Textron AirLand (Cessna) Scorpion - a light attack, reconnaissance jet project

[fightingirish]

Textron and AirLand Enterprises will be unveiling its self-funded project, the two-seat, twin-engine Scorpion, on September 16th at the annual Air Force Association Air & Space Conference outside Washington.
Officials gave already Aviation Leak, ehh, I mean Aviation Week & Space Technology, an exclusive sneak peak in the latest issue (September 16th, 2013) of their magazine (See attachment: the magazine cover).

SCORPION SPECIFICATIONS
Crew . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2
Wingspan . . . . . . . . . . . . .47.3 ft.
Length . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .43.5 ft.
Engines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2 Honeywell TFE731s
Thrust . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .~8,000 lb.
Max. Speed . . . . . . . . . . . .450 kt.
Ceiling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .45,000 ft.
Ferry Range . . . . . . . . . . .2,400 nm
Standard Empty Weight . . .11,800 lb.
Max. Takeoff Weight . . . . .21,250 lb.
Max. Internal Fuel Load . . .6,000 lb.
Max. Internal Payload . . . .3,000 lb.
Max. External Stores . . . . .6,100 lb.
Hard Points . . . . . . . . . . . .6
Source:
Textron AirLand

More info and pictures will be not posted now during to forum & copyright rules, but maybe in near time summarized and in smaller resolution.

 

[cluttonfred]

If nothing else, Textron Airland deserve kudos for the effort because it's so rare these days to see a new, private venture military aircraft. I am a bit puzzled, though, but the choice of a twin-engine layout if the goal was "affordability." I look forward to learning more.

 

[SOC]

Apparently they want to fly it by the end of the year (the AW&ST article shows the first prototype under construction), and the specs claiming an internal payload aren't a misprint, it's got an internal bay used for either weapons or ISR sensors.

They're aiming for a cost of $3,000/flight hour, is that comparable to something like the Hawk? This might represent a cheaper alternative to something like the M346 for the AJT market?

 

[kcran567]

Not criticizing the Scorpion, but what makes it any better than Rutan's ARES Mudfighter a similar design with one engine and probably even cheaper to operate. Rutan's design had excellent performance a 25mm gun and 800+ mile range.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Not criticizing the Scorpion, but what makes it any better than Rutan's ARES Mudfighter a similar design with one engine and probably even cheaper to operate. Rutan's design had excellent performance a 25mm gun and 800+ mile range.

The Scorpion is much, much bigger than the ARES. The Scorpion is around the size of a Skyhawk though not as fast but with more internal payload volume. A very interesting concept. Far more survivable in combat than a PC9/Tucano type and with the kind of off axis weapons and sensors that the A-10 lacks because of its age.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

I am a bit puzzled, though, but the choice of a twin-engine layout if the goal was "affordability."

Honeywell (aka Garrett) TFE731s are pretty much the most super cheap turbofans out there. Its the same propulsion choice as the Boeing Skyfox (though different configuration).

 

[elmayerle]

The ready availability of service and maintenance facilities for the TFE731 makes it an excellent choice, too. That it's a mixed compression engine (both axial and centrifugal compressors) give it an excellent "get you home" capability. And, yes, this was inadvertently demonstrated on a twin-engined business jet when a "less than optimal" choice of test approaches for simulating ice shapes was chosen and the axial compressors were "corn-cobbed" at high AOA. The aircraft made it safely back to the field, though the engines had to be replaced. I know about this because I worked on this particular program.

 

[Avimimus]

Not to get off topic - but I wonder if this might suit Canada's needs... cheap would go down well with the public, twin-engined would go down well with the traditionalists... of course, it lacks the avionics and speed to be an effective interceptor (overplaying the understatement here )... but surfaced launched missiles might do that.

Anyway - a neat project that I'll keep an eye on. It is refreshing.

 

[Pioneer]

If nothing else, Textron Airland deserve kudos for the effort because it's so rare these days to see a new, private venture military aircraft. I am a bit puzzled, though, but the choice of a twin-engine layout if the goal was "affordability." I look forward to learning more.

I agree with your analogy re:

Textron Airland deserve kudos for the effort because it's so rare these days to see a new, private venture military aircraft.

Cluttonfred!! I think it is long overdue that more competition is long overdue (and long forgotten) in the U.S aviation industry! Rest assure though, if Textron Airland does make a go of it, Boeing will buy it out before you can blink!! :-[

As for

I am a bit puzzled, though, but the choice of a twin-engine layout if the goal was "affordability."

, my immediate thought is survivability (yeah yeah, I know this is a contentious issue single-engine vs twin-engine..... But I for one still like the twin-engine arrangement in a ground attack/CAS platform. Also looking at the picture posted, I'm speculating that the two-engine arrangement also appears to free up the internal volume of the fuselage, where otherwise a single-engine would be accommodated - hence this is the space/volume that affords an internal weapons bay!
I too hope that something will be made of this design. I wish them luck!!

Regards
Pioneer

 

[Sundog]

Twin engined aircraft are more survivable, not just on the battlefield, but during normal operations. Lose an engine and you may still return, whereas when you lose the engine in a single engine aircraft, it's usually game over.

This is definitely an interesting aircraft, but I would like to know who they think their customer base will be? Is the market there for a light attack aircraft that hasn't already been filled by the Hawk? Are they going after the market that the new trainers are going after, but at a lower cost? Hopefully the AvWeek article will provide answers, but given that my issue usually doesn't show up until a week and a half after it's published, I'll be waiting a while.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Rest assure though, if Textron Airland does make a go of it, Boeing will buy it out before you can blink!! :-[

Textron own Cessna and Bell so I don't think they are a Boeing buy option without some major capital. Airland is a small OEM company that want to set themselves up as a Skunk Works, Scaled Composites type operation. They might sell themselves at one point to a major but its early days yet. And with this Scorpion and a deal with Textron looks like they are off to a very good start.

 

[elmayerle]

Textron, especially Bell, has a mixed relationship with Boeing (teamed on V-22, opponents on JMR) so I'm not sure what would happen. I could see Textron developing a relationship with Airland that would offer prototyping and concept exploration for Cessna, Bell, and other Textron division (AAI, perhaps?).

 

[CostasTT]

Looks like a pretty nice aircraft and all, no doubt it will be designed to be agile and offer a satisfactory loiter time, but I don't see an internal gun mentioned in the posted specifications. This could be a major fail - unless they plan to add podded guns. I recall reading something about the Brits on the ground in Afghanistan being less than happy with support from the gun-less Harrier GR.9s, because of the failure of the 25mm ADEN and the omission to revert to the tried and true 30mm pods.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

It looks like it has a trainable gun turret like on an attack helicopter which will be far more useful than fixed front guns.

 

[CostasTT]

I see what look like two optronics balls in the cover picture, but no turret. A turret would have to be pretty hefty to withstand aerodynamic and G loads since the aircraft is intended to have a speed of 450kts and also aiming it at high speeds would necessitate an elaborate fire control system

 

[Abraham Gubler]

I see what look like two optronics balls in the cover picture, but no turret.

One is probably a semi retractable turret.

A turret would have to be pretty hefty to withstand aerodynamic and G loads since the aircraft is intended to have a speed of 450kts and also aiming it at high speeds would necessitate an elaborate fire control system

It’s been done before even to high speeds and is no major drama.

 

[Rickshaw]

I wonder if this is intended to be an F-5 replacement - something which has been sadly lacking for sometime. Something that is cheap to purchase, cheap to operate and carries a reasonable payload at a reasonable speed.

 

[JFC Fuller]

It looks like it has a trainable gun turret like on an attack helicopter which will be far more useful than fixed front guns.

They both look like generic EO turrets to me; you can even see a window arrangement on the rear one.

 

[CostasTT]

It’s been done before even to high speeds and is no major drama.

On such a small airframe? The nearest equivalents I can come up with are the M197 or 25mm turrets on the OV-10D and the recent M230 turret on the OV-1D. Both are slower than the Scorpion and thus able to use adapted helicopter turrets. As for bomber type barbettes, these are in a different weight/bulk league.

They both look like generic EO turrets to me; you can even see a window arrangement on the rear one.

Agreed. One could assist the pilot, while the other would be for the WSO.

 

[GeorgeA]

Here's the website:


http://www.scorpionjet.com/

 

[AeroFranz]

Interesting website. Wow, they're pretty far along, judging from the pictures of the assembly and the ejector seat testing. I'm so used to new aircraft concepts being little more than powerpoint fantasies, that seeing this is quite refreshing.


I am puzzled by the engine nacelle placement in relationship to the wing. They left a small gap that screams interference drag ???
Usually you'd either leave no gap in between or leave one deep enough that you are not accelerating and squeezing air through a narrow passage.


The lack of gun is also curious for an aircraft designed for low-intensity conflicts. Maybe they can install a gun pack in the payload bay, a la Lightning/Harrier

 

[Avimimus]

...or integrate the SSPU series gunpods. Using mobile guns allows attacking from more varied approaches and higher altitudes. I've often wondered what could be done with a turret mounted 40mm gunpod hooked up to modern avionics (to allow automated wind correction, constant tracking of targets, range finding etc.)

 

[CostasTT]

Here's the website:


http://www.scorpionjet.com/

Thanks for the link.

I must say, there are several positive conclusions to be drawn from looking at the pictures. The wide separation of the engines with the attendant higher survivability is one. Two, it looks like the fuselage can provide some lift.

The lack of built-in gun armament, or even mention of it, is still glaringly obvious, although pods are not outside the realm of possibility. Another solution would be to utilize part of the fuselage bay to accommodate a scab-on gun pack, a la F-106 (or GSh-23L, if you prefer).

Also interesting was the specific mention to permissive air environments (no enemy fighters, SAMs, or radar/EO directed AAA, please). Kind of reminded me of the A-37 and F-5A/B given to the VNAF. Good for COIN, but severely hampered against an organized air defense network.

 

[SteveO]

It's great to see something new actually getting built even if it is an old idea.

The website shows an armament of 7 round rocket pods (APKWS?) and a wing mounted gun pod. I would imagine Hellfire/Brimstone missiles and Paveway/JDAM/SDB bombs are an easy fit too. There are plenty of UAV sized sensors that could be added too.

I wonder if this design has been considered as trainer too?

Hopefully someone will come up with a low cost STOVL Harrier replacement too

 

[Pioneer]

but I don't see an internal gun mentioned in the posted specifications. This could be a major fail - unless they plan to add podded guns.

Agree!!

Regards
Pioneer

 

[Pioneer]

It looks like it has a trainable gun turret like on an attack helicopter which will be far more useful than fixed front guns.

Good point....I didn't see or notice that

Regards
Pioneer

 

[Moose]

Via AviationWeek

Textron, however, has teamed with a small company called AirLand, for a joint venture to fly by year-end an entirely new light-attack aircraft called Scorpion. See Av Week's sneak peak at the aircraft, which is being rolled out at a press conference at noon today at the annual Air Force Assn. conference Sept. 16.


Scorpion is a twin-engine aircraft designed to carry 3,000 lb. of payload -- weapons or ISR collecting equipment -- in an internal bay. It also has six hard points.

http://www.scorpionjet.com/

 

[H_K]

The payload bay dimensions are approx. 4.25 x 0.90 x 0.45 m (L x W x H), based on the scale drawings.


That should be good enough for a pair of GBU-22s + a pair of fore and aft sensors (FLIR designators, SAR radar etc). My bet is that the F-35's 25mm GAU-22 gun pod could fairly easily be adapted for internal carriage in the bay.


I love the modular sensor & payload approach. These days even ECM kit can be fully modularized, with integrated pods like SAAB's BOZ & BOH products. So the same airframe could potentially cover the full spectrum from peacetime training to wartime FAC/reconnaissance/CAS. Plus everything in between, like COIN and maritime surveillance.


Hell, bring on some sonobuoys and maybe we can even have an S-3 Viking replacement!

 

[cluttonfred]

Where did you see that? I didn't find any mention of a gun on the site.

It looks like it has a trainable gun turret like on an attack helicopter which will be far more useful than fixed front guns.

Good point....I didn't see or notice that

Regards
Pioneer

 

[H_K]

Just conjecture.


They haven't said yet what the payload bay can handle. But the dimensions (estimated from the drawings provided by Textron) appear to be compatible with 500lb LGBs. An internal gun pod shouldn't be too hard, and would be a logical option. Commonality would argue in favor of reusing (as much as possible) an off-the-shelf setup like the one being designed for the F-35.

Found this quote on their website, which indicates that the payload bay is NOT a bomb bay:

With its modular partitioning, loading, alignment and retention system, the payload bay can accommodate a variety of sensors, fuel, and communications modules

 

[Triton]

http://youtu.be/R7ScgjQXYCc

http://youtu.be/Gnx1ACesWVw

 

[Triton]

http://youtu.be/cIkiDkfZ7K4

http://youtu.be/S-qbVFmjtEE

 

[Dragon029]

Any word on price?

They claim that it's extremely affordable, and I'm inclined to believe that they know what they're talking about, but are we talking $1m, $3m, $5m, $10m?

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Where did you see that? I didn't find any mention of a gun on the site.

My call on the gun turret was initially based on the information about a 3,000 lb payload bay. Later I thought one of the two turrets on the initial low res picture could have been a gun turret. Which is clearly not the case.

Still I think we will see a gun turret fitted to the payload bay before any fixed forward facing front guns. The Scorpion has the weight and volume margin to accommodate a trainable weapon up to 30x113mm with a considerable ammunition magazine (>1,000 rounds) in this bay. The demand from the front line has been for trainable weapons. With its throttled back, five hour loiter capability the Scorpion would make for an ideal gunship.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

The most startling thing about the Scorpion is the wing. It’s a high aspect ratio, high lift wing and is completely different to anything the world has seen on a combat jet in decades. Earlier I mentioned the similarity in size between a Scorpion and a Skyhawk but both aircraft couldn’t have more different wings if you tried and both will fly very differently.

The Scorpion’s wing will give it excellent short takeoff and landing, sustained turns, but most importantly low drag lift at cruise flight with the sacrifice of low G tolerance, high drag and high speed and low roll rate. It will fly, unsurprisingly, like a Cessna and not like a fast rolling, high G Skyhawk.

But the Scorpion’s wing will give it performance like a UAV over the battlefield. The ability to throttle back the engine and cruise with minimal fuel burn. Why its designers are quoting a five hour loiter at 150 NM radius. Basically the ideal performance to replace various fighters flying close air support missions today.

 

[Sundog]

The Scorpion’s wing will give it excellent short takeoff and landing, sustained turns, but most importantly low drag lift at cruise flight with the sacrifice of low G tolerance, high drag and high speed and low roll rate. It will fly, unsurprisingly, like a Cessna and not like a fast rolling, high G Skyhawk.

While broad low aspect ratio wings tend to be efficient in loading, they also tend to be thin. A high aspect ratio wing does not mean low G loading as you forgot to consider the thickness to chord ratio (t/c). This is a relatively thick wing, so it shouldn't have any problems pulling G. The question is whether or not the missions call for it. I wouldn't be surprised to find out the G limit on the aircraft is around 7G's. Don't tell an A-10 pilot his wing can't handle G's.

Though I completely agree with you about it's roll rate and also it's speed. This aircraft, to me, seems to occupy a design space between the A-4 and the A-10, but with the advanced sensor systems you would find on a recon helo.

 

[cluttonfred]

I absolutely agree that a trainable weapon makes a lot of sense--going back to the 1950s and the Martin Mighty Midget there was a recognition by designers that a close air support aircraft put itself at risk with every strafing run and the ability to circle a target and pour on fire from a reasonable distance would be better. I am not so sure about the high-powered cannon, though--there just isn't much call for that kind of weapon in most modern conflicts. A trainable lightweight 20mm (Nexter M621) or even .50 cal (GAU-19) would provide an excellent way to engage lightly protected targets at low cost with minimal risk of collateral damage.

PS--Oops, I just saw H_K's updated post, so if the payload bay is really just an area for sensors or additional fuel, then we may be back to good old fixed gun pods after all. For example, even the 400 lb-rated outboard pylons could handle inexpensive FN Herstal HMP .50 cal pods which are themselves rated up to Mach 0.70 or 0.75, max speed for the Scorpion is listed at 450 knots or Mach 0.68.

PPS--Here is a cutaway of the Martin Mighty Midget from up-ship.com. Note number 11, the twin lateral .30 cal machine guns in each wing, angled so as to be on target while the plane executes a pylon turn around a point on the ground. Today, a stabilized turret would make much more sense, but the idea was there. The Scorpion is a very interesting design, but it would be great to see a modern CAS/COIN aircraft as small, simple and inexpensive as this. Imagine a modern version with a conventional cockpit and ejections seat, a well-protected single central turbofan with Hawker Sea Hawk-style bifurcated inlets and outlets, armor all around, those wings full of fuel, a sensor ball, a trainable gun turret, and Hellfires and laser-guided 70mm rockets on the the wings. But I digress, as usual.... ;-)

Where did you see that? I didn't find any mention of a gun on the site.

My call on the gun turret was initially based on the information about a 3,000 lb payload bay. Later I thought one of the two turrets on the initial low res picture could have been a gun turret. Which is clearly not the case.

Still I think we will see a gun turret fitted to the payload bay before any fixed forward facing front guns. The Scorpion has the weight and volume margin to accommodate a trainable weapon up to 30x113mm with a considerable ammunition magazine (>1,000 rounds) in this bay. The demand from the front line has been for trainable weapons. With its throttled back, five hour loiter capability the Scorpion would make for an ideal gunship.

 

[Evil Flower]

Putting trainable guns on small aircraft to make mini-gunships has been tried before in Credible Chase.

 

[AeroFranz]

YOV-10 NOGS armed with 20mm turret


http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=P6iI9NfNTpk

 

[cluttonfred]

Credible Chase was about arming Helios and Turboporters, quite a different propostion than a 500 mph jet, but the OV-10 with the NOGS mods is certainly comparable. Speaking of which, something like the OV-10G+ recently evaluated for the CAS/COIN mission under Combat Dragon II would certainly provide competition, or perhaps a nice complement to, the Scorpion. Still, I think that a single-engine equivalent to the Scorpion, basically an oversized, modernized, composite Alenia Aermacchi M-311, would make more sense. Somebody needs to make the cheap bomb truck to bring the hurt once the FACs in Embraer Super Tucanos find the bad guys. ;-)