gold

I guess your right, anyway the RAF can be here with real Jets in 10 mins if we ever get in trouble.

cp251

I wondered at the point of the PC9 myself but really the Air Corps need basic trainers anyway. They could use Cessnas or something similar for but they would have a limited capability for anything like a military role or armament training. So the PC9s are a reasonable compromise, I suppose. Moving on to fly the Learjet, Gulfstream, Super King Air and Casas would also be less of step up from a turboprop than a piston single. Obviously going onto the Reims Rocket is a slight step down, great little aircraft though that is.

We just have to get used to the idea that the Air Corps will never again have any kind of offensive or defensive capability on a par to that which it had when it flew Hurricanes during WW2. When they got their Seafires they were already obsolete.

Hagar

In response to a reported post I would like people to take a long hard look at the following figures.


Just for comparison:

2004 Pilatus PC-9M - Max Speed 368mph - Range 979miles
WW2 Messerschmitt ME 109k /BF 109k - Max Speed 452mph - Range 412miles
WW2 Spitfire - Max Speed 354mph - Range 395miles
WW2 Hurricane - Max Speed 330mph - Range 425miles
WW2 P51 Mustang - Max Speed 443mph - Range 1140miles (varied with tank configuration)
WW2 Mitsubishi Zero M21 - Max Speed 410mph - Range 1625miles
WW2 Mig 3 - Max Speed 398mph - Range 510miles

WW2 ended 62 years ago...

ian_m

There were out as far as Greystones this morning. I have seen them up extremely high out over the sea at Bray Head. I have also seen two together going doing figure 8s.

I am sure they are training. They are impressive, I think we should be proud of them.

purple'n'gold

You can be proud of them, and fair play to you. But they are of no use to us in a real military emergency. Then we will have to be proud of the RAF.

Hagar

@purple'n'gold it is actually possible to make a point without sounding like you are just stirring it up.

Give it a try sometime, soon.

purple'n'gold

WW2 Mitsubishi Zero M21 - Max Speed 410mph - Range 1625miles
It had a range of 1625 miles? Are you sure? That’s huge

peter-pantslez

they were out triaining this morning and than this afternoon they done a fly by for the king and queen of belgian

the aw139s and ec 135s also doen a fly by and they fired the 105mm in a 21 gun salute in outside the aras just before the fly bys!

Hagar

Naval Version had long range tanks. Some had external drop tanks yielding 1675 miles link (last line)

But we are off topic here. Sorry OP. Let's get back on topic.

Good info Peter. Thanks.

OS119

the operational capability of the PC-9M is irrelevent, it would have had a hard time over South Armagh in the bad old days, so its of fcuk all use anywhere else.

its training value could be looked at as well - all the IAC's operational AC are side-by-side twin seat multi-engine types (save one Cessna) - personally i'd question the point of pilots learning to fly a 'single seat' type that behaves not unlike a fast jet (indeed its used to train future F/A-18, F-16 and F-15 pilots elsewhare) before they go on to fly CASA 235's and Helicopters.

Hagar

I think Peter-pantzlez offerded the info the op wanted I'm closing the thread.


If anyone wants to start another thread on the desirability / operational capabilities of the PC-9M, please do and we'll take it from there.