• Hi Guest! Forum rules have been updated. All users please read here.

Leonardo M-346 FA

FighterJock

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Oct 29, 2007
Messages
1,050
Reaction score
32
Nice find Hood. Sort of reminds me of the Hawk 200 in principle but with twin seats. Wonder how many orders Leonardo will get?
 

batigol

CLEARANCE: Restricted
Joined
Jun 8, 2009
Messages
38
Reaction score
11
Brazil is (slowly) putting its AMX fleet through a comprehensive upgrade so I doubt they'd be a customer.
 

FighterJock

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Oct 29, 2007
Messages
1,050
Reaction score
32
batigol said:
Brazil is (slowly) putting its AMX fleet through a comprehensive upgrade so I doubt they'd be a customer.
Would it not be best for Brazil to buy at least a single squadron of the M-346 FA to compliment AMX?
 

muttbutt

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Jan 31, 2010
Messages
201
Reaction score
1
FighterJock said:
batigol said:
Brazil is (slowly) putting its AMX fleet through a comprehensive upgrade so I doubt they'd be a customer.
Would it not be best for Brazil to buy at least a single squadron of the M-346 FA to compliment AMX?
No money....
 

batigol

CLEARANCE: Restricted
Joined
Jun 8, 2009
Messages
38
Reaction score
11
Brazil's air force is spending it's limited budget on the Gripen program, and with the Super Tucano - AMX - Gripen combo, I think their bases are pretty well covered.
 

kaiserd

I really should change my personal text
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2013
Messages
710
Reaction score
61
GTX said:
FighterJock said:
Would it not be best for Brazil to buy at least a single squadron of the M-346 FA to compliment AMX?
Why?
To clarify, the AMX was a joint Italy/ Brazil project.
The M-346 is not and has no apparent connection to Brazil.
 

NUSNA_Moebius

I really should change my personal text
Joined
May 26, 2012
Messages
124
Reaction score
9
I'm assuming the airframe and engines are pretty much the same?
 

dan_inbox

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2006
Messages
587
Reaction score
73
The Leonardo M-346 is really the Yakovlev Yak-130, no matter what the marketing department tries to gloss over.
So there is no involvement of Brazil, and minimal commonality with any previous Macchi planes.
 

dan_inbox

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2006
Messages
587
Reaction score
73
Hmmm, "early cooperation" is not as I remember things. I'm willing to be corrected, but IIRC Yakovlev developped the Yak-130 (originally Yak-UTS in 1991) on its own in response to a Russian AF requirement. Period. No involvement of Macchi.
Then in 1993 with the Yetsin-era collapse of budgets and economy in Russia, OKB Yakolev needed outside support and went out to find a western partner.

This being said, I understand fully that the Macchi-marketed version has incorporated as many local components as they can, and I also understand Leonardo's marketing department in rewriting history to a more flattering version. We just don't have to swallow all of it.
 

kaiserd

I really should change my personal text
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2013
Messages
710
Reaction score
61
dan_inbox said:
Hmmm, "early cooperation" is not as I remember things. I'm willing to be corrected, but IIRC Yakovlev developped the Yak-130 (originally Yak-UTS in 1991) on its own in response to a Russian AF requirement. Period. No involvement of Macchi.
Then in 1993 with the Yetsin-era collapse of budgets and economy in Russia, OKB Yakolev needed outside support and went out to find a western partner.

This being said, I understand fully that the Macchi-marketed version has incorporated as many local components as they can, and I also understand Leonardo's marketing department in rewriting history to a more flattering version. We just don't have to swallow all of it.
The basic design configuration of the M-346 is derived from the Yak-130 but they share no components and their respective manufacturers have no involvememt with or interest in each other's aircraft.
 

kaiserbill

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Jun 7, 2006
Messages
1,252
Reaction score
39
So we agree that it's an Italianised/Westernised version of the Yak 130 design. They bought into the Yak programme during the "no money" Yeltsin era, paid Yak for the design and technical documentation when they decided to split.
The Yak 130 design work started in 1987, flew almost 9 years before the M346 and entered service 6 years before the M346 for good reason. Leonardo then spent that additional time "westernising" the internals, and other (relatively speaking) minor tweaks and modifications.
The M346 has almost the exact same external dimensions as the Yak, bar span and rear horizontal tailplane...because it is the Yak 130 airframe and aerodynamic layout as designed by Yak and TSAGI. Aermacchi (at the time) did assist in wind tunnel testing as well as rig testing of the fbw system.
This is well documented, on threads on this site no less, so I'm unsure what the issue is?
 

dan_inbox

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2006
Messages
587
Reaction score
73
kaiserbill said:
...because it is the Yak 130 airframe and aerodynamic layout as designed by Yak and TSAGI. Aermacchi (at the time) did assist in wind tunnel testing as well as rig testing of the fbw system.
This is well documented, on threads on this site no less, so I'm unsure what the issue is?
I don't think there is an issue, really. It started with a statement (or rather question, I imagine) on the commonality of airframe between M-346 and AMX. To which I answered that it is minimal because the 346 started life as a pure Yakovlev product. This triggered a series of statements about the extent of differences between the Yak and the Macchi version, with an IMO-misleading description of "early cooperation".

About the extent of differences in the final plane after one has bought "the design and technical documentation" of the other, as far as I can see we are looking at the same glass, one sees it half-full and the other half-empty. Humans and emotions, those things happen.

As for the original point, the commonality of airframe between M-346 and AMX, I believe we all see why there shouldn't be much.
 

TomS

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
3,230
Reaction score
137
I suspect he question was actually whether there are airframe changes from the M-346 Master trainer to the new M-346 FA. The answer to that appears to be "no", aide from the radome and possibly some hardpoint changes. (The number of hardpoints on the M-346 is variously cited as five, seven, or nine. The FA seems to have settled on seven.)
 

netfires

CLEARANCE: Restricted
Joined
Aug 7, 2019
Messages
7
Reaction score
7
The M-346 has five (one fuselage, 4 underwing) and the M-346FA has two extras on the wingtip. Wingtip hardpoints are for AAMs, notably AIM-9L which has definitely been trialed and IRIS-T which I'm not sure about (but which they definitely intend to integrate).
 

netfires

CLEARANCE: Restricted
Joined
Aug 7, 2019
Messages
7
Reaction score
7
Also, to comment briefly on the external differences between M-346 and the Yak-130, the Yak-130 was certainly the starting point but Aermacchi did make substantive aerodynamic changes:

The wing was moved up the fuselage, having been too low on the Yak-130 and causing horizontal stabiliser blanking at mid to high angle of attack (AoA). The leading-edge extensions (LEX) were reduced and redesigned to give controllable vortex lift. Two small vertical fins were added at the wing roots to "trap" and control the LEX vortices at AoAs from 25-30° upwards. These LEX vortex controllers ensure the "vortex burst" over the wing at high AoA is symmetrical and controllable.

You can observe these changes on the aircraft quite easily, especially those vertical fins. Quite interesting stuff.
 
Top