They won because they listened to the customer. “We flew about 500 people on demonstration flights—and it made the difference between winning and losing,” Dave Riemer, Raytheon Aircraft’s vice-president in charge of the Joint Primary Aircraft Training System (JPATS) program, told me.
In an era of dwindling government aircraft programs, it was a huge win; Beech will build a projected 711 Mk IIs through 2017. Riemer emphasized the lengths to which the team went to demonstrate the aircraft to pilots and mechanics—and to absorb what they said.
“We did maintenance demonstrations everywhere we went. Air Force mechanics at Randolph Air Force Base, Texas, for example, told us that the tight right-angles on our canopy seals would leak and be difficult to maintain, and that they could not reach the avionics behind the instrument panel. We softened the angles, tilted the windscreen to solve the seal problem—now you can loosen six screws and reach behind the panel,” he said.
I spoke with the senior officers responsible for integrating the new system into joint training, both of whom have flown the aircraft. I asked Rear Admiral William B. Hayden, Chief of Naval Air Training, Corpus Christi, Texas, if he had had any concerns about using a big turboprop for initial training. Hayden, a former flight instructor with VT-21, put it this way: “Students carry no baggage with them about airplanes they’ve flown…when you tell them to do something—they do it. The aircraft is sophisticated enough [and) just so much better than the T-34.”
Major General Donald L. Peterson, Director of Plans and Operations, Air Education and Training Command, Randolph Air Force Base, San Antonio, Texas, provided some illuminating comments, especially in light of the conventional wisdom during the competition that the Air Force would never buy a prop. Peterson Hew several of the JPATS contenders—jets and turboprops—and had some concerns. “Yes,” he said, “as I was walking out to the aircraft I still had misgivings about the prop and the torque. [Then] I got in the airplane and took off—you get a little haze out there with the prop, but after you get in the air it [becomes] transparent.”
The Air Force’s T-37Bs and the Navy’s T-34Cs are holding up—the T-37Bs are getting some structural upgrades—but they are getting harder to maintain. Peterson commented on the advantages of state-of-the-art systems and built-in test equipment, plus “the efficiency of the turboprop itself.” Riemer told me that the Mk II “would save $500 million [in life-cycle fuel costs] over the most fuel-efficient jet . . . and about $1.2 billion over the least efficient.” Raytheon in mid-1990 teamed with the Swiss firm Pilatus to adapt its PC-9 to the JPATS requirements. Raytheon had engineering responsibility from the start, and in 1993 assumed total program responsibility—including manufacturing— for what became the Beech Mk II; Pilatus will receive a royalty on every aircraft sold. Beech built two Mk IIs, took one to the Paris Air Show and Canada, and took a cockpit mockup to Singapore. One aircraft will be used for Federal Aviation Administration certification and the other will be the foreign military sales (FMS) demonstrator. Riemer is optimistic about FMS sales—most counties looking for trainers were waiting for the results of the JPATS competition.
Raytheon’s contract calls for delivering the first aircraft in late 1998; specifically, 33 months from the February 1996 contract award. The Air Force will get its first Mk IIs at Randolph for instructor training in 1999; the first training squadron will become operational at Laughlin AFB in 2001. The Navy’s first operational squadron will follow about 2003. Priorities are to freeze the design and get the production tooling in place. Air Force and Navy Mk IIs are to be identical “down to the paint job, they tell me,” Riemer said.
Raytheon will conduct the source selection for the ground-based training system (GBTS) to support the Mk II. “The heart of the JPATS will be the ground- based training system," Hayden said. “[Aviators] tend to think about the airplane, but the reality is that the ground-based training system defines the real capability of the system to teach.”
I flew the aircraft in mid- March at Leesburg, Virginia, with test pilot Bob Newsom—we had last seen each other at Chu Lai, Republic of Vietnam, in the summer of 1965 when we were flying A-4s with Marine Aircraft Group 12. I had flown a basic 750 shaft horsepower-(shp) PC-9 some years ago; the higher-performance Mk II changes include:
- 1,100 shp Pratt & Whitney PT6A-68 engine (flat-rated from 1,700 shp to extend service life
- Pressurized cockpit that accommodates sitting heights from 31.0 to 40.0 inches (The unpressurized T-37B accounts for about 50% of all Air Force pressure-related physiological incidents, while accounting for only 7% of the flight hours.)
- Anti-g system (The Navy T-34C lacks such a system and has the worst g-in- duced loss-of-consciousness record in the Naval Air Training Command.)
- Tougher canopy to resist bird strikes during low-altitude flight and single-point pressure fueling/de-fueling
- Trim-aid device to reduce propeller torque effect
- Martin-Baker zero-zero ejection seats
Meeting the anthropometric requirements for short and tall students was the toughest engineering challenge, Riemer said. The ejection seats are canted aft 15°, which means that smaller students get farther from switches and rudder pedals as they raise the seat for better visibility—and larger pilots begin to get cramped as they lower the seat. The team spent more time and money solving this problem than on any other single issue, he said. As a result, the Mk II can accommodate 97% of the eligible female population of flight students. The rear cockpit also was raised to improve instructor visibility.
Newsom and I discussed the conduct of the flight—high work below 18,000 feet northwest of Martinsburg, West Virginia, clear of all airways and the requirement to step-climb out from under the Dulles International terminal control area (TCA)—and then headed out to the aircraft for a walk-around and cockpit check-out. The aircraft has a Global Positioning System (GPS) and Newsom had outlined a box to work in. We talked about spins. “The PC-9, from which we derived the Mk II, had great spin characteristics—and we didn't do anything to mess those up,” Newsom said.
Aileron and pitch trim are controlled by a Chinese hat-switch on the stick; the rudder trim switch is on the throttle, comfortably positioned as you grasp the single power lever. I asked about the torque effect of the big turboprop and what concerns they might have had.
“We did tons of demonstration flights in the PC-9 Mk II,” he said. "The Air Force—and to some extent the Navy— was concerned about the amount of workload it took to trim the aircraft directionally. There is lots of torque and a wide range of airspeeds—every time you change airspeed or torque you’re going to have to change the rudder trim. The Air Force . . . wanted the student to experience more of what they would see in the jet world, so Dave’s old group [Riemer formerly had been Division Manager of Beech's Missile Systems] designed what we called a trim-aid device on the directional axis. It is a real innovation. The computer integrates torque, indicated airspeed, pitch rate, and altitude, compares it with a data base of rudder tab-positions corresponding to various flight conditions—and then trims the rudder tab to that position. It uses the same rudder tab-actuator that the pilot uses when trimming manually. So there is no problem with trim runaways.
"When you activate it on the deck, it sets the trim for takeoff and then doesn’t trim any more until the aircraft accelerates through 80 knots. You can fly with it off—you just have to trim more. It trims the aircraft to within half a ball. You’re trimming with it on—just don’t have to trim as much. It was a real breakthrough in reducing pilot workload.”
Newsom told me that they started out flat-rating the engine at 1,250 shaft horsepower (shp). When the required maneuvers required only 1,100 shp, they backed off—reducing torque and extending service life. He does not foresee many requirements to increase the power for U.S. use, but said that FMS versions with wing hard points for external stores and higher gross weights might dictate some growth.
The Air Force also was concerned about non-linear torque response when the throttle was advanced because of the implications during takeoffs in high cross winds. As Newsom put it, “When you pushed up the power, nothing happened for a while and then there was a big surge as the engine accelerated and the prop dug in.” High cross winds prevail at several Air Force training bases, particularly in the spring. Reese Air Force Base, at Lubbock in the Texas panhandle, is especially bad; it is closing, but Vance Air Force Base, Enid, Oklahoma, can be just as tough, according to Air Force officials. The concern was that the increased torque might kick in just as the student was coping with an unexpected wind gust from 90°.
“Pratt & Whitney Worked with Woodward [fuel control manufacturers] to develop a Power Management System that matches the engine response to the throttle and eliminates the surge,” Newsom said. The system solved the problem as well as eliminating over-temperature and overtorque concerns.
Virtually everything is accessible from ground level; no ladders or stands required. Access panels open easily and hand-adjustable safety catches—rather than safety wire—lock the retaining nuts on rack-mounted black boxes. The boxes are stacked one-deep, and there are no buried parts that require removal of other parts to gain access. The aircraft, manufactured completely in the United States, uses standard American hardware and tools—no special or metric tools are required.
Cross-countries are a part of flight training (Newsom had brought the aircraft over from Wichita to Leesburg at 29,000 feet making 305 knots true airspeed), and there are the inevitable flights to ferry spare parts to aircraft stranded away from home. The baggage compartment aft of the port wing root is a nice touch. It won’t hold a pair of skis, but you can always rent them after you get to Hill AFB.
There seemed to be lots of straps to hook up after I climbed in the front cockpit. Anyone who has worn a torso harness and flown the Douglas Escapac seat is probably spoiled: four snaps on that one and you’re strapped- in to the seat—and to the airplane. Of course, finding yourself all thumbs when reaching for fittings is natural the first few times you do it in a new airplane; after a while, it becomes second nature. Newsom said that he too had found it awkward at first, but pointed out that it is the best inverted- flight restraint system he has used.
The attachment fittings themselves are different from the Koch fittings used in naval aviation. Different ships, different long splices. In any event, instructors flying three hops a day would appreciate anything that can be done in the production versions to simplify things.
I had no trouble reading the aircraft’s electronic flight instrumentation system in bright sunlight. The torque gauge is calibrated in percent, rather than footpounds, and should provide an easy transition for those going on to strike training. Six of the instrument panel indicators are interchangeable—airspeed, vertical speed, altimeter, and three engine performance indicators. I found it easy to reach all the switches on the left and right instrument consoles.
Backup instruments—airspeed, attitude gyro, altimeter, needle-ball indicator—are grouped together at the bottom center of the panel—easily visible over the stick. The aircraft has provisions for a radar altimeter, but none was installed. The aileron, rudder, and elevator are actuated by mechanical bellcranks and pushrods—no hydraulics. The aircraft had a diluter-demand gaseous oxygen system, but all production models will have onboard oxygen generating systems.
Starting is straightforward: Batteries ON, throttle to AUTOSTART position, and hit the START switch. The aircraft’s Power Management System monitors the start sequence and automatically shuts down the engine if it senses a wet start, hot start, or hung start. Students will appreciate emergency procedures like these, and so will the maintenance department.
The power stabilized at 60% (flight idle is 67%). I set the parking brake and we went through the post-start checks, cycling flaps and speed brakes, pulling the ejection seat’s single safety pin before taxiing. The pin stows along the canopy where the plane captain can verify that it has been pulled. I engaged nose-wheel steering, added power, checked the brakes, and we turned out of the chocks. A button mounted on the forward part of the stick activates the nose-wheel steering— punch on, punch off.
The weather was clear and visibility unlimited. Temperature at takeoff was 48° and the wind was 5-7 knots from the northeast—hardly a factor on Runway 35 at Leesburg. We went over the takeoff checklist, which included takeoff flaps (23°—full flap setting on the split flaps is 50°) made sure the nose-wheel steering was disengaged, checked the pattern—the field is uncontrolled—made a call and taxied into position. I held the brakes, ran the power up, and released the brakes. Clear as a bell, VFR all the way—how lucky can you get?
The rudder was effective almost immediately and it took just a touch to keep us straight down the runway. I rotated at 80 knots and we flew off at about 90 knots after rolling 1,500 feet. I raised the gear with a positive rate of climb passing 110 knots and followed with the flaps at about 120. The aircraft was accelerating rapidly and there was no tendency to sink as the flaps came up. Gear and flap limits are 150 k
We worked out from under the Dulles terminal control area and were cleared to climb. I added full power, picked up 140 knots, and the aircraft was climbing at 3,500 feet per minute as we passed 5,000 feet. We were on hot mike and Newsom told me he typically reaches 15,000 feet in less than four minutes on unrestricted climbs. I found the rudder-trim switch easy and logical to operate—if the ball is out to the right, you toggle right (just like stepping on the ball.)
Newsom was handling the radios so I was free to fly the airplane. It was light on the controls as we S-turned our way up. We leveled at 16,000 feet, and I did some steep turns at 100%, reversing after 180°. There is a lot of nose out in front to provide a good horizon reference. We dropped down to 14,000 feet for some wingovers—entered at 230 knots indicated and 80%. I skidded through a couple, behind on the rudder trim, but the trim-aid device kept the ball close to the middle.
I did some aileron rolls starting about 10° nose-up; full-deflection, the aircraft rolls at 150° per second. I set up for a loop along a West Virginia ridge line, again at 230 indicated, but pushed the power up to 100%. I started a 4-g pull at 12,000 feet and went over the top at 15,000 feet at about 100 knots. The airspeed indicator, angle-of-attack indicator, and g-meter grouped together at the upper left of the instrument panel so scanning is easy. I came out off heading—those ridge lines all look alike—but the next one was better, and I followed with a one-half Cuban Eight for old time's sake.
Newsom and I had done the maneuver countless times at 100 feet above ground countless times at 100 feet above ground level (AGL) and 500 knots on ranges at Yuma, El Centro, and Fallon while practicing over-the-shoulder special weapon deliveries. (As my F-8 and F-4 friends used to say, “If your CEP [circular error probable] is too big—get a bigger bomb.”) We topped out around 7,000 feet AGL then; in contrast, the Mk II, operating at lower airspeeds, does the same maneuver, and the student gets the same training, while eating up much less air space—a valuable commodity these days.
Peterson told me that the air space and outlying field situation at the Air Force JPATS bases—Vance AFB (Enid, Oklahoma); Columbus AFB, Mississippi; and Laughlin AFB, Del Rio, Texas—is good right now. “We just went through the BRAC (Base Realignment and Closure) process and closed Reese AFB [Lubbock, Texas], and we went through a Pretty extensive study on our air space availability and requirements out to about the 2002 time frame. It looks as if we’ll be in pretty good shape.”
The Navy plans to use Whiting Field [near Pensacola] and Naval Air Station Corpus Christi, Texas, for primary training. “We have [enough] outlying fields near Whiting . . . takeoffs and landings really define our primary training.”
I stalled the aircraft (power-off) twice and the break was smooth with no tendency to fall off. Power-on stalls during development caused the aircraft to fall off to the left despite full opposite aileron and rudder, Newsom told me, but short leading-edge stall strips on both wings solved the problem. By then I had the feel of the aircraft and we set up at 14,000 feet for some spins. Spin entry is standard: full aft stick and rudder in the direction of spin at the break. Recovery also is standard: stick neutral to slightly forward and opposite rudder to stop the spin, then neutral controls and back stick to recover at optimum angle-of-attack to avoid a progressive stall.
I did the first one to the left—what else?—and the aircraft performed as advertised. We hadn’t discussed the number of turns, but Bob was counting, and when he said six, I figured that was enough. The aircraft recovered as soon as I applied antispin controls. We bottomed out above 9,000 feet during the pull-out and I added full power as the nose came up through the horizon. We were back at 14,000 feet quickly and I went right. Four turns were enough to see a fully developed spin, and, once again, the aircraft recovered without hesitating. The aircraft spins at 120° to 140° per second—faster to the right—at 45° to 60° nose-down, while losing 300 to 500 feet per turn.
Good spin characteristics are important because of the emphasis the services put on teaching recovery from uncontrolled flight; Navy and Air Force students spin the T-34C and the T-37B
I trimmed the aircraft straight-and-level and kicked a rudder; the aircraft fishtailed, but quickly returned to normal. With the high work done, we headed for the pattern at Leesburg. Descending, I cycled the belly-mounted speed brakes several times with no discernible effect on pitch trim. As we passed over Antietam Creek and the heights that look down on Harpers Ferry, I wondered whether such a flying machine might have helped McClellan when Lee came north in the late summer of 1862. Probably not.
We entered downwind at 1,000 feet AGL—120 knots, gear and flaps down, speed brakes in. I picked up 110 knots at the 90° position, decelerating to 94 knots on final, cross-checking the angle-of-attack gauge and the standard glare shield- mounted indexer. There was a slight right cross wind and a few thermals but the aircraft felt solid. I eased the power to idle over the number, flared, and touched down about 82 knots. I added full power to go around and needed only a touch of right rudder and stick slightly into the wind to track down the runway center line as we lifted off quickly.
I left the gear down in the pattern as we did a another full-flap touch-and-go and then went down wind for a no-flap approach. We waved off the first one for interval on short final; when I added full power, the aircraft was easily controllable even at slow speed with a lot of torque. On the next one, no-flap speed on final was about 110 knots and touchdown about 98 knots.
I lowered the flaps again and made a full-stop landing using aerodynamic braking and then easing on the brakes. The aircraft, which uses T-38 tires, does not have antiskid brakes, but was easy to slow down. When we taxied into the chocks and shut down after a 1.1-hour flight, much of it at relatively high power settings, we had burned 500 pounds of fuel.
Lieutenant Colonel Greeley is an associate editor at Proceedings. He flew A-4s throughout his career, which included service in Vietnam and duty as operations officer of an advanced jet training squadron flying TA-4Js. He commanded VMA-223, an A-4M squadron, prior to his retirement in 1982.