US Navy Multi-engine Multi-Crewed Carrier Capable Training Aircraft - T-44 Replacement

[Dynoman]

Although there is not a requirement for a carrier capable multi-engine training aircraft this thread is used to address the design requirements and concept of such an aircraft. Currently, the US Navy uses the Beechcraft T-44 Pegasus (similar to a militarized KingAir) for multi-engine training. This aircraft is used prior to transitioning into E-2C and C-2 aircraft, which are both carrier borne aircraft. Obviously the T-44 is not carrier capable. Others the T-44 trains pilots to fly before transitioning into are the MV-22, CV-22, P-8, EP-3, and KC-130J.

Proposed here is a multi-engine jet or turboprop trainer capable of, in excess of, 1400 nm range, 250 KTAS, with side-by-side seating, designed to support future pilot transition training in multi-engine EW, COD, aerial refueling, and ASW mission aircraft.

Consideration should be given to a modularized cockpit that can be digitally reconfigured using glass panel displays to simulate other future mission aircraft as well as variable stability systems that allow the aircraft to simulate the flight characteristics of future mission aircraft that a naval aviator will transition into (i.e. think Calspan's inflight simulator Learjet (N102VS)).

Crew coordination, asymmetrical thrust (engine-out training), robust landing requirements, automatic carrier landing, folding wings, and other carrier compliant demands need to be considered.

 

[Fluff]

Probably still some trackers in storage somewhere in the world, glass cockpit and some used PT6 and your good to go.

 

[Dynoman]

I was thinking along those lines...high wing turboprop. The Mitsubishi MU-2 meets the same range as KingAir but 40 nets faster.

 

[Dynoman]

The cabin seating could be used to train navigators with navigation stations. The additional seats could also be used to switch out air crews in training on long flights.

 

[Dynoman]

Possibly similar to an MU-2 or OV-10T.

 

[aim9xray]

As I see it, the requirements in post #1 can not be met by one aircraft.

- The tiltrotor flight spectrum can not be emulated by a fixed engine/wing aircraft.
- The CATOBAR fixed engine/wing flight spectrum can not be fulfilled by a tiltrotor.

Game over.

 

[Dynoman]

I agree, however the current pipeline for training V-22 pilots is the TH-57 and the T-44 twin-engine aircraft (non-carrier capable). Ideally the goal would to find a design that could meet all requirements, but this is not practical. Post 1 was focused on finding an aircraft that could replace the T-44 that was capable of landing on an aircraft carrier to qualify pilots before they went to a replacement unit to train in the E-2 or C-1A.

 

[Dynoman]

Imagine a small two or four place Bell X-22 landing horizontally for training fixed wing turboprop pilots to land on the carrier and the V-22 pilots would fly the aircraft in VTOL, hover, and transition training before moving on to the MV-22.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SjNH9fn1crY

 

[TomS]

I'm not sure how that helps -- the flight characteristics of an X-22 type won't be much like a V-22, and flying that complex an aircraft in the pipeline for fixed-wing prop pilots would be very expensive.

The current pipeline makes a fair bit of sense, IMO. V-22 flies mostly like a twin-engine prop plane, so lots of T-44 time is valuable to teach management of multiple engines, etc. Adding some light helo time early in the pipeline familiarizes V-22 pilots with vertical flight, but putting the T-44 time in between that and the actual V-22 helps keep them from bringing helo habits to the Osprey.

If you wanted a closer V-22 surrogate in the pipeline, you could maybe swap in an AW609 or modernized XV-15 (same thing?) for the T-44, but I'm not sure that's a great idea. It puts trainee pilots in the position of having to learn to handle multi-engines and VTOL transitions at the same time. Makes more sense to learn the engines and prop flying first, and worry about learning transitions in the V-22 conversion course.

 

[Tailspin Turtle]

TomS is close. The most cost-effective approach to transition to the V-22 is to train in both helicopters and turboprop fixed-wing airplanes. The helicopter is necessary because of the need to learn a constant apparent groundspeed approach to a landing (helicopter) versus constant airspeed/angle of attack approach (airplane) as well as the flight-control nuances of low speed maneuvering, hover, and vertical takeoff/landing. The relatively fast airplane time is very desirable because the much higher cruising speed (and usually altitude) compared to a helicopter's requires a different level of anticipation/time sense in navigation (to over exaggerate, helicopter pilots expect to fly for 10 minutes and still see the airport when they turn around; a turboprop airplane is already in the next county). Note that the multi-engine fixed-wing experience is not really required because the rotor gearboxes on a tiltrotor are connected together so there is no handling quality issue with an engine failure; you simply note that there is a loss of thrust. A good simulator is adequate for all the aircraft-specific training required. I can assure you, having flown the XV-15 and spent time in tiltrotor simulators, that a dual-rated (both helicopter and fixed wing) pilot will find a tiltrotor very easy to fly, easier than either single or twin rotor helicopters in some respects, and have no trouble transitioning; there is no need to spend time in a smaller tiltrotor.

 

[Dynoman]

TomS and Tailspin Turtle, you both make great points. I guess the compliment of TH-57 and T-44 training will continue on for a while.

Maybe a naval training variant of the Bell V-280.

 

[Dynoman]

"According to a draft request for information (RFI) posted May 26, the Navy is looking at existing twin-engine aircraft to replace the service’s fleet of 54 T-44Cs used to train Navy, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard pilots to fly aircraft such as the V-22 Osprey, E-2C/D Hawkeye, P-8 Poseidon, P-3 and EP-3 Orion, C-130/KC-130/HC-130 Hercules, E-6 Mercury, C-40 Clipper, HC-27 Spartan and HC-144 Ocean Sentry."

"The Navy said the METS (Multi-Engine Training System) should have an FAA type certification for single- and dual-pilot operations under day and night visual flight rules and under instrument flight rules. It shall cruise at speeds greater or equal to 195 knots and shall be able to operate at a minimum of 20,000 feet above sea level. The aircraft also should have an endurance of 3.5 or more flight hours."

"The pressurized aircraft cockpit will have side-by-side seating, as well as a jump seat for an instruct. The cockpit will be equipped with multifunction displays with digital moving map; redundant VHF and UHF radios; an integrated GPS/inertial navigation system; Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast; flight management system; weather radar, radar altimeter, and a cockpit data recorder."

"The METS aircraft also shall have tricycle landing gear and a reconfigurable cargo bay in the cabin."

Navy Exploring Options for Multi-Engine Training Aircraft to Replace T-44 - Seapower

ARLINTON, Va. — Naval Air Systems Command is looking at options for an aircraft to replace the T-44C Pegasus multi-engine training aircraft, but the ultimate choice may not be “new.” The Navy is exploring options for adapting an existing aircraft...

seapowermagazine.org

Although carrier capability is not a function of the METS concept it would be interesting to explore. In this case the aircraft would not be an "existing twin-engine aircraft." T-44C replacement was scheduled for 2025.

 

[Dynoman]

The new replacement program is the META. Profile and mission requirements.

 

[1635yankee]

Should be easy to add carrier-compatibility to a STOL twin: https://www.aerospace-technology.com/projects/m-28-twin-turboprop-aircraft/

 

[TomcatViP]

Is that a pressurized aircraft?

 

[Dynoman]

I'm going to put together a comparison of existing twin turboprops versus the T-44. I think the STOL M28 is a good candidate. The US military already flies the C-145 (M28) and a determination of its carrier suitability with possibly the addition of a tail hook or modified landing gear for landing and catapult launching. The Let-410 NG was another that I thought would be interesting to look at.

 

[TomS]

I'm going to put together a comparison of existing twin turboprops versus the T-44. I think the STOL M28 is a good candidate. The US military already flies the C-145 (M28) and a determination of its carrier suitability with possibly the addition of a tail hook or modified landing gear for landing and catapult launching. The Let-410 NG was another that I thought would be interesting to look at.

Don't forget that the Navy wants a pressurized cabin (as in the T-44). That limits your options a lot.

 

[Dynoman]

The need for pressurization eliminates the Do-228, M-28, Evektor EV-55, Cessna 408 SkyCourier, and CASA 212.

 

[Dynoman]

So far the best COT twin turboprop with STOL capability, pressurization, rugged landing gear, and similar speed and range to the T-44 is the Let 410 NG.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9MphVCt-_bg

 

[Dynoman]

A redesign of the nose gear on the Let 410 to accommodate the catapult launch bar and hold-back fitting. Also, reinforced bulkhead and tail hook assembly for arresting system. The aircraft's weight is similar to the S-3 Viking, so for an interim design the Viking nosewheel and tail hook could be used for preliminary design. A wing folding mechanism, possibly between the engine nacelle and the beginning of the flap or the outboard wing section with the aileron. The wing fold design could be similar to the S-3.

 

[Dynoman]

Here is a picture of a modified concept of the Let 410. I added a tail hook, nose gear catapult bar, reinforced nosewheel strut, removed the rear window to possibly reposition the rear bulkhead for increased space for reinforcement of a tail hook connection at the slope of the rear fuselage. Also, redesigned the canopy to accommodate ejection seats if desired similar to the S-3 Viking canopy. The ventral stabilizer may be a problem on touchdown. Twin canted ventral stabilizers that give better clearance may be the better solution.

 

[TomcatViP]

I am not sure if there is enough clearance from wing tips to landing gear. Think at a banked approach. I would feel more comfortable with something built like a dash-7...


(photo Dash-8)

 

[TomS]

Guys, remember the word Trainer here. A Dash-7 seems like more than a bit too much for multi-engine training.

Also, I'm pretty sure the L410 NG isn't pressurized. The original certainly wasn't.

 

[Dynoman]

It has been challenging to find an existing twin turboprop aircraft that is still in production that can compete with the T-44. Especially if you are looking for a pressurized turboprop aircraft that is economical enough for training.

Maybe this exercise should consider a clean sheet design (although the Navy request id for a COTS aircraft).

 

[TomS]

I'd be very surprised if it doesn't end up being new or rebuilt King Airs.

 

[Dynoman]

A turboprop configuration of this S-3/XV-15 melded aircraft concept would be fun.

 

[Dynoman]

Carrier Type Classification Scheme. The design should be applied to CATOBAR type carriers t o be compatible with Navy CVN carriers.

 

[Dynoman]

I believe the designations T-4, T-5, T-48, and T-49 are still open.

Update:

13-Mar-03	T-48A	TBD	TBD	Navy	A multi-place aircraft used to train flight officers in fundamentals of aviation and communication. [Note T-48A]
18-Jul-03	CT-49A	Boeing	4 JT3D-7	NATO	NATO Trainer-Cargo Aircraft (TCA) operated to support E-3A AWACS training and air transport/cargo for NATO (NAEW&CF). [Note CT-49A]

 

[Dynoman]

Poor MSPaint of turboprop version of the jet concept.

 

[RavenOne]

I agree, however the current pipeline for training V-22 pilots is the TH-57 and the T-44 twin-engine aircraft (non-carrier capable). Ideally the goal would to find a design that could meet all requirements, but this is not practical. Post 1 was focused on finding an aircraft that could replace the T-44 that was capable of landing on an aircraft carrier to qualify pilots before they went to a replacement unit to train in the E-2 or C-1A.

Should change the Th-57C to the TH-73A Thrasher for RW

I reckon it might end up as another C-12 variant like TC-12W …

Or if you want cost effective lol go Diamond Aircraft DA42

cheers

 

[TomS]

I believe the designations T-4, T-5, T-48, and T-49 are still open.

Very unlikely that they would go back and "fill in" numbers now that T-7 has been assigned. Whether they would go ahead in the "new" 1990 series (T-8) or jump back to the "old" series is anyone's guess (they have done old numbers for some recent commercially acquired trainers). If they do the old numbers, they're up to T-54. T-50 is held for the Lockheed/KAI T-50 aircraft, and T-51, 52, and 53 have been used for some Air Force Academy primary trainers.

List of military aircraft of the United States - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Of course, if it's more King Airs, then T-44D would make sense.

 

[riggerrob]

I'd be very surprised if it doesn't end up being new or rebuilt King Airs.

Agreed.
King Airs have been flying almost 60 years (since 1964) and are by faaaaaar the most numerous light, twin turboprops. KA out-number all of their competitors: Aero Commander, Bandierante, Cessna 400 series, Mitsubishi U-2, Piper Cheyenne, etc. That is why the RCAF and dozens of skydiving schools use King Airs. KA B90 can be picked up for cheap ... little more than the time remaining on the engines.

OTOH KA is a long way from the best skydiving airplane. I learned that lesson the hard way back on 3 August 2008.

 

[Foo Fighter]

Care to share mate? You may have mentioned before so blame my memory for that.

 

[riggerrob]

Care to share mate? You may have mentioned before so blame my memory for that.

I dislike Beechcraft King Airs because I suffered multiple injuries when one crashed 3 August, 2008 at Pitt Meadows, B.C. Canada. I was working as a tandem skydiving instructor that day.
My boss had flown a Beechcraft 18 light twin for many years and was one of the last North American Drop Zone Operators still flying piston a piston-pounding twin (circa 2000).
When he purchased that King Air, I asked the boss why he did not buy a simpler, single-engined, Cessna 208 Caravan. He replied that King Airs were the least expensive turbo-props on the market. That King Air B90 was cheap because it was more than 30 years old at the time, with rotted fuel tanks, chalky paint, weak radios, scruffy interior, etc. after many years of hauling mid-night mail and skydivers. De-icing boots and cabin pressurization had long been inoperative.
King Airs are not the best jump-planes because they are maintenance intensive, pilot-intensive and require long, hard surface runways (3,000-ish feet long).
Shoddy maintenance ultimately killed that particular King Air when the annual inspection included an (partial diss-assembly) inspection of th efuel pump on one engine, but not on the other. This inspection is mandatory on single-engined airplanes equipped with P&WC PT6A-? engines, but optional on twins.
After that engine surged, the pilot compounded the problem by shutting off the good engine. He was professional enough to set us down, wings level in a farmer's field short of the runway at Pitt Meadows Airport.
Due to a shortage of seat-belts, we all got tossed around the cabin and every one onboard suffered various injuries.

 

[Foo Fighter]

A lot of us end up being harmed by short term decisions. I hope you have at least mostly recovered mate.

 

[riggerrob]

A lot of us end up being harmed by short term decisions. I hope you have at least mostly recovered mate.

I mostly recovered physically, despite a lawyer-imposed 2 year delay for surgery.
I am never going to recover financially for the 15 months last wages during a court case that dragged out for 9 years after the accident.
I am never going to fully recover from the lawyer-imposed Post Traumatic Stress Disorder.

Do you get the impression that lawyers did more damage than the airplane crash?

 

[Foo Fighter]

Don't they always? My nhs paramedic career was stopped by nurses and midwives who could not be bothered to lift and handle patients properly (But we don't have time for that) and after five years going through the courts I get £2k for my lost ability to work. Lawyers paid by the hour whatever the result.

 

[riggerrob]

Don't they always? My nhs paramedic career was stopped by nurses and midwives who could not be bothered to lift and handle patients properly (But we don't have time for that) and after five years going through the courts I get £2k for my lost ability to work. Lawyers paid by the hour whatever the result.

Scary when lawyers earn more than surgeons!

In my case, I was off work (psychological stress) for 15 months during the trial, but the final settlement only equaled 12 months wages. Will someone please explain the math??????

 

[Foo Fighter]

I have a three inch scar on the back of my head from a surgeon. A lot of them think they are gods or something, most of the time they are treated like that so no surprise when the believe too much. This surgeon had the beginnings of Parkinson's but was in that African river. I was working in the anaesthesia department at the time in association with doctors and I dared leave the operating theatre to get some Fentanyl, He threw a pair of ten inch dunhill surgical scissors at the back of my head sidearm style. I was not allowed to leave that operating theatre until the list was finished whereupon I received twenty stitches. I had to go to casualty for that despite surgeons in the department, them being too busy.

 

[Dynoman]

Concept of the Naval Multiengine Turboprop Carrier Based Trainer, T-55 Seacat:

Two PT-6A-60A 1,050 SHP
Four or five bladed propellors
Two and four seat variants
Folding wings for shipboard stowage
Speed brakes
External fuel tank/stores equipped hardpoints
Arrestor tail hook for shipboard operations
Nose gear launch bar
Two NACES ejection seats (four NACES in extended cabin configuration)
Advanced avionics suite with precision landing system and HUD
A minimum of 4.5 hours endurance and 15,000 ft MSL