Chinese Trainer Aircraft (JL-8, JL-9, JL-10 (L-15), etc.)

I’m guessing that twin tails provide more yaw control authority under the same specific flight regimes (low altitude, low airspeed) that are critically important for carrier landings. The added stability wouldn’t hurt either.

AJTs can be programmed to simulate the performance characteristics of different frontline combat jets, but I think sometimes people forget that the AJT airframe itself first needs the be able to achieve the level of performance it is meant to simulate. So it looks like the performance deficit of single tail vs the navy’s twin tail combat jets is big enough to warrant them paying for a dedicated new trainer with twin tails.

If this is the case, then that would also explain why the navy has never bothered to seriously use existing jet trainers for carrier pilot training and continues to use twin seat J15s.

siegecrossbow said:

What was the reasoning behind adding another vertical slab?

Click to expand...

Higher directional stability and yaw authority at lower speeds. They can also give the same amount of stability and yaw, but reduce the height of the fighter, which may be important for carrier hangar bay height limits.

iBBz said:

Higher directional stability and yaw authority at lower speeds. They can also give the same amount of stability and yaw, but reduce the height of the fighter, which may be important for carrier hangar bay height limits.

Click to expand...

At the expense of additional drag probably. But given its nature as a naval trainer it is acceptable.