The Lear 24 comment was a comparison to the previously mentioned T-33 and F-86 conversions (from single engine planes with late 1940's to early 1950's engines, to twin engine planes with more modern engines).  The T-33 conversion moved the horizontal tail higher up, to get it clear of the exhaust and turbulence from the engines.  The same would have to be done for the F-86.  So in addition to having to rework the structure to support two engines hanging off the sides, horizontal and vertical tail surfaces would have to be redesigned.  Toss in the problems that would probably pop up in reworking the fuel system for the new engines, problems that could easily pop up with finding a spot for the engines that doesn't have an airflow issue created by some other part of the airframe, and the weight and balance, and a nervous breakdown becomes a possibility.

In contrast, changing a Lear 24 to a two seater leaves the wings, tail, engines, and fuel system alone.  There would still be a weight and balance issue to deal with, but it would be less complicated than the T-33 and F-86 ideas.  Airflow could be a problem, but it would seem to be less likely to produce surprises than hanging a couple engines on the side of the fuselage and rearranging the tail.  The systems that would need to be altered or moved, would only need changes with their connections to the cockpit.  Availability of spare parts and upgrades to systems, would also favor a modified Lear, over a 60+ year old military jet.  I didn't say it would be easy.  I said that converting a Lear might be less work than the T-33 and F-86 modifications.


And if I failed to make myself clear with the above, I'll blame it on the long day I just had.  A retired sheetmetal guy normally comes in as a contractor to help out on certain jobs, but somebody dropped the ball and didn't call him to tell him we needed him, today.  So I was working with a trainee, removing the outer three feet or so of the wings, so that they can be replaced with extended sections with wetwing tanks.  On this model, I usually just concentrate on the plumbing and leave the sheetmetal to the retired guy and whoever is helping him. Nobody else in the shop wants to touch the plumbing, and if I try to suggest somebody else do it, they just point out that this particular plumbing installation is my design, so I'm "the expert".    You take pictures, make drawingsa with dimensions, write a material list and rough draft of the installation manual, then turn it all over to a DER to amend the STC, and nobody wants to try cramming six cubic feet of crap into three cubic feet of space.

Hopefully, somebody finally remembered to call the retired guy and ask him to come in tomorrow.  I'd prefer to get back to just doing the plumbing.  If nothing else, it has the advantage of being able to say "do you want to do this?" anytime somebody bothers me, and they usually go away very quickly.

It would be interesting to see how successful a single or dual seat jet design geared towards ultra low-cost production and purchase price, ease of maintenance and simple flight characteristics would be in today's market.

Something like the HE 162 Salamander design. I'd love to see that allowed into the "Light Sport" category.

Designed and assembled in three months. I bet this thing was a hoot to fly.

Like this perhaps?    Not light sport (no jet will ever be) but close.

Yes, that is excellent! Amazing how quiet it is in the cockpit. (in the video)

Eric Brown claimed the Me-162 was one of the most fun aircraft he ever flew and that it was quite easy to handle.

Being a cheap bastard, I'd want to know what the MTBO, parts availability and costs are for the Tumansky.



Otherwise, do want!  



Since I'm an old but NOT bold pilot (no longer can fly though...) I'd just have to buzz my MIL's house at M1+    (IFF just had a casualty, Sir...that was NOT me down there!)  

PRIDE ????

Jesus the gays have their own fighter wing now ???? wtf..


A really cool plane flys over my house a few times a week, it looks like the one posted above w/the twin prop engines mounted in the rear like a pusher design ...I think they are called Enterprise or something.

Speaking of the Enterpise , an actor on a Star trek show  has his own .mil plane. I swear I think it was a F4.