| 
	
	| 
		
		31 Oct 2025, 13:56 [ UTC - 5; DST ] |  
	| 
	
  
	
	
	
	
	
			| Username Protected | 
				
				
					|  Post subject: Re: Cessna Super Tweet  Posted:  06 May 2021, 18:00  |  |  
			| 
			
				
					|  |  |  
 |  
				| 
 |  
|   
 
 
 
 Joined: 02/21/11
 Posts: 496
 Post Likes: +50
 Location: St George, UT
 Aircraft: 340A & R44II
 |  | 
				
					| I work on one every once in awhile.  Such cool airplanes! _________________
 Mark McAuliffe
 
 
 |  |  
			| Top |  |  
	
			| Username Protected | 
				
				
					|  Post subject: Re: Cessna Super Tweet  Posted:  06 May 2021, 18:34  |  |  
			| 
			
				
					|  |  |  
 |  
				| 
 |  
|   
 
 
 
 Joined: 02/21/11
 Posts: 496
 Post Likes: +50
 Location: St George, UT
 Aircraft: 340A & R44II
 |  | 
				
					| Username Protected wrote: Are their any on the warbirds circuit?   Not sure.  I think Charlie was going to start taking 921 to shows.http://supertweet.com/_________________
 Mark McAuliffe
 
 
 |  |  
			| Top |  |  
	
			| Username Protected | 
				
				
					|  Post subject: Re: Cessna Super Tweet  Posted:  06 May 2021, 18:44  |  |  
			| 
			
				
					|  |  |  
 |  
				| 
 |  
|   
 
 
 
 Joined: 11/20/14
 Posts: 6830
 Post Likes: +5031
 Aircraft: V35
 |  | 
				
					| I always thought the Tweet looked like a fun plane to civilian-ize after the military was done.  Bud Davisson agrees::http://www.airbum.com/pireps/PirepCessnaT-37.html Other than the noise, the big problem is the almost incredible fuel inefficiency.  So much fuel for so little performance (by air force standards) You might as well fly a CJ3 and take 6 people and luggage with you, for the fuel cost of a Tweet.  And make 3x the fuel stops in The Tweet. It’s just not anything like a practical plane, unless you’re Uncle Sam .
 Last edited on 06 May 2021, 19:31, edited 2 times in total.
 
 
 |  |  
			| Top |  |  
	
			| Username Protected | 
				
				
					|  Post subject: Re: Cessna Super Tweet  Posted:  06 May 2021, 18:55  |  |  
			| 
			
				
					|  |  |  
 |  
				| 
 |  
					|  |  
|   
 
 
 
 Joined: 08/26/15
 Posts: 10022
 Post Likes: +10006
 Company: airlines (*CRJ,A320)
 Location: Florida panhandle
 Aircraft: Travel Air,T-6B,etc*
 |  | 
				
					| Username Protected wrote: I always thought...
 Other than the noise, the big problem is the almost incredible fuel inefficiency.
 I hadn't thought of it from a practical perspective e but the numbers basically the engines (and fuel burn!) of an early 20-series Lear in a 400 knot two-seater with ~400 mile legs. But... the ramp appeal!    ("Are those REAL guns??")
 
 |  |  
			| Top |  |  
	
			| Username Protected | 
				
				
					|  Post subject: Re: Cessna Super Tweet  Posted:  06 May 2021, 19:04  |  |  
			| 
			
				
					|  |  |  
 |  
				| 
 |  
|   
 
 
 
 Joined: 02/21/11
 Posts: 496
 Post Likes: +50
 Location: St George, UT
 Aircraft: 340A & R44II
 |  | 
				
					| Username Protected wrote: I always thought...
 Other than the noise, the big problem is the almost incredible fuel inefficiency.
 I hadn't thought of it from a practical perspective e but the numbers basically the engines (and fuel burn!) of an early 20-series Lear in a 400 knot two-seater with ~400 mile legs. But... the ramp appeal!    ("Are those REAL guns??")
 I guess the acceleration is insane from what I've been told!!!
 _________________
 Mark McAuliffe
 
 
 |  |  
			| Top |  |  
	
			| Username Protected | 
				
				
					|  Post subject: Re: Cessna Super Tweet  Posted:  06 May 2021, 19:59  |  |  
			| 
			
				
					|  |  |  
 |  
				| 
 |  
					|  |  
|   
 
 
 
 Joined: 09/29/10
 Posts: 5660
 Post Likes: +4882
 Company: USAF Simulator Instructor
 Location: Wichita Valley Airport (F14)
 Aircraft: Bonanza G35
 |  | 
				
					| Username Protected wrote: I guess the acceleration is insane from what I've been told!!! I got a right seat ride in an Air Guard A-37 in about 1975. Acceleration was better than the stock Tweet but nothing spectacular. We had four full drop tanks, practice bombs and the mini-gun. IIRC we got a dozen or so passes on the Avon Park Range just east of KAGR. We hit bingo to return to MacDill when the drops were empty and we switched to internal fuel. It’s about 70nm from Avon Park back to MacDill. An even better idea for a civilian Tweet would be to re-engine a stock T-37 with a couple small turbofans in the 1200 lb thrust range. You’d get a 30% increase in thrust with half the fuel burn. Yank out all the heavy military gear, put into modern avionics and comfortable seats and you have a nice toy. The avionics bay in the nose would be empty and make a great baggage compartment._________________
 FTFA  RTFM
 
 
 |  |  
			| Top |  |  
	
			| Username Protected | 
				
				
					|  Post subject: Re: Cessna Super Tweet  Posted:  06 May 2021, 21:21  |  |  
			| 
			
				
					|  |  |  
 |  
				|  
 
 |  
					|  |  
|   
 
 
 
 Joined: 08/23/11
 Posts: 2321
 Post Likes: +2618
 Company: Delta/ check o'the month club
 Location: Meridian, ID (KEUL)
 Aircraft: 1968 Bonanza 36
 |  | 
				
					| I've always said if I were giving rides for fun in a mil jet that I've flown it would hands down be the Tweet.   A-37's had (basically) T-38 engines with no AB.  Nice thrust increase but then you need to add the external tanks to be able to get anywhere.   Dang that little bird was fun to fly though!    
 
 |  |  
			| Top |  |  
	
			| Username Protected | 
				
				
					|  Post subject: Re: Cessna Super Tweet  Posted:  07 May 2021, 11:19  |  |  
			| 
			
				
					|  |  |  
 |  
				| 
 |  
|   
 
 
 
 Joined: 11/15/17
 Posts: 1173
 Post Likes: +607
 Company: Cessna (retired)
 |  | 
				
					| Username Protected wrote: I guess the acceleration is insane from what I've been told!!! I got a right seat ride in an Air Guard A-37 in about 1975. Acceleration was better than the stock Tweet but nothing spectacular. We had four full drop tanks, practice bombs and the mini-gun. IIRC we got a dozen or so passes on the Avon Park Range just east of KAGR. We hit bingo to return to MacDill when the drops were empty and we switched to internal fuel. It’s about 70nm from Avon Park back to MacDill. An even better idea for a civilian Tweet would be to re-engine a stock T-37 with a couple small turbofans in the 1200 lb thrust range. You’d get a 30% increase in thrust with half the fuel burn. Yank out all the heavy military gear, put into modern avionics and comfortable seats and you have a nice toy. The avionics bay in the nose would be empty and make a great baggage compartment.
 The small Turbofan engine version was what Cessna proposed for the NGT. We lost, and the winning Fairchild T-46 was cancelled due to development problems.
 
 
 |  |  
			| Top |  |  
	
			| Username Protected | 
				
				
					|  Post subject: Re: Cessna Super Tweet  Posted:  07 May 2021, 19:18  |  |  
			| 
			
				
					|  |  |  
 |  
				| 
 |  
|   
 
 
 
 Joined: 06/17/14
 Posts: 6006
 Post Likes: +2743
 Location: KJYO
 Aircraft: C-182, GA-7
 |  | 
				
					| The Cessna 407 looks like it would have been a whole lot of fun.  Who knew that Cessna had a VLJ before VLJs were a thing!? 
 
 |  |  
			| Top |  |    
	|  | You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum
 You cannot edit your posts in this forum
 You cannot delete your posts in this forum
 You cannot post attachments in this forum
 
 |    
 | Terms of Service | Forum FAQ | Contact Us 
 BeechTalk, LLC is the quintessential Beechcraft Owners & Pilots Group providing a 
forum for the discussion of technical, practical, and entertaining issues relating to all Beech aircraft. These include 
the Bonanza (both V-tail and straight-tail models), Baron, Debonair, Duke, Twin Bonanza, King Air, Sierra, Skipper, Sport, Sundowner, 
Musketeer, Travel Air, Starship, Queen Air, BeechJet, and Premier lines of airplanes, turboprops, and turbojets.
 
 BeechTalk, LLC is not affiliated or endorsed by the Beechcraft Corporation, its subsidiaries, or affiliates. 
Beechcraft™, King Air™, and Travel Air™ are the registered trademarks of the Beechcraft Corporation.
 
 Copyright© BeechTalk, LLC 2007-2025
 
 
 | 
 |  |  |