Khan Posted September 28, 2006 Share Posted September 28, 2006 I was digging around for information on the T-46 the other day and I came across information on the JPATS competition in the 90's for a new joint US Air Force/Navy trainer. They ultimately went with the T-6 Texan II, but I learned a few things about the other aircraft they were considering. The most interesting one I found was the Cessna Citation 526 entry: http://www.cessnawarbirds.com/book/seventeen.html Unfortunately, this is all I was able to find outside of a few references in government documents, and one of the pictures is just that guy's painting. Obviously, there's no kit for this aircraft, but it seems to be a pretty simple design to reproduce on one's own. Anyone have any more information on this thing? I'd really like to see how the landing gear and cockpit/canopy are set up. It seems that if I pursue this, I'll have to actually ask someone at Cessna about it, although their website has no mention of this particular design at all. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
kstater94 Posted September 28, 2006 Share Posted September 28, 2006 Here are some photos of the two examples built (N526JP and N526JT) The landing gear was the same trailing link design as found on 525's and the canopy was the typcial clamshell type that hinged at the rear of the canopy. Cheers John Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Lancer512 Posted September 28, 2006 Share Posted September 28, 2006 (edited) Interesting. So that is why the CJ2 and CJ3 are the 525A and 525B, and not 526 and 527. Is the wing the same as on the CJs? Edited September 29, 2006 by Lancer512 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
kstater94 Posted September 29, 2006 Share Posted September 29, 2006 Good questions Dennis I believe the CJ2 (525A) and CJ3 (525B) designations are based more on a certification basis (certification under certain FAR's) than on numbering conventions. I was not in on the JPATS program, however, having been in on the initial production of the 525A and 525B as well as supporting the production line of all three models I can say that it would not surprise me in the slightest if the wings on JPATS were the same as the outboard wings which are found on 525, 525A, and 525B. Cessna has a history of being able to get aircraft certified and into production faster because they often use proven design structures from some of their older models on the newer aircraft. Cheers! John Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ThePhantomTwo Posted September 29, 2006 Share Posted September 29, 2006 I was hoping Cessna would have won the JPATS,thier entry and the candadian entry were the one's I thought would win the compitition. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
kstater94 Posted September 29, 2006 Share Posted September 29, 2006 (edited) I was hoping Cessna would have won the JPATS,thier entry and the candadian entry were the one's I thought would win the compitition. All politics I'm affraid Cessna wasn't even interested in entering the competion. We were made to by our master (Textron). By the time we had fielded a design, all of the other comapnies had submitted proposals stating what they could give the Government. The Government then posted requirements (based on the other companies offers) and the race was on. Most of the companies offered a single engine design (jet and prop) and so the Government based their requirements on a single engine design. Because Cessna offered a twin engine jet the fuel consumption, weight, performance, cost, maintenance hours, etc. were higher than what the others could offer. Although the pilots that flew the Cessna JPATS loved the aircraft (more than Raytheon's T-6) it really didn't matter when the numbers (dollars) were figured in. In the end, an aircraft that met the dollar requirements was picked over an aircraft that provided greater performance, dependablility, and pilot satisfaction. Oh well... that's the way it goes I guess... Cheers! John Edited September 29, 2006 by kstater94 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
redgriffins38 Posted September 29, 2006 Share Posted September 29, 2006 I want one Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Khan Posted September 29, 2006 Author Share Posted September 29, 2006 You and me both. Thanks for the info and history, kstater. It sure is an interesting little aircraft. You wouldn't happen to have a 3-view, would you? It'd be interesting to cut my teeth on scratchbuilding by giving this one a try. I wonder if Cessna would be willing to provide schematics if I asked real nicely? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
kstater94 Posted September 29, 2006 Share Posted September 29, 2006 This is what I have in regards to a 3 view: As far as getting anything official from Cessna I'd say the chances are SLIM and NONE. The biggest reason for that being that there really isn't anyone left in the PR department that knows much about the jet so they wouldn't even know where to start! One of my friends was a test pilot in the program. I'll ask him today if he has any info that he stashed away. Perhaps he can dig it up over the weekend and let me borrow it to scan. I'll let you know Cheers John Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Khan Posted October 1, 2006 Author Share Posted October 1, 2006 I really appreciate all this info. I sure hope your friend has more! :( And your insight into the aircraft industry sure is interesting. It speaks for Cessna's quality that they can take components from existing aircraft to produce something as capable as the JPATS entry apparently was. Thanks again! :D Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.