|
Post by Dave Homewood on Dec 21, 2006 23:20:05 GMT 12
Looking back at initial reports of the RNZAF Maachis, they seem to have been listed in print as MB-339C models.
Later on you see them as MB-339CB models.
I know there was a lot of trouble with the engine installation and a full time Italian team was stationed at Ohakea even as late as late 1993 when i lived there trying to work through the problems. I wonder, does the addition of the B suffix indicate they were officially modified somehow at that time?
I have also seen them listed sometimes as MB-339K models. Was that ever an official designation or a figment of the press's imagination?
Also, do you realise the 18 aircraft fleet cost just US$125 million in 1991. Could you buy one advanced fighter trainer for that now?
How much did they sell for each to Hoss pearson I wonder.
|
|
|
Post by flyjoe180 on Dec 22, 2006 7:55:29 GMT 12
Ive only ever seen them designated as MB339CB.
|
|
|
Post by skyhawkdon on Dec 22, 2006 9:45:17 GMT 12
They were based on the Italian Air Force MB-339C model but customised slightly for NZ so they gave them a B suffix to differentiate them. Yes the purchase price at the time was pretty good, but given the subsequent trouble we had with the engines and other components the operating costs were much more expenseive than expected. That was why we stopped using them as an advanced pilot trainer - they were costing too much to operate. The "deal" with Hoss to buy them and the Skyhawks is dead in the water - last I heard they were back on the open market and the Argies had been out to have a look at the Macchis. I don't think there is any chance the Skyhawks will fly again. Merry Christmas to you all - this group is great and a big thank you must go to Dave for how he runs it. See you all back here in 2007!
|
|
|
Post by phil on Dec 22, 2006 11:07:18 GMT 12
Ours were never called Ks, the K was a prototype single seat ground attack version, I don't think it ever got to production stage.
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Dec 22, 2006 14:32:52 GMT 12
Cheers guys. That clears it up nicely, just the media doing its usual lack of research. i know that one thing ours had over the Italian C model was headlights. I'd forgotten that the ygly fighter version was the K. Must be one of the few planes where the two seater looks much better than the single seat version!
I had assumed a lot of the aftermarket sorting of problems were paid for by Aermacchi since it was bad design rather than user.
Another post on here I read today eludes to the fact the aircraft have sold and will leave early next year.
A huge thanks to you guys too for your very interesting input to the forum. I've already proven a few months ago that without me the forum still runs like a well oiled machine, it's the many contributors who make it what it is. Cheers everyone! And merry Christmas.
|
|
|
Post by phil on Dec 22, 2006 15:10:36 GMT 12
I wouldn't be saying they are sold quite yet (at least they weren't a week ago).
I'm still in the 'believe it when I see it' mode.
|
|
|
Post by kiwi on Dec 25, 2006 18:39:57 GMT 12
I understand that many of the problems with our Macchis were very similar the those experienced by the Australians some thirteen years earlier with theirs , water ingestion from wet runways etc .
|
|
|
Post by skyhawkdon on Jan 8, 2007 11:31:13 GMT 12
i know that one thing ours had over the Italian C model was headlights. I had assumed a lot of the aftermarket sorting of problems were paid for by Aermacchi since it was bad design rather than user. Are you talking about the "bird scarer" in the nose Dave? There should have been a laser range finder fitted there but it was one of the items deleted as we couldn't afford it (same goes for the RWS and CDS systems - everything was there except the boxes!).
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Jan 8, 2007 12:11:49 GMT 12
Bird scarer, so that's the purpose of the lights. I had wondered why they were installed. I often wondered if it were more for ground handling and taxiing as they were in a low viz scheme and at Ohakea often in low viz weather.
Goung back to my origianl question I think the designation of MB-339C used in early media reports must have been purely before the news broke that we'd ordered modified models, and the journalists had assumed they were the same as the Italian ones.
|
|
Glen T
Flight Lieutenant
Posts: 85
|
Post by Glen T on Jan 9, 2007 0:07:20 GMT 12
Hi guys, I reckon - the MB339 was the best choice for us at the time.... The options were PC7, PC9, Macchetti S211, BAe Hawk, Pampa2000, Casa Aviojet & MB339. The Blunties needed replacing fast, and the pilots did not 'really' want a prop a/c ..bit of a jump from there to the A4 anyway!!! The Pampa was still on the dwg board - prototype still not flown!!! The Hawk - well very expensive and an 18mth leadtime (12 Hawks=18 MB339's!). As for the S211/Aviojet...well my thoughts would be they are not in the same class as the MB339!! Next was the delivery of the a/c - in time to replace the STR. AerMacchi basically could provide the a/c in the time NZ needed. I recall someone mentioning that the ideal aircraft replacement performance was listed around the data of the MB339...... and then there was the politician that tabled some papers in Govt asking why the Pampa had not been chosen, since 'on paper' it was a better a/c !!! They just didn't mention that not one had flown and we would be the lead customer. Then there was the R-R engine mess, that they virtually made the engine an orphan by upgrading it to match engine performance requirements of the RNZAF.... but that was not found out until much later.. Well, after AerMacchi was chosen in 1990, I got lucky and was one of 4 Armourers, along with 4 Aircraft and 4 Avionics Cpl/Sgt mix to be sent to Venegono for initial training in Jan1991. Two S&S guys had gone over for training three months earlier. The production/servicing line there had one que of MB339A's of the Frecci Tricolori, one line of MB339A's of the IAF and then a third line of our a/c being built 3 at a time. They had underground caverns between the hangars that had fwd sections of the MB339's stored.. obviously built years earlier to keep the production line busy and the only way we got a/c so quick I reckon. We actually trained on several Frecci a/c in the line..although the seats, the pylons, etc were different to our aircraft ...it showed that our a/c were quite different in some respects to that of the A model.. especially of course the glass cockpit and different ejection seats. The canopy making machine/oven and the chicken machine canon that tested the canopies were quite amazing - as was checking out the brand new AMX fighter (a 'modern' A4!)! After our two weeks there, us four Armourers flew down to Rome, and out to Latina where the factory of SICAMB ( Society Industrial Construction Aeronautica Martin Baker) builds and services all the Italian AF Martin Baker seats and also manufactures the rear fuselages of the MB339 and the AMX, the cargo doors for MD11, and parts for the Eurofighter. Obviously the rear fuses would be sent up to Venegono (near Milan) for complete assy. We were trained on the new ejection seat there, as were the S&S guys for the parachute assy. It was quite an experience seeing what goes on in the manufacture... An Officer and at least one SNCO stayed near Venegono in Varese for 18 months or so to oversee the manufacture and keep the company 'honest'.... despite that there were assembly problems discovered as years went on in service ..but I'm sure that is the case from any factory. My job when I got back was to prepare the Seat Bay for the servicing of the Mk IT-10-LK, including test equipment, spares, publications, servicing procedures/schedules, oils/lubes/paints, etc. Fortunately I 'acquired' an Italian A model ejection seat book because our publications took years to arrive - and while in the Uk I visited RAF Cottesmore and Brawdy to see an RNZAF pilot on exchange flying Hawks.. and managed to copy some files and dwgs from their Seat Bays to bring home and make stands we didn't get, and then later I had designed a seat actuator test set that even MB don't make ... I know that several other people made many test sets of their own for the MB339 and that saved the RNZAF 100's of thousands of dollars... but we were never mentioned in dispatches or course!!! After disbandment all the tools were left in boxes and the seat bay made into offices, so I managed to move them all to safe storage until the Safeair guys needed them later in 2002, and eventually as time went on, all the seats have been sent to Airflite in Australia for servicing.. All this may of course spawn more questions ... So, a little background that I remember ..Unfortunately I didn't get a posting to 14Sqn before disbandment ..I was hoping to after 75, because my dad had been on 14 in J force in Japan as the Sqn Carpenter ...!! Regards Glen
|
|
|
Post by skyhawkdon on Jan 9, 2007 9:25:01 GMT 12
I understand that many of the problems with our Macchis were very similar the those experienced by the Australians some thirteen years earlier with theirs , water ingestion from wet runways etc . In 1994 when the RAAF was down to the final two prefered types (MB339 and Hawk) to replace their old Macchi's they visited Ohakea to see first hand the problems we were having with our 339's. It made the decision very easy for them. They were astounded at some of the things we showed them (poor quality component manufacture, appauling publications and a lack of committment by Aermacchi to fix the problems). I'm sure how Aermacchi treated the RNZAF cost them the RAAF deal.
|
|
|
Post by trimotor on Oct 25, 2014 16:09:11 GMT 12
And the HUGE American JPATS deal...
|
|