Aeralis Modular Trainer Concept

Hood

Hood

ACCESS: Top Secret
Staff member
Senior Member
Joined
6 September 2006
Messages
4,306
Reaction score
7,423
A British start-up company, Aeralis, is trying to secure £1 mil via crowdfunding to design a concept fuselage demonstrator for a “modular” family of military jet trainers in time for September’s DSEI defence show. They are billing this as the first all-British military aircraft since the Hawk.

If they can raise another £30 mil they want to fly a prototype by 2021 and hope to start production by the mid-2020s with a factory at the former RAF St Athan and Bombardier’s Belfast plant supplying the wings and engine pod and Thales UK the avionics. Formula 1 design house Williams Engineering would be contracted to manufacture the composite fuselage.

The Aeralis concept is a modular design allowing one airframe to serve the basic and advanced trainer roles. The main changes for the advanced role would be an upgraded cockpit, swept outer wings and the single turbofan (possibly the Williams International FJ44) would be replaced by two FJ44s via a common 'pod' mounting.
Bombardier and Thales have offered support but no funding.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/aeralis-launches-funding-effort-for-modular-milita-452629/
 
It's the new name for Dart Jet:

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,24881.msg252394.html

Mods to merge threads?

Their website is https://aeralis.com/

Some pics of current versions/demo fuselage attached.

Still not sure if there is a real need for this. Seems to mean you have a plane that is heavy in all roles due to the stressed joints (like naval wing fold in terms of weight penalty?), although making it the undercarriage attachment may reduce this (at cost of drag for the u/c pods).

They seem to have looked at the reduced capital outlay of leasing a common pool of aircraft as outweighing (no pun!) any possible weight/operating cost penalty, but they will need a lot of money up front for this.

The layout also looks just like a high drag M346/Alpha Jet hybrid. Surely a changeable single piece wing (like Harrier or Hawk) would give similar potential benefits without all the weight of the joints?
 

Attachments

  • aeralis-a-1.jpg
    aeralis-a-1.jpg
    42.5 KB · Views: 475
  • Aeralis.jpg
    Aeralis.jpg
    69.5 KB · Views: 467
  • Demo.png
    Demo.png
    286.8 KB · Views: 492
Crowdfunding a jet trainer is a new one, wonder what the implications would be for future projects/concepts/dreams if they end up successful with it.
 
Moose said:
Crowdfunding a jet trainer is a new one, wonder what the implications would be for future projects/concepts/dreams if they end up successful with it.
Click to expand...

Gotta wonder what the Kickstarter backer rewards look like? How much do I have to contribute to get an RC model version?
 
According to Flightglobal, they rejected the use of the F124 engine. While overpowered for the basic training variant, it would be more conducive to the high performance version compared to the twin-pac FJ44. I would've used a derated F124 for the basic option and an afterburning equipped F124 for the high performance one.

It's all an interesting idea, but I do not see the high performance version being supersonic, nor offering any reasonable combat capability that will make the plane marketable beyond just a theoretical high performance trainer. It's too small, and hampered by it's own short, squat design. Landing gear pods on the wings take away room for weapons and create significant drag on their own.
 
I don't understand the canted frwd apex that leans downward. That might be the weirdest thing on this weird project.
The intentions of being modular are good obviously but is it the right config? Or the right time when 19M$ T-X and M-345 are out on the market? For example having to relocate the landing gear in pods just to have an engine pack when wing mounted and centrally located gear have proved their worth hundred of light years ago... Being different in-lieu of being innovative: is that now the question?
 
TomcatViP said:
I don't understand the canted frwd apex that leans downward. That might be the weirdest thing on this weird project.
The intentions of being modular are good obviously but is it the right config? Or the right time when 19M$ T-X and M-345 are out on the market? For example having to relocate the landing gear in pods just to have an engine pack when wing mounted and centrally located gear have proved their worth hundred of light years ago... Being different in-lieu of being innovative: is that now the question?
Click to expand...

It's like they expect the plane to fly at a pretty high angle of attack all the time. The nose has quite a bit of downwards point too, though no where near as bad as earlier concept art depicts. If they'd lengthen the plane a bit, they could probably fit the gear into the inner wing + LERX structure while still having enough room for carry through spars. I really don't understand why they are trying to make it so tiny. It's not going to save them any money when making it modular is probably already costing them precious engineering dollars. The shorter length probably makes it more conducive to the differing wing designs, but it's probably hurting them more than helping.
 
Very little about this makes sense to me. The market seems flooded with existing products. This seems to offer little over the existing options like the M-345 or LG-39. There's no/little improvement in training to be had and i just can't see it being that much cheaper when you need to start from scratch.

The business model is interesting, but you could do this by buying a fleet of say LG-39s, Hawks and T-Xs and lease these as needed to customers. Doesn't need a new aeroplane.
 
Harrier said:
It's the new name for Dart Jet:

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,24881.msg252394.html
Click to expand...

Thanks, I wasn't aware of that. I'd totally forgotten about this from a couple of years ago!

I think its probably right to be sceptical about this. If you can't even afford to build a mock-up for a defence show then really your not going anywhere. Its an interesting effort but likely success in gaining any sales is likely to be zero. As Red Admiral points out the market is full with products from reputable companies and these kinds of novel 'cheap' trainer designs since the 1960s (think Miles Student, RFB Fantrainer for just two examples) have never been a success commercially. Its an interesting project but one that will probably remain a project.

Also interesting to see the common theme of Shorts' old Belfast factory trying to get a slice of the action!
 
red admiral said:
Very little about this makes sense to me. The market seems flooded with existing products. This seems to offer little over the existing options like the M-345 or LG-39. There's no/little improvement in training to be had and i just can't see it being that much cheaper when you need to start from scratch.

The business model is interesting, but you could do this by buying a fleet of say LG-39s, Hawks and T-Xs and lease these as needed to customers. Doesn't need a new aeroplane.
Click to expand...

It is easy to make a million dollars in aerospace. Just start with a billion dollars...
 
The keys to this are:

1) the savings that they think light weight will confer
2) the savings that a modular design will leverage, with 80-90% commonality between basic training and advanced training versions, and the ability to use a common training infrastructure with common sims and a common syllabus
3) the perceived lack of a credible affordable trainer for the 2020s -
a) they think that T-50/Boeing T-X are too heavy and therefore too expensive, and require the acquisition of a basic trainer that won't use a common sim, syllabus, etc.
b) they think that Hawk will soon be obsolete, despite Advanced Hawk, etc.
c) they think that PC-21 isn't capable of adequately preparing pilots for the F-35 and 6th Gen combat aircraft.

I get where they're coming from, but don't see people ditching their existing basic trainers when all they really need are new advanced trainers (or vice versa). Nor can I really see a return to all-through jet training, or an appetite to put ab initio pilots straight into a jet. M211/311/345 hasn't exactly had people beating a path to Leonardo's door.....

Nor do I see a huge market - there are some outstanding requirements (Canada, France, Sweden) but there's been a lot of investment in PC-21s, T-6s, PC-9s, Hawks, M-346s, T-50s, et al, and a lot of air forces won't be looking for replacements for 20 or 30 years. Or more.

Not that it means anything, nowadays, but for me, the aircraft fails the "if it looks right it will fly right" test, too.
 
They took basically the 1930's idea of switchable wing that was offered as a way to teach trainee high wing loading airplane.

History has proved that mass produced top notch quality designs with comfortable throughout speed range safety was simpler, leaner and a safer way to put things on, especially with the hundreds of trainee for which each early flights are test flights (test as in the X-planes). So quality of construction, affordability and redundancy of systems offered by a larger/heavier design where far better variables to fight mortality (and cost as improving operational credence) than the adaptable wings and other bizarre designs.

A cottage industry with honorable but outdated design philosophy won't change today any iota to the supremacy of the modern variation of the genre that are the combo Texan T-6 /T-X in term of fresh graduates quality (replace Texan with PC-7, 9, or Tucanos and T-X with 346,345,K-X etc...).

But at the end, let's remember that years ago, during the 30's we already had this fervent exuberance in aviation design all across the countries... that coincidentally faced near extinction at the turn of 1940...
 
www.aero-mag.com

Re-energising the UK aircraft industry - Aerospace Manufacturing

AERALIS aims to build innovative aircraft using a modular design that will motivate a new generation of young people to train in aerospace engineering, manufacturing and STEM subjects, as well as follow careers in aviation. Ian Parker reports.
www.aero-mag.com www.aero-mag.com
 

Attachments

  • AMApril20Features-Aeralis1-1024x1024.jpg
    AMApril20Features-Aeralis1-1024x1024.jpg
    99.4 KB · Views: 157
coanda said:
One thing joints don't like is being taken apart and put back together again. This is a fatally flawed concept.
Click to expand...

I didn't think that the plan was to be able to swap wings, etc. during the plane's service life, just to build multiple versions with different wings, engines, etc around a common fuselage.

I agree it's flawed, probably fatally, just from the fact that there are plenty of other options for all these roles already.
 
The logic is probably similar to the F-35 logic: build one set of systems (hydraulic, pneumatic, fuel, flight controls, etc.) that can be bolted into three or four distinct airframes.

If they build this so small that it is only useful as a trainer, (e.g. no significant warload) then it will deprive Third World air forces of light strike airplanes.
 
coanda said:
TomS said:
coanda said:
One thing joints don't like is being taken apart and put back together again. This is a fatally flawed concept.
Click to expand...

I didn't think that the plan was to be able to swap wings, etc. during the plane's service life, just to build multiple versions with different wings, engines, etc around a common fuselage.

I agree it's flawed, probably fatally, just from the fact that there are plenty of other options for all these roles already.
Click to expand...

No, the idea was to re-role them - they were pushing reconfigurable fleets. At least for a while. This drives a different set of structural and design issues throughout.
Click to expand...

Oh, jeeze. Yeah, I see that now. Disastrous idea, though they do seem to at least accept that the swaps would be a depot-level effort, not something done by operators.

service-diagram1-2.png
 
This modular concept looks more like a leased fleet management concept. Aeralis probably wants to lease fleets of trainers to air forces. Bolt on components can be easily replaced when they time-out. After a lease expires, Aeralis trainers can be over-hauled at the factory and re-rolled to other customers.
Fewer and fewer air forces own their own trainers, preferring to lease them for shorter periods.
This avoids hassles like the Royal Canadian Air Force struggling to keep a few dozen Canadair Tutors flying purely for the Snowbirds display team. All the rest of RCAF training is flown in leased Grobs, Texan II, King Airs and leased Hawks. Often instructors and simulators are also leased through corporations like Allied Wings.
 
Last edited:
It's from the Daily Mail, so a pinch of salt could be in order . . .

"Real life Transformers! RAF backs British firm to develop an aircraft that can be converted from a basic trainer to a faster, more aggressive jet by swapping out its engines and wings"

www.dailymail.co.uk

RAF backs British firm to develop modular aircraft'

Suffolk-based Aeralis was given £200,000 by the RAF to develop its 'modular' two-seater aircraft that will come in one of three variants depending on requirements.
www.dailymail.co.uk www.dailymail.co.uk


cheers,
Robin.
 
Could be instead that the RCO sees an opportunity to outmanoeuvre the increasingly discredited Defence Equipment and Support agency.
 
£200,000 seems a fairly low grant, probably this is what it says on the tin - a research study to see how modular airframes could be applied, probably with a view to incorporating such technology on UAVs?

I'm not sure that the concept is particularly sound as a training aircraft. I can't see many airforces wanting to keep swapping wings and engines on a regular basis between the basic and advanced flying training syllabus. Also, that must play havoc with the aerodynamics and centre of gravity swapping from straight-wing/1-engine to swept-wing/2-engines?

The Aero L-39NG has a single FJ44-4M and is still quite a 'hot' aircraft for a basic trainer, it outperforms a PC-21 for example. The Aeralis would probably be lighter than the L-39 so would in theory be quite a nippy aircraft even in its straight-wing/1-engine configuration. I'm not sure you would want students hopping from a 450shp Grob into a jet capable of almost 500mph and over 4,500ft/min climb.

There is little likelyhood that the RAF is going to fund this as a trainer. When the Ascent contract for UKMFTS comes up in a decade's time, it will be business tenders that will decide what will replace the Hawk.
 
I am not sure that a startup has the background of experience to deal with the novelty of adaptative design. You'd need ppl with experience in aerostructure, wire routing, special tooling, adaptable fasteners, experienced fitters, CaD engineers with a solid knowledge in parametric design, propulsion specialists, aerodynamics engineers... Aside of a bunch of school fresh "designer" and certified engineers.
This is a major industrial work. Not a schoolboy tennis game.
 
Last edited:
Hood said:
£200,000 seems a fairly low grant,
Click to expand...

Absolutely. That is enough to fund maybe three person-years worth of labor.* So that's not a full-time design team developing an actual aircraft, it's some pretty high-level concept work.

* At least in the US, the usual ratio is about 1:1 direct pay : overhead and benefits. If that holds in the UK, they'll be able to put about £100,000 toward actual salaries, which is basically two mid-grade aerospace engineers full time and some fraction of their supervisor's time.
 
Last edited:
TomS said:
Hood said:
£200,000 seems a fairly low grant,
Click to expand...

Absolutely. That is enough to fund maybe three person-years worth of labor.* So that's not a full-time design team developing an actual aircraft, it's some pretty high-level concept work.

* At least in the US, the usual ratio is about 1:1 direct pay : overhead and benefits. If that holds in the UK, they'll be able to put about £100,000 toward actual salaries, which is basically two mid-grade aerospace engineers full time and some fraction of their supervisor's time.
Click to expand...

Its peanuts, for example currently in Britain the Arts and Humanities Research Council is offering £50,000 - £250,000 for early career research grants or engagement funding, the Medical Research Council is offering £200,000 grants for small stand-alone or feasibility studies.

Its fairly safe to assume this is concept work or an analysis of their system so far and its applicability to other aviation uses.
The RCO is probably interested to see if they have any good ideas (aviation is littered with "seemed a good idea at the time") and a bit of funding enables the MoD and government to get lines in the press like the quoted Daily Mail article so it looks like they are supporting the UK aviation industry so its win-win for everyone.
 
Latest paper talk . . .

"Red Arrows: UK firm to win deal to replace ageing jets
UK FIRM Aeralis is almost certain to win a contract to replace the Red Arrows' ageing jets, sources said last night. The RAF's elite aerobatic display team have been using the Hawk T1 for more than 40 years to fly the British flag in almost 5,000 public displays at home and abroad."

www.express.co.uk

Red Arrows: UK firm to win deal to replace ageing jets

UK FIRM Aeralis is almost certain to win a contract to replace the Red Arrows' ageing jets, sources said last night. The RAF's elite aerobatic display team have been using the Hawk T1 for more than 40 years to fly the British flag in almost 5,000 public displays at home and abroad.
www.express.co.uk www.express.co.uk

cheers,
Robin. Aeralis Red Arrow.jpg
 
robunos said:
Latest paper talk . . .

"Red Arrows: UK firm to win deal to replace ageing jets
UK FIRM Aeralis is almost certain to win a contract to replace the Red Arrows' ageing jets, sources said last night. The RAF's elite aerobatic display team have been using the Hawk T1 for more than 40 years to fly the British flag in almost 5,000 public displays at home and abroad."

www.express.co.uk

Red Arrows: UK firm to win deal to replace ageing jets

UK FIRM Aeralis is almost certain to win a contract to replace the Red Arrows' ageing jets, sources said last night. The RAF's elite aerobatic display team have been using the Hawk T1 for more than 40 years to fly the British flag in almost 5,000 public displays at home and abroad.
www.express.co.uk www.express.co.uk

cheers,
Robin.View attachment 664133
Click to expand...

So remind me, which of Boris Johnson's pals has a stake in Aeralis?

No, seriously, awarding a high profile contract like this on a short timeline to a company with literally no track record of building actual flying hardware of any sort is courting absolute disaster.
 
I'm trying to put into words just how highly unlikely all this seems, but apparently keep getting slapped in the back of my head by the events of the past few years so can't quite utter anything presentable. Anyhow, the gals and guys of ye olde Red Arrows must be absolutely chuffed at the prospect of this reporting being true and getting to step in front of the media to say so themselves. Right up their taxiway, I'd say, as it's part of their job to make a big show and blow smoke while they're at it.
 
TomS said:
So remind me, which of Boris Johnson's pals has a stake in Aeralis?

No, seriously, awarding a high profile contract like this on a short timeline to a company with literally no track record of building actual flying hardware of any sort is courting absolute disaster.
Click to expand...
The single source contract case will make interesting reading. I imagine its just Aeralis trying to drum up investment again with DSEI on.
 
Wouldn't that be unique in History that an aerobatic team selected an Aircraft that hasn't flown or be tested, yet not even been completed?
Usually safety and reliability considerations dictate that the aircraft considered must have a well documented service history.
 
This seems stupid by any stretch of the imagination for multiple reasons, but as many of my fellow Brit members have pointed out, what seems insanely stupid is par for the course for Johnson's government (we can't forget the post-Brexit ferry deal with a company that didn't own any ferries or PHE equipment brought from West End hairdressers).

Are they seriously contemplating contributing to Aeralis' R&D costs for just a dozen aircraft? It's still at least four years from first flight, a lot can happen in that time and there is no detailed cost information at all.
There are still huge questions marks of whether the modular concept is even feasible, no-one has ever made it work much less actually gain any customer interest in the concept.
Maybe a contract will support their work in connection with the Rapid Capabilities Office, although I think Jez Holme's quote was from a while back when Aeralis began working with the RCO.
Saying that I can't see what the modular concept is bringing to the Red Arrows? They don't need a modular swing-role aircraft, just something they can fly aerobatics in. They could order up another batch of Texans or just get a PFI deal for a private company to supply them some aircraft (plenty of two-seater Spitfires about these days).

With the MoD facing a serious shortfall in procurement spending and with several programmes well and truly SNAFU'd (Ajax et al) is this really a good idea given the need to re-equip the Red Arrows is pretty low on the priority list? Are the Red Arrows that vital to the RAF's needs? What about the Hawk T.1s used for aggressor training? Given ASDOT had the plug pulled for unknown reasons, and the fact that the Tranche 1 Typhoons will be gone by 2024 thus wrecking the RAF's plans to field one or two squadrons of aggressors how are they going to perform realistic operational training? (I know that answer already, an Air Marshal will pop up and say "we'll just use simulators").

Is this another National Flagship fiasco? Build something you don't need but the idea is just to build anything in Britain to showcase something, anything, doesn't matter what it is and hope someone somewhere might be fool enough to buy some too. Sure its more tangible than vapourware but vapourware tends to cost less and when it flops or fades from view people have less to point at and laugh at.

And of course we have to assess if the government would really leak its plans to the Express...
 
Given Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson's love of grandiose vanity projects (The NB4L (Borismaster) Bus, The Garden Bridge, Irish Sea Bridge etc etc) and the his governments stated aim of bringing back sovereign capabilities (cf. National Shipbuilding Strategy) this has all the hallmarks of another farce...

Zeb
 
To be fair, using the airframe as the basis for a HALE drone has been one of the options talked about from the start of the program if I am not mistaken, though I am not sure if they were actively looking at that in turn as the basis of an unmanned tanker at that point in time.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom