Optica & Firecracker
Discussion
In 1978, I worked as a Cartographer in the Civil Service. After completion of my training, I created moving map film strips of the London area. At the time, I think the Met Police were trialling the Optica as an aerial observation platform. I don’t think they ever used it in anger but the Hampshire Constabulary did use it in the 80s unfortunately losing an aircraft and its occupants in 1985 at Ringwood. I also recall seeing it again in 2016 at the Farnborough air show when it was part of the flying display. The concept, to me, looked ideal but it must have had its flaws due to its lack of sales success.
I guess it’s probably missed it’s window of opportunity with the introduction of drones, a great shame because it’s a great example of British quirky design.
I guess it’s probably missed it’s window of opportunity with the introduction of drones, a great shame because it’s a great example of British quirky design.
magpie215 said:
Something to do with being able to licence build them at Shorts in N.Ireland rings a bell?
Politics - as ever.The RAF favoured the Pilatus PC-9 - which would have been built under licence by British Aerospace.
However, Short Brothers offered a heavilly re-worked version of the Embraer Tucano. This was a much more radical and costly option because they were basically offering an aircraft that didn't yet exist. However, the debacle of De Lorean and Learfan (both failed UK government employment initiatives in Northern Ireland which had cost the UK taxpayer a fortune and produced nothing) still weighed heavilly on the government and they wanted to try and implement some programme that would provide employment in a part of the UK that was struggling. So, the Shorts Tucano got the nod.
Eric Mc said:
Yes - it's selling point was that it was cheaper to operate per hour than a helicopter. That niche would now largely be taken by a drone.
Not sure I'd agree with that. Helicopters are often used in traffic chases or searches over a relatively large area, stuff which a drone can't do. They are more suited to smaller areas that are either slow moving or in relatively small areas like crowd control.They both have their place, but I'd say the area of crossover is quite small.
eccles said:
Not sure I'd agree with that. Helicopters are often used in traffic chases or searches over a relatively large area, stuff which a drone can't do. They are more suited to smaller areas that are either slow moving or in relatively small areas like crowd control.
They both have their place, but I'd say the area of crossover is quite small.
Given that there are now drones/UAVs with endurance measured in days, and ranges of tens of thousands of kilometres, surely that depends on the design of the drone?They both have their place, but I'd say the area of crossover is quite small.
Equus said:
eccles said:
Not sure I'd agree with that. Helicopters are often used in traffic chases or searches over a relatively large area, stuff which a drone can't do. They are more suited to smaller areas that are either slow moving or in relatively small areas like crowd control.
They both have their place, but I'd say the area of crossover is quite small.
Given that there are now drones/UAVs with endurance measured in days, and ranges of tens of thousands of kilometres, surely that depends on the design of the drone?They both have their place, but I'd say the area of crossover is quite small.
The fact that virtually no Opticas have been sold indicates the market just wasn't there - even before the drone era.
Eric Mc said:
Equus said:
eccles said:
Not sure I'd agree with that. Helicopters are often used in traffic chases or searches over a relatively large area, stuff which a drone can't do. They are more suited to smaller areas that are either slow moving or in relatively small areas like crowd control.
They both have their place, but I'd say the area of crossover is quite small.
Given that there are now drones/UAVs with endurance measured in days, and ranges of tens of thousands of kilometres, surely that depends on the design of the drone?They both have their place, but I'd say the area of crossover is quite small.
The fact that virtually no Opticas have been sold indicates the market just wasn't there - even before the drone era.
I actually worked at Edgley Aircraft from from late in 1983 until the company went into receivership after the police crashed one at Ringwood, I made fibre glass parts like engine cowlings and wingtips for it. I've got to agree with Eric as much as I would love to see them back in production I can't see the point with the cost of running a drone.
Also as all the workers got to have a flight in one I got a go, and my turn had Chris Chadwick at the controls and as he knew I was in the company flying club learning to fly I got to sit in the middle seat. And apart from take off and landing got to fly the prototype for about twenty minutes, that was the yellow one and was powered by a flat four unlike the production aircraft that had a flat six. I would imagine not many people have flown an Optica and even fewer the prototype
It also used control cables and guide pulleys for all the flight controls and was very heavy on the stick. The production aircraft used control rods and bell crank linkages. From sat in the middle seat it was possible to lean forward and look back at the main gear wheels!
Also as all the workers got to have a flight in one I got a go, and my turn had Chris Chadwick at the controls and as he knew I was in the company flying club learning to fly I got to sit in the middle seat. And apart from take off and landing got to fly the prototype for about twenty minutes, that was the yellow one and was powered by a flat four unlike the production aircraft that had a flat six. I would imagine not many people have flown an Optica and even fewer the prototype
It also used control cables and guide pulleys for all the flight controls and was very heavy on the stick. The production aircraft used control rods and bell crank linkages. From sat in the middle seat it was possible to lean forward and look back at the main gear wheels!
I do like them I even think its a good looking airplane, I now fix cars for a living and have a small workshop in Andover and a few years ago the one that was returned to flight at Thruxton flew over my workshop I knew what it was before I had run outside to look up! I was very pleased to see one in the air again.
Eric Mc said:
Equus said:
eccles said:
Not sure I'd agree with that. Helicopters are often used in traffic chases or searches over a relatively large area, stuff which a drone can't do. They are more suited to smaller areas that are either slow moving or in relatively small areas like crowd control.
They both have their place, but I'd say the area of crossover is quite small.
Given that there are now drones/UAVs with endurance measured in days, and ranges of tens of thousands of kilometres, surely that depends on the design of the drone?They both have their place, but I'd say the area of crossover is quite small.
The fact that virtually no Opticas have been sold indicates the market just wasn't there - even before the drone era.
To some degree, i think the issue is that the modern (electronically stabilised) rotary wing platforms are so impressive in their low level handling and capabilities, that anything that has to keep moving forwards (however slowly) is a non starter to observers used to being able to hover!
Watch the Police helicopters and yes, they do a bit of circling, but it's at very low speed and over a very precise point, i can't see how a fixed wing aircraft could possibly compete?
(btw, i'm going to guess that the SOA for a modern rotary is a lot wider than it used to be in terms of Velocity vs altitude?)
Watch the Police helicopters and yes, they do a bit of circling, but it's at very low speed and over a very precise point, i can't see how a fixed wing aircraft could possibly compete?
(btw, i'm going to guess that the SOA for a modern rotary is a lot wider than it used to be in terms of Velocity vs altitude?)
Max_Torque said:
To some degree, i think the issue is that the modern (electronically stabilised) rotary wing platforms are so impressive in their low level handling and capabilities, that anything that has to keep moving forwards (however slowly) is a non starter to observers used to being able to hover!
Watch the Police helicopters and yes, they do a bit of circling, but it's at very low speed and over a very precise point, i can't see how a fixed wing aircraft could possibly compete?
(btw, i'm going to guess that the SOA for a modern rotary is a lot wider than it used to be in terms of Velocity vs altitude?)
You can lock cameras onto a target and it will stay there while the platform is moving, so you could say it doesn't matter whether the platform is fixed or rotary wing.Watch the Police helicopters and yes, they do a bit of circling, but it's at very low speed and over a very precise point, i can't see how a fixed wing aircraft could possibly compete?
(btw, i'm going to guess that the SOA for a modern rotary is a lot wider than it used to be in terms of Velocity vs altitude?)
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff