Northrop Grumman / Scaled Composites T-X trainer program entry - Model 400 Swift

[Sundog]

Scaled Composites has released more information now on their (Northrop) TX design, the Model 400 Swift.

Swift - Scaled Model 400 (Reg. N400NT)
FIRST FLIGHT August 26, 2016

Greatest Technical Challenge
Swift is a low-cost, high-performance, proof-of-concept jet designed to meet high-G, high angle-of-attack maneuvers. With such technically challenging goals laid before us, we were able to go from concept to first flight in only two years.

SWIFT BY THE NUMBERS
Crew 2 (1 Pilot, 1 crew)
MTOW 15,400 lbs
Max Speed 500 KEAS
Altitude 35,000 ft

SERVICES UTILIZED ON SWIFT

design
CONCEPTUAL DESIGN
AERODYNAMIC DESIGN
STRUCTURAL DESIGN
SYSTEMS DESIGN
AVIONICS & SIMULATION DESIGN

build
TOOLING
PART FABRICATION
ASSEMBLY
SYSTEMS INTEGRATION

test
MATERIALS & PROCESSING
COMPONENTS & SYSTEMS
FLIGHT TESTING

7 flights were achieved (as of Sep.28, 2018)
FLIGHT TESTING

Swift utilized General Electric's turbofan engine model F404-GE-102D

 

[Mike Pryce]

Thanks Sundog.

Scaled have never built anything that entered proper series production. The Beech Starship was the closest, and that got re-engineered.

The Model 400 looks like another POC design, which is a general aviation way of building a non certifiable prototype. So likely they would need to re-engineer and build another set of prototypes to meet USAF needs. More time, more money.

Boeing went for production ready out of the box.

 

[litzj]

Scaled Composites has released more information now on their (Northrop) TX design, the Model 400 Swift.

Probably, there is some reason to stop proceed of this aircraft, however, that bird is the most beautiful among candidate of T-X

 

[kcran567]

Swift

Scaled Composites' Swift jet

www.scaled.com

Listed as a Low cost, composite, high angle of attack capable aircraft...

Had seven test flights so far.

Life after the TX for some other purpose?

 

[TomcatViP]

Beautiful wing structure. Beautiful integrated Tail/engine support single piece structural work. Amazing moncoque chassis.

This thing might be good to show up for FCAS!

 

[kcran567]

Yes I agree! Wonder if it is less expensive to build than th Boeing/Saab T-X? Seems to be all composite
Was the Boeing really that much easier to build? Would like to see a comparison when possible. Boeing using some new ways to manufacture to save time any money...what's was Scaled Composites
method.

 

[TomcatViP]

Boeing & Saab were praising their new simple fixture system that allow parts to be assembled prior to be bonded (no extensive jigs or tooling). It seems as this is a a step forward in term of cost reduction (especially for Boeing since Saab is here indeed swallowing most of the risks).

What Scaled composite has done is basically build a prototype. I am not sure if Northrop would have been able to convince the service to agree on their cost projection for serial production with that only, especially after all their talk around their B-21 production cost projections.

 

[litzj]

what a flying beauty! I would love OML of this aircraft

however, other than protoype of t-x, there is probably nothing to do

 

[Trident]

Would be cool if NG could continue to use it as a chase plane for other projects (as someone suggested in the T-X thread before). Does a chase require proper certification, how much further testing would be needed (cost)? Then again Boeing was using a T-33 for the longest time.

 

[flateric]

"When navigating the unknown, our engineers and technicians take time to test out ideas during the design and build phases. During our Swift program, we had the challenge of a new loads environment and ran our wing structure design through pressure tests for a significantly higher-G environment than we usually design to!"

https://www.facebook.com/ScaledComposites/photos/a.10150174314535658/10156094738790658

View: https://www.facebook.com/ScaledComposites/photos/a.10150174314535658/10156094738790658/

 

[ivran]

Any 3 view, N400 vs TF-5 Talon

 

[NUSNA_Moebius]

I wonder why the move to a wider span swept wing (trailing edge included) instead of the N156's trapezoidal type. Higher aspect ratio and wing area for the same leading edge sweep angle and wing root area? Seems like they wanted a boost in lift efficiency without having to rely on such large drag inducing LERX.

 

[TomcatViP]

Swept wing is bad for alpha (AoA). Wing wash span wise tends to kill your lift and push your Cp frwd

Notice also that the N-400 has no noticeable outboard ailerons

Regarding the LERX, they already have the angled fuselage base that is (somewhat) equivalent in effect.

 

[Sundog]

The N400 has a small LERX, similar to the F-5A.

 

[flateric]

http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/14551/these-are-the-best-images-yet-of-northrop-grummans-t-38-replacement-that-could-have-been

 

[TomcatViP]

Thanks. Seems I talked too fast (LERX). My bad.

 

[ouroboros]

The high g environment quote truck me as odd, perhaps some sort of UAV surrogate frame for high g flight testing?

 

[TomcatViP]

No. It's for 5th Gen aircraft training (and counter 5th training).
New pilots will have to learn how to manoeuvre at sustained high G while still maintaining their S.A
The RFQ emphasized the ability to recover quickly from hard maneuvering (minimal loss of alt) and it was also a commune understanding that high Alpha capabilities were targeted (although denied latter as being primary KPI).

 

[seruriermarshal]

Scaled Composites Model 400 Swift

 

[flateric]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1298758460100706304

View: https://twitter.com/i/status/1298758460100706304

 

[flateric]

Scaled Composites on Instagram: "Happy sixth birthday to our high-speed jet demonstrator, the Model 400 Swift! Swift first flew on August 26, 2016. #FlashbackFriday #FBF #gottagofast"

Scaled Composites shared a post on Instagram: "Happy sixth birthday to our high-speed jet demonstrator, the Model 400 Swift! Swift first flew on August 26, 2016. #FlashbackFriday #FBF #gottagofast". Follow their account to see 342 posts.

www.instagram.com

 

[flateric]

...

 

[MATF]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1593771715212951552

View: https://twitter.com/i/status/1593771715212951552

 

[flateric]

...

 

[H_K]

Very little is known about this aircraft so I went digging in the FAA registration documents and found a 3 view, a weight breakdown and a summary description... hope people find this interesting.

Aircraft Builder: Scaled Composites, LLC
Model Number: 400
Model Name: TX Trainer -"Swift"
Registration: N400NT
Type: Two place, turbine, landplane
Serial Number: 001
Powerplant: GE-404-102D
Wing Span: 37 ft 30ft 7in ??
Wing Area: 253 square feet

WEIGHTS
11,077 lbs empty
11,477 lbs Zero fuel weight (with 2x pax)
12,042 lbs Landing weight (with 565lbs fuel)
15,152 lbs Takeoff weight (with 3,675lbs fuel)

Comment #1: Weirdly the wing span appears to be an obvious typo (!)... much too big for this aircraft. Initially I thought the wing span might be 27ft instead of 37ft, as the T-38 is 25ft 3in (170 sq ft wing area) and the F-20 Tigershark is ~26ft (184 sq ft wing area), but that wouldn't tie with the stated 253 sq ft wing area. As it turns out, I get exactly 253 sq ft wing when I set the wing span to 30ft 7in... which seems like a strange error but not impossible if spelling it out aloud ("wing span thirty seven... thirty feet 7 inches not thirty seven feet duh!!").

Comment #2: This makes the Model 400 Swift much larger than I expected... I'll post a comparison to the T-38 Talon and F-20 Tigershark next to illustrate. Can anyone confirm these dimensions?

Comment #3: That said the 3 view is rather rough and clearly not entirely accurate (blunt nose, no LERX, wing thickness, no rounded wingtips etc), so hard to know how accurate Scaled’s FAA filing was!

@overscan (PaulMM) & mods, maybe we should move this thread to the Postwar Aircraft projects space?

 

[TinWing]

A tremendous find. The 3-view supplied to the FAA looks like an earlier iteration with a smaller vertical tail and lacking the hard chine and intake arrangement of the actual flying demonstrator. The wing planform looks about right, as does the aft fuselage. An interesting comparison with side profile that’s been around for years. https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/t-x-trainer-boeing-t-7a-red-hawk.13751/post-300387

 

[flateric]

https://www.jetphotos.com/photo/11231434

(c) Lucas Masaro

 

[sienar]

Fuselage comparison;

Drawing of the Su-25 ROAR on the lower left of pic 3. I think that makes 2 now known.

 

[djfawcett]

A tremendous fine. The 3-view supplied to the FAA looks like an earlier iteration with a smaller vertical tail and lacking the hard chine and intake arrangement of the actual flying demonstrator. The wing planform looks about right, as does the aft fuselage. An interesting comparison with side profile that’s been around for years. https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/t-x-trainer-boeing-t-7a-red-hawk.13751/post-300387

The wing planform is wayyyy off. It is right for an F-5 but not the 400, which has an aft swept (slightly) trailing edge.

 

[TomcatViP]

@djfawcett : Could you provide a view where this is apparent?

(we also have a picture of the wing structure in this thread that gives a good idea of its trailing edge geometry)

 

[flateric]

(we also have a picture of the wing structure in this thread that gives a good idea of its trailing edge geometry)

Just to make things more apparent

 

[H_K]

This makes the Model 400 Swift much larger than I expected... I'll post a comparison to the T-38 Talon and F-20 Tigershark next to illustrate.

Here's a size comparison of the Model 400 Swift vs. the T-38 and F-5H (F-20 Tigershark two seater).

This assumes Scaled Composite’s 3-view and 253 sq ft wing area are roughly correct (i.e. 30ft 7in wing span)... if anyone has more info on dimensions it would be helpful.

If true, the Swift was significantly larger than the T-38 and very close to the Tigershark in size (despite not having an afterburning F404 engine)... I find that hard to believe.

 

[TomcatViP]

It looks bigger definitively.

Regarding the choice of engine, it´s only a 500mph airplane, as alleged by the brochure. That´s only 10% above the speed of an M345

Remember that the emphasis of T-X was to shorten the dead time in the syllabus with flight time to and from the training airspace, as following a hard maneuver (time to climb to regain the altitude lost). Climbing fast, recovering quickly and being able to do hard G level (instead of nose down) is the path Boeing and Northrop choose to take. Boeing did add an afterburner to get a faster plane. NG did add extra wing surface to cut the afterburner while increasing the climb rate.

 

[djfawcett]

@djfawcett : Could you provide a view where this is apparent?

(we also have a picture of the wing structure in this thread that gives a good idea of its trailing edge geometry)

Hi Tomcat, I do not have a picture to show. But I have been next to the aircraft close and personal. The trailing edge is definitely aft swept, probably somewhere between 5 and 10 deg. The structures pic is a good indicator. As for the later size comparison above, I saw the 400 next to a T-38. The 400 is not as big.

 

[NMaude]

Did Northrop-Grumman make one or two prototypes?

 

[djfawcett]

Did Northrop-Grumman make one or two prototypes?

To the best of my knowledge, one.

 

[NMaude]

To the best of my knowledge, one.

Okay. Now if NG isn't doing anything with the prototype and it hasn't ended up in a museum perhaps they could give it to NASA, I'm sure NASA would have a use for it.

 

[H_K]

Now if NG isn't doing anything with the prototype and it hasn't ended up in a museum perhaps they could give it to NASA

Scaled Composites own the prototype, not NG. It’s going to go on static display at the entrance of Mojave Air & Space Port soon… not sure exactly when though.

There’s also a Saab Draken and a few other interesting types on display apparently… not sure if anyone here has ever visited?

Mojave Air and Space Port works to spotlight history

MOJAVE — The Mojave Air and Space Port at Rutan Field is looking at ways to celebrate and share its history with the public.

www.avpress.com