Could there be a Military Requirement for basic Ultra-light Jet trainer?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: UK
Age: 32
Posts: 399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Could there be a Military Requirement for basic Ultra-light Jet trainer?
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.
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.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Seattle
Posts: 3,197
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,586
Received 443 Likes
on
235 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 2,584
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Could there be a Military requirement
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!
Last edited by Agaricus bisporus; 28th Oct 2012 at 23:53.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: UK
Age: 32
Posts: 399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Oxfordshire
Age: 54
Posts: 470
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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...
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...
Here are a couple of examples of unsuccessful light jet trainer projects:
Edit: In case anyone was wondering what they are.
Top: Promavia F.1300 Jet Squalus
Bottom: Caproni Vizzola C22 Ventura
Edit: In case anyone was wondering what they are.
Top: Promavia F.1300 Jet Squalus
Bottom: Caproni Vizzola C22 Ventura
Last edited by DaveReidUK; 29th Oct 2012 at 15:55.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 2,584
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: on the beach
Posts: 359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.....
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.....
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Not far from a big Lake
Age: 82
Posts: 1,454
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: UK
Age: 32
Posts: 399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
