|
Post by beagle on Feb 9, 2014 16:49:00 GMT 12
put a decent motorbike engine in them and I could use one to go to work
|
|
|
Post by Calum on Feb 17, 2014 17:35:57 GMT 12
Does the front cover of the latest RNZAF News mean 14 Sqn will return to operate the T-6C?
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Feb 17, 2014 17:41:50 GMT 12
Apparently yes. Pilot Training Squadron is allegedly disbanding.
|
|
|
Post by beagle on Feb 17, 2014 18:33:26 GMT 12
my copy hasn't arrived yet, others got theirs ?
|
|
|
Post by Damon on Feb 17, 2014 18:38:18 GMT 12
I received my copy in the mail today, although have not read it yet. Shame about the PTS. (how long has the PTS been active?)
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Feb 17, 2014 19:43:52 GMT 12
Since the 1960's I think.
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Feb 17, 2014 19:44:17 GMT 12
I don't know if that is confirmed by the way but it's a rumour doing the rounds.
|
|
|
Post by phil on Feb 17, 2014 20:31:20 GMT 12
I look forward to seeing Safe Air Ltd parading the 14SQN standard....
|
|
|
Post by beagle on Feb 17, 2014 20:38:30 GMT 12
At least the USA doesn't have any say who the CT4's can be on sold to.
|
|
|
Post by camtech on Feb 17, 2014 21:26:32 GMT 12
Got my copy of RNZAF News today and note the serial displayed is still NZ1401.
Seems unusual to repeat a serial range when options exist (NZ1611 eg)
I guess the resurrection of 14 Sqdn is some concession to the strike role.
|
|
|
Post by skyhawkdon on Feb 18, 2014 20:08:06 GMT 12
I look forward to seeing Safe Air Ltd parading the 14SQN standard.... I suspect there will be quite a few ex 14 Sqn people working for them!
|
|
|
Post by tbf25o4 on Feb 19, 2014 11:17:28 GMT 12
Hi Guys,
the allocation of NZ1401 was for publicity purposes and a play on "14" Squadron numbering. The real NZ1401 was a wartime Tiger Moth. I have communicated with the Air Force (as the ex policy officer for allocating serial numbers) and suggested that the allocation of NZ1601 - NZ1611 is available or in a historical connection NZ1110 - NZ1121 following on from the last of the Harvards NZ1101 - NZ1102. Also by starting at NZ1110 is avoids the radio call problem of lots of "01s - 11" for aircraft already operating in that range at Ohakea i.e. Augusta NZ3401 -NZ3405 and the NH90 NZ3601 et al
will be interesting to see what they go with
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Feb 19, 2014 14:32:14 GMT 12
I guess it is also technically possible to reprise no. 14 Squadron without totally losing the connection to Pilot Training Squadron. It could be called No. 14 (Pilot Training) Squadron, just like the wartime Oxford and Hudson unit called No. 10 (Operational Training) Squadron, which was short-lived before it was renamed No. 1 (Bomber) Operational Training Unit.
The digital artwork on the cover of Air Force news shows it also wears the pelican badge of the Central Flying School, so I guess both units will continue to share the pool of aircraft.
|
|
chasper
Flight Lieutenant
Posts: 85
|
Post by chasper on Feb 19, 2014 19:17:04 GMT 12
Having read the Air Force News I have to say that I get a little frustrated with the approach that the purchase of these trainers is some sort of game changar for the RNZAF. This is an Air Force that has more AVM's than it does operational aircraft on most days and would seem to fail miserably when communicating with Government with regard to what it needs and the timing required to achieve those needs. Most Governments are receptive to logical argument and whilst the financial contstrictions have been significant we are in a much better place now. The withdrawal of a C130 from a recent exercise to go to Tonga illustrates how pathetic things have become, one operational C130!! Don't get me wrong, we need these aircraft but we also need to get a senior management team that has gravitas and skills to build from this. Frankly, I don't see it. I suspect that I am about to be shot down in flames...
|
|
|
Post by beagle on Feb 19, 2014 20:01:55 GMT 12
After doing 2 tours on the Mighty 40, I have witnessed this many times. I am not sure what happened this time, but yes, it happens. Not shooting you down but explaining that at times there could be say.. 1 on group servicing 1 or even 2 on an overseas exercise or deployment 1 on a phase servicing and there is often the unsuspected prop or engine change that has a frame on the ground.
An exercise is just an exercise, Tonga was more important to the govt.
|
|
|
Post by camtech on Feb 19, 2014 20:37:17 GMT 12
Thanks for clarifying the NZ1401 issue. To me, NZ16__ seems a good choice, but remembering that the last Tiger Moth was numbered NZ1601.
The issue of so many '01's was a curse at Auckland years ago, when we had 7001, 4201, 3701, 3801 and 3901. At least the Andovers broke that mold, as did later aircraft.
|
|
|
Post by saratoga on Feb 19, 2014 20:47:42 GMT 12
ref.Chaspers comments, not withstanding a top heavy command structure, i don't think the Clark Labour govt was receptive to anything other than its own predudices,even one of her cronies recommended the F16 deal. No reception there!
|
|
|
Post by beagle on Feb 25, 2014 16:00:08 GMT 12
Reading the article in the RNZAF News, it had that the RAF had recently selected it too. I knew they were looking at a Tucano replacement soon but hadn't heard this one. I tried to google for info but not much around about it.
|
|
|
Post by Naki on Feb 25, 2014 21:28:24 GMT 12
The January edition of Air International in a training article mentions that the T-6C been rumoured as the favourite choice by the team running the comp on behalf(?) of the RAF but they aren't due to make a choice until 2015. There are three teams competing two with a T-6C/G-120TP combo and one with PC-21/G115 combo. Similar combos are in the running for the RAAF contract. In any case I'm already flying my RNZAF Texan ...(repaint of freeware IRIS T-6 by Adrian Brausch)
|
|
|
Post by beagle on Mar 6, 2014 15:58:27 GMT 12
No news for these new machines in March ?
|
|