Could there be a Military Requirement for basic Ultra-light Jet trainer?

[Bearcat F8F]

Hi guys, I'm doing a conceptual design (university project). My conceptual design is a very light 2-seat jet aircraft. Rough MTOW estimate 1200kg. Speed 300kts+

Could there be a Military requirement for a basic light jet trainer to replace piston aircraft that they use for initial flight training? Such as the Grob Tutor for instance? And this question applies to all Air Forces, not just the RAF.

Thanks.

[Intruder]

Probably not. initial training is done in relatively low-performance, low-cost aircraft. Initial training in a jet would be more expensive, and would likely be too hard to handle for a beginner pilot.

[ShyTorque]

During my time at RAF Basic Flying Training School, BFTS, it was all-through jet training. We flew the Jet Provost Mk3, then the pressurised Mk5 for the second phase. No Chipmunk, Bulldog or whatever for direct entrants like us, with no University Air Squadron background.

Fast Jet students then continued onto Valley, to fly either the Gnat or the Hunter.

The Tucano (turbo-prop) then came into service in the early 1990s as a cheaper alternative to the jet trainers.

[Agaricus bisporus]

Could there be a Military requirement

What a strange question! Of course there "could" be. There "could" be an airforce with a useful mix of combat types, or a long range maritime patrol capability.

But there won't be.

Yet it seems that in the USA where they do still have a properly equipped Force their trainee pilots wouldn't be able to cope with it so you won't win there either.

Unless, of course, we sent candidates of Shytehawk's calibre over there to show them how...

he he - now there's a plan!

;)

[Bearcat F8F]

Thanks for the replies.

My thinking was actually that a very light jet could be useful for basic flight training - before the Tucano. To be honest I didn't think there was much of a market for such an aircraft in the Military anyway but thought it might be worth asking.

I am designing a light 1 or 2-seat jet for personal use. It's based around a glider fuselage (with appropriate modifications of course) so is a very cheap alternative to the typical jet-powered aircraft that consume lots of fuel.

[glum]

Have you established the purchase / running / maintenance costs / performance of a jet against a piston engined propeller driven aircraft for the flight profile you're looking at?

Props work better at low altitudes, and piston engines are very much cheaper than jet engines.

Just look at the Red Bull Air Racers and investigate why they don't use jets - they are ultra high performance aircraft after all...

[Lightning Mate]

Jim Bede has already done it - years ago.

[DaveReidUK]

Here are a couple of examples of unsuccessful light jet trainer projects:


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7a/Promavia_F.1300_Jet_Squalus_Farnborough_10.09.88R.jpg/800px-Promavia_F.1300_Jet_Squalus_Farnborough_10.09.88R.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4d/Caproni-Vizzola_C-22J_Farnborough_1982.jpg

Edit: In case anyone was wondering what they are. :O

Top: Promavia F.1300 Jet Squalus
Bottom: Caproni Vizzola C22 Ventura

[Agaricus bisporus]

I hardly think the BD5J with all its rather nasty traits could ever have been thought of as a military trainer, not unless it was part of a machiavellian plan to give them to your enemy and thereby kill off half his airforce without ever having to fight it. Plus I don't think they ever made a 2 seater version.

[Lightning Mate]

http://i636.photobucket.com/albums/uu82/Lightning_29/bd10-1.jpg

[mike-wsm]

Hiya Bearcat,

I reckon you may be missing the true purpose of a 'trainer', the very word 'trainer' is tied up in the smoke and mirrors of international salesmanship.

If you want to sell small, light jet aircraft, then they must exist in two versions, the T1 which is a two-seat dual control trainer, and the T1A which is a fully equipped combat fighter.

Then minor air forces will buy simply dozens of T1 trainers on the open market whilst quietly backing them into hangars for retrofitting of missiles and guidance systems onto the conveniently located hard points you have accidentally built into the trainers. At this point the customer might like to maintain the illusion of trainership by using a trainer-like designation, such as T1A.

Nice harmless little things, trainers. No air force can be criticised for buying a couple of hundred of them. Well, except by anyone smart enough to wonder why an air force with no fighters needs so very many trainers.

Bottom line is: nope, you won't sell enough trainers to pay for your production line, but you will sell enough clandestine fighter variants.

Er, somebody may have thought of this already.....

[hetfield]

Could there be a Military Requirement for basic Ultra-light Jet trainer? No, the syndicate of manufactures and their corrupt politicians will prevent it.

[Machinbird]

This thing converted kerosene into noise for over 50 yrs for USAF. Was it successful.? She had bang seats and being centrifugal flow, must have had pretty good FOD resistance. With the higher cost of today's fuel, you would need more efficient engine/engines.
http://www.strategic-air-command.com/aircraft/trainer/images/t37_tweety_bird.jpg

[Bearcat F8F]

Thanks for the replies guys.

I understand the issues now. I am pushing my creation to be an affordable personal jet plane for the civilian market. I was just interested if the Military is an option.

P.S. My jet is not to compete with Jet trainers such as the Hawk, Yak-130 etc etc. It was to replace basic single-engine props. Its weight is less than a ton. But regardless, I understand the problems associated with Military use of such an aircraft.