The AERALIS project team aims to build a modular aircraft that can be easily reconfigured depending on client needs, they’re now looking for investment.
Having completed Phase 1 feasibility studies, AERALIS has announced the start of Phase 2 which will begin development of a Technology Demonstrator of AERALIS’s Common Core Fuselage concept.
The company website can be found here.
Three main variants are listed on the website:
Twin-engine, swept wing, advanced performance, full commonality with AERALIS family.
Single-engine, straight wing, benign handling, full commonality with AERALIS family.
AERALIS X – Bespoke / Aerobatic Team Jet
Single or Twin-engine, individual customer design, full commonality with AERALIS family.
The company say that the Common Core Fuselage acts as the cornerstone of the AERALIS modular design, allowing a range of different outer wings and engine modules to be attached to the same fuselage, reducing re-design and certification costs whilst maximising commonality of parts to reduce through-life service costs and increase aircraft reliability.
“The feature also enables faster upgrading and modification of the aircraft to cater for Urgent Operational Requirements (UORs) and support continuous improvement of the aircraft throughout its service life.”
According to literature produced by the company, the Technology Demonstrator will consist of a full-scale, structurally representative Common Core fuselage, equipped with an Integrated Modular Avionics system, common cockpit displays and all-electric systems installation, accompanied by an end-to-end Ground-Based Training System demonstrator featuring a modular training syllabus, common cockpit simulators and a digital learning system.
The demonstrator will be developed together with Cranfield Aerospace and supported by a number of UK aerospace companies, shortly to be announced. AERALIS plans to exhibit the demonstrator at the DSEI defence trade exhibition in September 2019.
They’ve done that for a trainer; would be interesting to see that same modular principle in combat aircraft.
Advance Trainer graphics look interesting.
Somebody should then the Haynes Harrier manual to prompt their thinking……….. 🙂
This is a really interesting concept – could make a good, UK sourced replacement for the Hawk if they can get it working.
I’m looking forward to seeing more from these guys.
Yeah I agree looks very promising and the UK needs more of this stuff if we want to be world leaders in aerospace in future, even though we do rank in the top 5 these days, but top 2 would be nice in future. The UK government should be investing in these guys even a cheap loan they can pay back when able to. Let’s hope BAE wont mess things up here!. Is it just me or does it look like a hawk!. Anyway I would love to see these guys design a millitary jet with the same kind of principles.
looks like a stubby alpha jet to me!
Very best wishes. I hope you do well
Very much looks like an updated Alpha Jet. The rear pilots view looks very restricted, however with a high wing it should have better short take-off and landing distances.
The new wing hawk (100 series) will still probably kick its arse though! The design is very basic and does not look like it is based on a unstable platform which would be needed for 5/6 gen aircraft lead-in.
Certainly looks more like the Alva Jet than Hawk. I’m sure the latter was a privately developed project which, was revealed at Hatfield to senior MOD personnel? If true, that must be the right way to go with this project.
How does the software manage to cope with the change in setup? If its fly by wire would changing the wing profile not screw everything up?
I love the concept but not sure how practical it is to change the setup after it leaves the factory other than maintenance.
I’m pretty sure there must be different software setups for different models. I would love to see a jet able to change like this one does. It could be the future, or not.
The Red Arrows Future jet maybe?. But I would love to see the Red Arrows use a front line fighter like the Americans do, maybe a typhoon. And maybe the Royal Navy needs another Jet display team just like the old Royal Navy “BLUE HERONS” that flew the Hawker Hunter display team just like the RAFs “Fighting Cocks” . We used to have loads of aerobatic display teams in the UK the RAF alone had loads, there’s great footage online.
It would be amazing to have more jet display teams but the MOD is already strapped for cash.
The problem is that the Typhoon costs a fortune to fly compared to aircraft like the hawk. Back in the days of the Hunter, front line combat aircraft were still reasonably simple. The Typhoon is anything but simple… The maintenance, cost of running and potential cost of losses would be astonishing.
Yeah totally, I think they are trying to get the running cost of the typhoon down to F16 levels with future upgrades.
I wish them all the luck in the world! If the MOD is there target then they are probably going to need it.
Seems like a sensible idea though. I am amazed people manage to get companies like this started. There must be a serious amount of money behind them even at this stage.
Sadly the Aerospace industry is littered with failed attempts at launching a new light jet trainer program, the market is saturated as it is.
This doesn’t look like its in the AJT class like Hawk, M346 or T-50. Looks more like a competitor for the L-39NG which is aimed at the initial class alongside the PC-9 or T-6II.
I wouldn’t get too excited guys.
It’s not designed to compete with the likes of T-X, T-50. The amount of G and thrust-weight ratio those require is what puts the price sky high. As far as I’m aware the T-X requirement was for it to pull more G and have a thrust-weight ratio greater than that of the F-35. Fact is the vast majority of air-forces don’t have the budget to have a fleet of T-50/T-Xs and they don’t nee them.
I would also add this has all but zero chance of any interest from the RAF, they didn’t want to buy the Hawk T MK2 preferring a PFI based solution and only accepting the type due to political considerations. (Rumour on the Grapevine is they really would have preferred the M346 as it has a more spacious cockpit that is more forgiving of modern body geometry requirements).
MFTS already has selected the Raytheon Texan T-6c so I see no space for this within the UK training system and without a UK sale I just don’t see it having any chance unless they can find an international partner like India.
Interesting if so, the M346 hadn’t/hasn’t exactly set the world alight elsewhere.
I would say that in many ways is a reflection of how saturated the market is already, the M346 is competing against some good modern types with Boeing/Saab joining the fray soon.
M346 has been sold to Israel which is impressive considering how picky a customer they are and Poland so the type seems to be doing OK. So far its most significant competitor has been the KTI T-50.
Again I too can not really see much a future use for the AERALIS in the UK… other that a display team…. BUT that’s why the RA are Hawks… partly to advertise them 😉
The Bae Hawk still has a past, present and future (big pat on the back for my dad (now retired) for making it so)
LIFT or Advanced Hawk with its latest package for light combat is good enough for its type.
Perhaps the Irish Army Air Corps could use a dozen. 🙂
Nagh- they would then have to actually spend some money to defend their own airspace- much rather the UK does this for them- correct me if I am wrong but I even think Ireland is not in NATO therefore why the hell we agree to defend them, beats me???
– if no deal Brexit occurs (in no small way due to Ireland’s inflexibility and deliberately obstructive behaviour) we should do 2 things
1)withdraw the RAF from their support and allow the Russians to fly over Ireland anytime they want too.
2) ensure as per WTO rules that all Ireland’s trade that currently flows through the UK land bridge to Europe has a WTO charge associated with it- eg no free trade deal with Ireland- that should yield another £3-4 billion a year to the exchequer or force Irelands trucks off the UK’s roads and compel them to a very long arduous ferry crossing- Ireland to Cherbourg. Rossaire to Cherbourg or Rostoff is a 14 hour journey and will cost each truck or high sided vehicle about £1000 return- good luck with that Ireland.- you reap what you sow.
Sigh more Brexiteer nonsense:
“if no deal Brexit occurs (in no small way due to Ireland’s inflexibility and deliberately obstructive behaviour) we should do 2 things”
The UK is not negotiating with Ireland, it is negotiating with the European Union that is trying to protect the integrity of the Single market whilst also maintaining an international Peace Treaty. The only intransigence has been from the UK that can’t seem to gets head around the idea that you can’t have its cake and eat it when it comes to trade of services, goods or free movement.
“ensure as per WTO rules that all Ireland’s trade that currently flows through the UK land bridge to Europe has a WTO charge associated with it- eg no free trade deal with Ireland- that should yield another £3-4 billion a year to the exchequer or force Irelands trucks off the UK’s roads and compel them to a very long arduous ferry crossing- Ireland to Cherbourg. Rossaire to Cherbourg or Rostoff is a 14 hour journey and will cost each truck or high sided vehicle about £1000 return- good luck with that Ireland.- you reap what you sow.”
WTO rules work both ways, if we are applying them to goods passing into Ireland a member of the European Union then they will apply to UK goods passing into the EU. If Ireland is forced to introduce high speed RoRo to mainland Europe they will do, no doubt with healthy European Union emergency subsidies! They will adapt and the ports in the UK that used to service the routes will wither on the vine. As for Ireland reaping what they sow, how deluded are you Mr Bell? It is not Ireland that voted to leave the European Union and start off this slow motion train wreck. Also we can’t sign a free trade deal with Ireland, they are members of the European Union! Any trade deal must be with the Union as a whole not one member! This is EU membership 101!
I would bet there are some side conversations with the Irish going on regarding Brexit, whether recognized or not.
We don’t defend them. Look at a map. Who benefits from the RAF being able to enter their air space for ‘policing’ reasons? They don’t, we do. If you are concerned about the Russians which you appear to be then the benefit of the current arrangement to us should be evident.
Very much the same idea as the textron scorpion. Great idea. The scorpion has been flying for years and they can’t find a customer for it.
I do think it is good that Colleges and Universities and new or lesser known companies are bringing in creativity and new employment.
So it will be interesting to see what happens to this project in the future.
Great idea- I love the notion of a compact close interdiction, ground support and trainer aircraft- this could probably quite cheaply replace the Hawk Series aircraft.
Lets get this done- an order for the RAF and equip 4-5 squadrons for close air support/ army co-operation. if they can deploy brimstone, laser guided bombs and air defence missiles ASRAAM then we are onto a winner with this concept.
This idea ultimately may not fly ( bad pun intended) and if it’s any good one of BAE,BA or LM will likely buy or suppress it, but it’s the sort of tech that government absolutely should be investing in.
Struggling to see how this is worse than the Hawk. Its cheaper to buy and run, the design is modern and will utilise less parts and parts are interchangeable. You can replace the PC 21 or Tucano with the basic version and jet trainer with the advanced version. The advanced version boast a speed of M1.2 but there’s no turn rates or G rating, but will probably surpass the Hawk. They’re saying they believe they will be considerably cheaper than the Boeing TX which is $19m a unit.
Good article here;
https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/defense/2018-10-28/uk-startup-seeking-funding-innovative-trainer
‘However, the Aeralis program is market-driven, its creators seeing an opportunity for a competitor to aircraft such as the Boeing/Saab T-X (which Aeralis believes is too heavy and too expensive), the BAE Systems Hawk (labeled as being on the verge of obsolescence), and the Pilatus PC-21 (which it believes will struggle to prepare pilots for the F-35 and new sixth-generation combat aircraft).’
‘Aeralis estimates that it would need another £30 million to build a flying demonstrator and launch a certification campaign,’
BAe probably spent that on the wing of the Hawk and want another 100m to develop the jet.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2017/11/25/ministers-urged-put-100m-new-bae-jet/
Looks like a project going nowhere.
It did sound interesting, but their website shows absolutely no progress since I started watching. The leading edge root extension strake is probably going to make the aeroplane fly a cheap piano. The intake nacelles have uneccesarily too much wetted area. The canopy shape will not resist cockpit pressure well. There is no performance data, yet they claim it is better than a turboprop trainer. Let’s see a comparison with a PC-21, then.
They used to say ‘paper plane’. I think the modern term should be ‘virtual plane’.
Just make new BAe Hawks until someone can do better.
Why two engines for a trainer when a single powerplant would be cheaper and simpler? A twin for combat duties would be preferable, but cf F-20/T-38 where the reverse prevailed