USAF MX-1962 primary trainer program

[circle-5]

MX-1962 was a USAF primary trainer program, which apparently (and oddly) did not specify what type of powerplant should be used. Both reciprocating and jet engine configurations were submitted, and possibly turboprops. Seating, however, had to be side-by-side. The attached proposal model photos show an MX-1962 entry by North American Aviation, equipped with a single J-34 turbojet.

Any additional details on MX-1962, such as dates, scope of requirements and participating manufacturers, would be appreciated.

 

[aim9xray]

Excellent! Wow! Thank you!

I would imagine that after Cessna got the contract for the T-37, this basic design was booted over the fence from LAD to Columbus where it morphed into the J34 powered T2J-1 Buckeye for the Navy several years later.

Some interesting trivia: The J34 for the T2J-1 was the last production contract for Westinghouse's jet engine operation. After the Navy said no mas, North American was obligated to find a new powerplant for the T2J. There was nothing that quite fit the bill, so North American had to go to two Pratt & Whitney J60s in the T2J-2 / T-2B.

This worked for a while until Pratt [allegedly] increased J60 pricing beyond either NAA or the Navy's pain threshold (possibly after production of the T-39A/D Sabreliner ended), whereupon the T-2C came out with two General Electric J85s.

Extra trivia: The T2J wing was reportedly very closely derived from that of the original FJ-1 Fury. This is unconfirmed although there is a FJ-1 and A T-2A on display at Yanks and Planes of Fame (respectively) at Chino Airport, California.

Back to the subject, the basic jet trainer competition was apparently in 1953; the serial number of the first XT-37 was 54-0716 (implying assignment in Fiscal Year 1954 which started 1 July 1953, and the XT-37 first flew on 12 September 1954).

 

[circle-5]

Thank you aim9xray for the fascinating trivia. I always wondered what the story was behind the twin-engined Buckeyes, assuming it had to do with safety issues. Now I know! So, can I infer from your post that MX-1962 was won by the T-37, or was it something entirely different?

 

[circle-5]

Many years before the ill-fated T-46, Fairchild participated in MX-1962 with their Model M-178 basic trainer. As shown in this factory presentation model, the M-178 was to be powered by a single turbojet, presumably the same Allison J-34 as the NAA proposal.

I have never found any document or reference to this Fairchild project, anywhere -- a hint for those of you with file drawers full of M-178 drawings and artist renderings...

 

[Maveric]

What a great find circle-5. THANKS for posting.

 

[Stargazer]

circle-5, thanks for bringing a smile back on my face after a difficult day!

These are not only jet trainers (which I have always been very fond of) but they also come from two of my all-time favorite manufacturers!! ;D

I cannot even DARE to begin to imagine all the neat stuff in your collection that still remains to be uncovered... :

 

[circle-5]

Here's where the MX-1962 specification becomes a bit unconventional. North American Aviation also proposed this modified T-28 Trojan with side-by-side seating. The standard 1,425 hp Wright Cyclone R-1820-76B radial piston engine was carried over from the T-28B.

It would be interesting to see how MX-1962 is worded: could a reciprocating engine developed in the early 1930s be an acceptable substitute for a turbojet? Enquiring minds want to know.

 

[Stargazer]

Weird indeed that this could be proposed in the very same competition as the XT-37!! ???

 

[cluttonfred]

What a neat design! Presumably, those are rearward-reatracting main landing gear on the wings. I can already see the light attack derivative with those landing gear fairings extended forward to house a couple of machine guns each. Thanks for sharing.

Many years before the ill-fated T-46, Fairchild participated in MX-1962 with their Model M-178 basic trainer. As shown in this factory presentation model, the M-178 was to be powered by a single turbojet, presumably the same Allison J-34 as the NAA proposal.

I have never found any document or reference to this Fairchild project, anywhere -- a hint for those of you with file drawers full of M-178 drawings and artist renderings...

 

[royabulgaf]

I think the operative concept is side-by-side. Someone who wrote the specifications decided that this was the New Big Thing and wanted a system that would take students from primary through fast jet training.

 

[nugo]

Hi All!

Temco proposal of MX-1962---Model 30

 

[Stargazer]

A previously unseen entry for MX-1962 was this contender by an obscure company called East Coast Aeronautics:

 

[hesham]

Fantastic design my dear Stargazer,


it was also mention in ebay;
http://www.ebay.com/itm/1953-Aviation-Article-East-Coast-Aeronautics-MX-1962-All-Magnesium-Jet-Trainer-/331061676972


and for East Coast,here is a strange info from Aerofiles site,shows that,the aircraft
was developed from Lockheed XF-80C,I can explain that ?.


http://www.aerofiles.com/_e.html

 

[Jemiba]

... a hint for those of you with file drawers full of M-178 drawings and artist renderings...

Nothing like that, but additionally to those model photos already posted, I've got more of them by
circle-5 and a lot of advise by him and by aim9xray. Really many thanks for that !
Depicted are all details recognisable on that model. Adding the landing gear was itching and the
main gear principally is clear, determined in wheel size and length by the underwing nacelles.
But for the nosewheel it's not clear, so I did without it. Maybe we'll get more information one day.

 

[Stargazer]

Splendid, Jens!

 

[Jemiba]

... and as it is said, not to paint everything black and white ....
The M-178 wasn't a direct contender to the T-37, nevertheless I used a Tweety Bird
paint scheme as a pattern. Or would a T-33 scheme fit better ?

 

[Stargazer]

... and as it is said, not to paint everything black and white ....
The M-178 wasn't a direct contender to the T-37, nevertheless I used a Tweety Bird
paint scheme as a pattern. Or would a T-33 scheme fit better ?

Splendid!!! But why do you say the M-178 wasn't a "direct contender"? It was submitted to MX-1962 just like the Cessna Model 318, right?

 

[Mark Nankivil]

A recent EPay buy that shows the T2J-1 was pitched to prospective customers across the Atlantic.

Enjoy the Day! Mark