The SAAF Forum

Is there an existing thread on this subject , pictures / any info ?

I listened to a EAA talk show CD in which Denel test pilot Bob Masson was interviewed - he relates the aircraft was most promising - but he wrote it off - the accident injuries he sustained terminated his test pilot career .

Was this the Alpha? I heard a rumour that we did not have factory floor space at the time to put it into production which is why we got the Pilatus.

Was it not called the "ACE" ?

True - the All Composite Evaluator

It looks like a Pilatus PC7/PC9 hybrid by the looks of it. One of the lesser known projects. Would be interesting if someone can shed some light on the promosing project.

A whole plethora of trainers of that era looked very similar - things like the Tucano, Redigo, Woongbee, Pilan, Epsilon spring to mind.

It actually started life in 1985 as the Ovid. A composite materials demonstrator started by Aerotek.
First flight 29 April 1991.
Ovid could not be brought into production in time for the SAAF and was also too expensive.
It was marketed oversea's as the "ACE". All Composite Evaluator.
On 14 January 1995 the prototype was lost in a wheels up landing at JIA.

It had a Pratt & Whitney PT6A-25C engine, a Hartzell constant speed metal propeller and two Martin-Baker Mk.11 ejection seats.
It was fully aerobatic.

Bob Masson had a couple of spectacular accidents at JIA. He was also the test pilot for Lt. Bomba's MiG-17 and the originator of the joke that Lt. Bomba had mistaken the serial "21" as the make of the MiG. Something that people over the years have foolishly regarded as "fact".

Details below from Wikipedia;

General characteristics
Crew: 2
Length: 35 ft 5 in (10.8 m)
Wingspan: 35 ft 5 in (10.8 m)
Wing area: 193.75 ft2 (18 m2)
Empty weight: 3406 lb (1545 kg)
Gross weight: 4850 lb (2200 kg)
Powerplant: 1 × Pratt & Whitney PT6A-34, 750 hp (559 kW)

Performance
Maximum speed: 345 mph (555 km/h)
Range: 1266 miles (2037 km)
Service ceiling: 33,000 ft (10,000 m)
Rate of climb: 2750 ft/min (838 m/s)

The follow up aircraft that was under development ( at the CSIR) had more distinct lines similar to the Tucano.

Pity that it wasn't developed further!

Maybe the boffins can comment here?

Geoff

I was involved in a small way with this project. Was in charge of the composites department at Somchem and we built the stabilizer of this plane. We also quoted for the production of the airframe and main wing.

The story we heard from Aerotek is that the SAAF was not fully geared (understandable)to do maintenance and repair on a 100% composites plane in comparison with the well established procedures of aluminium/rivets technology. This was a serious decision making factor but the prototype accident was the final nail in the coffin.

I was also in charge of a project where we built the Oryx composites sponson fuel tanks (external tanks on the sides with the wheel bay just underneath). We went through the complete development process in a very short time. They are still flying today. I still have a few pics of that somewhere in my house and can show here if you wish?

A discussion on the Ovid/Ace can be found at viewtopic.php?f=2&t=21

The Ovid was an experimental project and never intended for series production. Only when the SAAF expressed a serious interest in a new (composite) trainer was thought given to turn it into a true trainer qualified for series production. This entailed a complete redesign and attendant high costs and risk.

I remember seeing the prototype at TFDC.

Yes please

I remember this prototype, the Ovid as I recall. I agree, basically built along the what was considered perfecr trainer type outlay, as it was said, looks like the good ones such as PC9 (Astra) Tucano (RAF instructors would generally not use "good" and Tucano in the same sentence, surprisingly.....). I agree with the fact that the SAAF was wary about it being totally built of composite. There are still questions today about how to repair composite successfully, and how to test for integrity of structure during non destructive testing required during servicing of an airframe. Interesting when one considers Boeing's "Dreamliner". Also as I recall this was still the sanctions era, so putting it into production was a worry, engine supply for one thing and the U/C was apparently "borrowed" from a Piper Chieftan, so sourcing many of those could have been difficult?

Sadly it was a very good aircraft in concept, and was great to fly I heard. I also agree that the loss of the prototype was the final straw that broke that particular camels back.

IIRC, the rear fuselage of the prototype did not provide for an access panel at the rear, thus necessitating the dismantling of the fuselage in order to send a person down the fuselage to perform inspections on components/linkages therein.

The crash was as a result of a failure in the linkage in the rear tail? (No time right now to perform a search).

Yes, this is the info we got from Aerotek shortly after the crash.

Please do post any pics you have BB.