T-X Trainer - Boeing T-7A Red Hawk

[NeilChapman]

The shape you can see in the video

That's interesting. Why would you build a twin engine jet when operational costs are such an important part of the equation?

 

[kagemusha]

Is this related to the topic?

http://registry.faa.gov/aircraftinquiry/NNum_Results.aspx?NNumbertxt=381TX

 

[bring_it_on]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S-2VEQJEK9A

 

[TomS]

Is this related to the topic?

http://registry.faa.gov/aircraftinquiry/NNum_Results.aspx?NNumbertxt=381TX

Very likely. A total of seven registries for this type exist.

http://www.regosearch.com/aircraft/regos/us/BOEING%20CO%20THE/BTX-1

Judging by the numbering sequences, I guess that there will be two prototypes and then five more EMD aircraft if they win the competition.

 

[TomS]

Anyone know when the rollout is supposed to happen? All I've seen is "this morning" from a ST Louis news station.

 

[fightingirish]

The big reveal is at 10 a.m. Central Standard Time on Tuesday at Boeing's on Airport Road.

Source: http://fox2now.com/2016/09/13/boeing-to-unveil-new-t-x-trainer-in-st-louis/
So in two hours or so.

 

[bring_it_on]

Just about half an hour. Hopefully Boeing will tweet out a livestream link.

 

[bring_it_on]

ColinClark

 

[TomS]

Single-tail fin, everyone said. Whoops.

Edit: As someone noted on Twitter, looks a bit like a twin-tailed Alpha Jet. Very small overall, compared to the T-50, for instance. Big horizontal stabilizers, maybe?

 

[gTg]

Anything about the engine(s), 1 or 2?
Looking at the fin spacing it seems like there is space for 2.

 

[Moose]

Anything about the engine(s), 1 or 2?
Looking at the fin spacing it seems like they went for 2.

Just one, @leighgiangreco is posting clips from their stage.

 

[gTg]

Thanks Moose. So 1 big engine, looks like it is afterburning in the vids.
Nice looking aircraft!

 

[totoro]

She also quoted Boeing "twin tails give better maneouverability". Of course they do. But usually the weight penalty outweighs this. Perhaps novel structure/manufacture managed to mitigate that?

 

[bring_it_on]

 

[Moose]

She also quoted Boeing "twin tails give better maneouverability". Of course they do. But usually the weight penalty outweighs this. Perhaps novel structure/manufacture managed to mitigate that?

Worth considering: Raptor and L2 both have twin tails, familiarity with their characteristics would be an asset in training.

 

[totoro]

 

[TomS]

So, the plan view that everyone swore was accurate, isn't even close.

 

[bring_it_on]

 

[TomS]

Can anyone ID the engine from the shaped of the tail petals. Looks like an F404 to me, but I'm not sure.

 

[XP67_Moonbat]

I'm fashionably late again, it seems. It's okay, I brought beer!

 

[Moose]

Can anyone ID the engine from the shaped of the tail petals. Looks like an F404 to me, but I'm not sure.

F404 according to Leigh

 

[TomS]

Yep, thought so. The square notch in the exhaust petals is fairly distinctive.

 

[fightingirish]

The front part and especially the canopy reminds me of F-104 Starfighter.

 

[yasotay]

So, the plan view that everyone swore was accurate, isn't even close.

Silly rabbit!

But if a 104 (Cougar) and an F/A-18...

 

[totoro]

Speculation time: Why did Boeing/SAAB go with afterburning engine, since requirements don't mention it nor do they award any excess performance in transsonic and supersonic regime?

A) Boeing suspects requirements will change.

B) Boeing already plans to offer the design independently of their performance in T-X competition, and perhaps plans to offer it worldwide as a cheap combat plane option to poor countries.

 

[TomS]

So, the plan view that everyone swore was accurate, isn't even close.

Silly rabbit!

But if a 104 (Cougar) and an F/A-18...

Hey, I knew the various images didn't match up.

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,13751.msg288454.html#msg288454

And I'm frankly not seeing the F-104 resemblance. Pointy bit goes up front is about as far as it goes, IMO.

 

[sferrin]

Speculation time: Why did Boeing/SAAB go with afterburning engine, since requirements don't mention it nor do they award any excess performance in transsonic and supersonic regime?

A) Boeing suspects requirements will change.

B) Boeing already plans to offer the design independently of their performance in T-X competition, and perhaps plans to offer it worldwide as a cheap combat plane option to poor countries.

Maybe they feel LM is the frontrunner and it's got one so. . . ???

 

[Boxman]

Looks like (closely coupled) F-16 landing gear, as well.

I don't know if that is simply an off-the-shelf expediency for the demonstrator, or intended for what would be the production version. Presumably that gear is significantly stronger than required and would present a weight penalty given the lighter weight of the T-X vs. the F-16. However, in terms of production, spares, costs, and care, you can understand using it for the T-X airframe.

 

[Moose]

Speculation time: Why did Boeing/SAAB go with afterburning engine, since requirements don't mention it nor do they award any excess performance in transsonic and supersonic regime?

A) Boeing suspects requirements will change.

B) Boeing already plans to offer the design independently of their performance in T-X competition, and perhaps plans to offer it worldwide as a cheap combat plane option to poor countries.

Could be a lot of SAAB influence on the decision to use F404, known quantity and applications beyond T-X and all that. Also opens up an "easy" upgrade/evolution path in the F414 family. But yes, given that the promotional material made a lot of driving recurring costs down, use of an afterburning service-spec engine is interesting.

 

[AeroFranz]

Obviously not a very technical observation, and not a determining factor per se, but it IS a nice looking aircraft - better than most competitors.
Some twitter feed seemed to indicate that the second airframe is in assembly. I guess if you wanted to make a point about your commitment and the advantages of your 'Black Diamond' technology (whatever that is), that would be one way to do it.

[edit]: i also wonder which team had the most influence on the overall aero/configuration, SAAB or Boeing/St.Louis.
You could look at this high-winged, armpit intake, lerxed, twin tailed aircraft as a mini-F-18 (albeit single engine). Just a thought.

 

[Dynoman]

Roll out Boeing Saab TX

 

[Boxman]

Video just posted by Boeing at their YouTube page:
Boeing T-X Sees the Light
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OO8R8Z8Jxro

 

[TomS]

Interesting that it had a test pitot before the rolled in into the paint shop. Wind tunnel testing?

 

[SteveO]

Yay, something new. I like new stuff

 

[Moose]

I'm wondering why they blurred the canopy area in that video. Pilot ID? cockpit displays? Non-final components they didn't want people to see?

 

[TomS]

Ejection seat details, I think. They're covered up in the rollout.

 

[Moose]

Ejection seat details, I think. They're covered up in the rollout.

I think you're right, I even noted the covered seats to myself on twitter then promptly forgot.

 

[marauder2048]

[edit]: i also wonder which team had the most influence on the overall aero/configuration, SAAB or Boeing/St.Louis.
You could look at this high-winged, armpit intake, lerxed, twin tailed aircraft as a mini-F-18 (albeit single engine). Just a thought.

I think Wichita and St. Louis are closer to each other than SAAB is to either.

 

[Trident]

You could look at this high-winged, armpit intake, lerxed, twin tailed aircraft as a mini-F-18 (albeit single engine). Just a thought.

My thoughts exactly - the horizontal stabilizer has a particularly Hornet-like look.

 

[TomS]

Looks like (closely coupled) F-16 landing gear, as well.

Air Force magazine confirms the MLG and nose gear are both from the F-16. I'm surprised, given that those parts are not going to be sitting in a Boeing parts bin, but I guess Boeing can buy direct from LM's supplier.

Also some internal parts from Gripen, apparently.