...is anyone going to buy me yet?
>>29740774
No.
Twin jets in a low speed, low purchase price package, is missing the point. The operation costs will be too high for the performance you are getting.
>>29740774
Not unless you turn into an F-5E with Modern Avionics.
and The FAA clears you for civilian use.
Does anyone want to go halves and sit in the second seat?
>>29740774
I think it would be slightly more popular if it had a gun. If you're making a plane for dirt-poor countries then it should have a gun in case they can't afford smart bombs.
>>29741320
Can it not use wing-mounted gun pods?
>>29740854
depends how much it costs to operate and how much maintenance is needed
double engine might be preferable for doing a minimum of maintainance & accepting a higher probability of engine failure.
>>29740774
did you pay more money under the table than the jew-heed sheakaltons did with the 2 flying lemons? no? well come back when you have the money to pay off the people in the white house
>>29740774
The Super Tucano is far more cost effective.
>>29740774
Take a mass produced business jet of similar engine size and type, and retro-fit hardpoints.
What is different now? What is better?
no because and OV-10 could do its job better... (can use worse and shorter runways similar pay load more than likely longer ranged cheaper and easier to maintain)
>>29743070
> longer ranged
>Using the bay for fuel should increase internal fuel range to some 2 457 nm while keeping all six under-wing stations free, giving the Scorpion a combat radius/time on station potential unmatched by anything other than a fixed-wing gunship or some of the top-end fighters that cost vastly more to own and operate and are not well suited to this mission set.
>>29740774
If I had the money I'd demand to buy one of those things with the camera pod on it because it looks neat.
>>29740854
There isn't single engine option for that weight class. Plane is basically business jet minus cabin that comes with weapons and associated avionics. That is where they got their engines from.
>>29741239
>Not unless you turn into an F-5E with Modern Avionics.
It isn't a supersonic point defense interceptor, but dedicated COIN and surveillance plane.
>The FAA clears you for civilian use.
Guess under who's rules private military contractors operate?
>>29743060
>Take a mass produced business jet of similar engine size and type, and retro-fit hardpoints.
>What is different now? What is better?
Cabin tends to be big and cause drag. Drag generally increases fuel consumption and operational costs.
>>29740774
Somalian air force might buy a couple.
>>29744887
Source? Or just because they're poor. Also if the SAF could get more than two planes in the air simultaneously I'd be genuinely impressed
>>29744949
>>>fucking reddit
Its not going to sell because any nation that needs a jet trainer will also need to train pilots how to do in flight refueling, and that Italian jet can do that.
>>29746760
It's not trainer either. It's a plane purpose built to patrol over large areas with advanced sensors and bomb goat fuckers with no air defense. A manned UAV built from left over parts of a business jet.
The reason civilized countries aren't likely to buy it is the fact that air forces fear that plane like it could threaten their budget for high performance multi-role fighters.
