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

Sundog said:
You actually don't know that that would have been the only problem the T-50 would have had, because the version the USAF was getting was quite a bit different from what is flying now. Many of the systems were different, the cockpit was different, etc. The T-50 that is flying now is only a shell of what the USAF would have been getting.
Click to expand...
Yes, it's possible that a teething issue could've arrised concerning new avionics, but slim chance it would've been anywhere as serious as fundamental airvehicle problems the T-7A has right now. You're underestimating the advantage of a proven pre-existing platform and are overly exaggerating the difference between the T-50 and the T-50A and the possible developmental issues.

If anything, most of those new training and cockpit avionics and systems unique to APT, which would've also been required for the T-50A, are not the main issues with T-7A right now in the first place. Bar the ACES, we're talking about components and systems that in case for the T-50A, would've been shared with other T-50 variants and have been working just fine.

TomcatViP said:
The T-50 would have certainly faced the same problem adapting its ejection system for the lower end of pilot size and weight.
I don't understand why it's so hard for some to get that the requirements for pilots morphology are new. It's even probable that all aircraft will face the same problems: F-35, F-16, 15, 22, B-21 or even NGAD.
Click to expand...
Calling it the "same problem" is just very misleading. Like I and others have said, the T-50A would not have had the canopy fracturing system related problems at all in the first place. For the T-50A the only problem would've been for Raytheon to sort their issues out with ACES whereas with T-7A, even if there wasn't any problem with the ejection seat itself, they would still need to get the fracturing system work safely before any kind of EMD flight test would get underway.
 
Last edited:
Why would fracturation system not have been a problem?

See how even Borame is subject to similar concerns:
www.flightglobal.com

KF-21 ejection seat works with pilots of all sizes, says Martin-Baker

Martin-Baker is showing the KR18A ejection seat it developed for the Korea Aerospace Industries KF-21 Boramae fighter, which is poised to make its maiden flight.
www.flightglobal.com www.flightglobal.com
 
TomcatViP said:
Why would fracturation system not have been a problem?

See how even Borame is subject to similar concerns:
www.flightglobal.com

KF-21 ejection seat works with pilots of all sizes, says Martin-Baker

Martin-Baker is showing the KR18A ejection seat it developed for the Korea Aerospace Industries KF-21 Boramae fighter, which is poised to make its maiden flight.
www.flightglobal.com www.flightglobal.com
Click to expand...
No it doesn't...? If you're going to link an article, I hope you actually read what's written before citing it. It doesn't mention any kind of a "concern" regarding canopy system but only the fact that "Martin-Baker also provides the KF-21’s canopy ejection system.". Please go read the GAO report first before making any unsubstantiated replies. It's clear as a daylight why the T-50A would not have had significant portion of the problems the T-7A is having with its escape system (i.e. blast overpressure induced concussion and canopy fragment interference) since it uses a canopy ejection system rather than fracturing system.
 
Last edited:
I think you have a point here (chomping my hat)

I made the mistake accepting w/o any back checking that the double seater canopy was not ejectable.
 
Last edited:
Does anyone have details on the GR 7000 round parachute packed into the ACES 5 ejection seat?
Please remember that the request is coming from an FAA Master Parachute Rigger who has dozens of jumps with C8, C9 and T10 canopies and has packed hundreds of C9s into pilot emergency parachutes containers made by: Butler, Irvin, Para-Phernalia, Pioneer, Security, Strong, etc.
 
NMaude said:
Aren't first two airframes prototypes?
Click to expand...
Multiple EMD airframes are produced to test different facets of an aircraft required performance and durability benchmarks. One may be specifically for wing loading, one may be specifically for extreme environmental, testing, etc..
 
NMaude said:
Aren't first two airframes prototypes?
Click to expand...

Yes. I was going to say that they got civil reg numbers (N381TX and N382TX) but there are also pics of them with USAF codes as well.
 

Attachments

  • Final_T7A_TwoJetsOverClouds_New_Livery_Large_res.jpg
    Final_T7A_TwoJetsOverClouds_New_Livery_Large_res.jpg
    62.1 KB · Views: 195
eagle said:
That is a poor photoshop.
I couldn't find any photos of the two company jets with USAF serials.
The 5 EMD aircraft are 21-7001 to 7005.
Click to expand...

I wondered. Thanks for the correction.
 
Helix88 said:
NMaude said:
Aren't first two airframes prototypes?
Click to expand...
Multiple EMD airframes are produced to test different facets of an aircraft required performance and durability benchmarks. One may be specifically for wing loading, one may be specifically for extreme environmental, testing, etc..
Click to expand...

Of the five EMD aircraft funded for the program, I believe four are going to be supporting flight testing.7002 to 7005. I think there are pictures of a couple of others but I don't think they've rolled out all five. All have been built already and I believe Boeing has started production of aircraft beyond EMD.

Edit: Actually all five are flight test aircraft. There's a sixth static test article that Boeing has also shown so they've built six aircraft already to round off EMD production and are now doing LRIP with the possibility of having as many as 10 LRIP aircraft completed by the time they get LRIP-1 production contract in early 2025. The Static test aircraft has actually been in testing since March 22 of last year.
 
Last edited:
This is a very competitive market segment with a few highly capable offerings. T-X is different from others here in that it has 100% of its domestic production of more than 350 aircraft ahead of it. Not to mention the high likelihood of it being chosen as a platform for other mission areas in the future. Wouldn't be far fetched to think of a domestic market of 500 or more T-7A derivatives and at least a two decade production run. They've also facilitized to 60 aircraft per year production rate so would begin to get competitive in terms of cost and delivery schedules towards the tail end of this decade as they move out of LRIP.
 
May I remind our overly enthusiastic members that M346 wasn't able to reach key parameters and was discarded for those specific reasons. Hence, the odds to have it replace an hypothetical failed Boeing T-7 are... Null.
 
Last edited:
Good Day All!

I was up at Lambert for the T-7A first flight today. Those pesky Canadians exported a lot of wildfire smoke and with a mid to high overcast, the morning launch was pretty gray. The T-7A and TA-4 Skyhawk chase were out about an hour and shot one missed approach - or is it a touch and go?! :) - and then came back around and finished the flight. A few pics for your persual....

Enjoy the Day! Mark
 

Attachments

  • zMG_8849.jpg
    zMG_8849.jpg
    636.7 KB · Views: 122
  • zMG_8835.jpg
    zMG_8835.jpg
    277.7 KB · Views: 115
  • zMG_8813.jpg
    zMG_8813.jpg
    375.8 KB · Views: 116
  • zMG_8800.jpg
    zMG_8800.jpg
    395.5 KB · Views: 115
  • zMG_8797.jpg
    zMG_8797.jpg
    296 KB · Views: 113
  • zMG_8793.jpg
    zMG_8793.jpg
    429.2 KB · Views: 118
  • zMG_8791.jpg
    zMG_8791.jpg
    473.3 KB · Views: 111
  • zMG_8784.jpg
    zMG_8784.jpg
    351.6 KB · Views: 107
  • zMG_8774.jpg
    zMG_8774.jpg
    467.7 KB · Views: 127
TomcatViP said:
F-7 as a replacement for F-16?

USAF to assess need for ‘post-F-16' affordable mass

The US Air Force (USAF) is to shortly begin assessing its longer-term requirement for an “affordable” aircraft that it can operate in the post-Lockheed Martin F-16...
www.janes.com www.janes.com
Click to expand...

"Affordable mass" is such a nebulous role. The one specific mention they call out (protecting the Super Bowl) is basically a form of air policing, and such a rare mission that frankly we CAN afford to use F-22s for it (or F-35s). It's also strange that the mention of four fighter fleets omits both the F-22 and NGAD entirely.

It's really hard to imagine that there's any room in the USAF budget to develop a new "affordable" fighter in the next few years, alongside NGAD and the various companion UCAVs.
 

Attachments

  • 20231219_110445.jpg
    20231219_110445.jpg
    536.6 KB · Views: 66
www.defensenews.com

Boeing pushes back T-7 plans due to faulty parts

Boeing said the companies that produced the parts with quality problems acted quickly to fix them, and it is moving to finish building the final test jets.
www.defensenews.com www.defensenews.com

I'm being proven right about my point every two months or so ;) Boeing today are bunch of incompetent dimwits taken over by MD corporate masterminds. What a shame how a great company has fallen so much to disgrace. There's no safe space regardless if its the BCA or BDS.

What's worse is T-7A is now inevitable. Without it St. Louis plant is no more, at least in current capacity. DoD were basically forced to choose Boeing, even if they didn't undercut the bid with unreasonable cost estimates.
 
Maro.Kyo said:
Boeing today are bunch of incompetent dimwits taken over by MD corporate masterminds.
Click to expand...

Boeing needs to be purged of the pernicious McDonnell Aircraft Corporation influence and one way to help this purge would be to moves its corporate HQ from Chicago back to Washington state.
 
NMaude said:
Boeing needs to be purged of the pernicious McDonnell Aircraft Corporation influence and one way to help this purge would be to moves its corporate HQ from Chicago back to Washington state.
Click to expand...
Well, they are moving their global HQ Washington (Virginia to be exact, but you know what I mean), just not the Washington state we are hoping for .
 
NMaude said:
Boeing needs to be purged of the pernicious McDonnell Aircraft Corporation influence and one way to help this purge would be to moves its corporate HQ from Chicago back to Washington state.
Click to expand...
- Too late, the metastasis is complete, and most of the the root cause is GE, Jack Welch and his acolytes, not just McDonnell Douglas.
- Boeing is already moving (moved) the Headquarters out of Chicago - to the Crystal City neighborhood of Arlington, Virginia - inside the Washington DC beltway. Draw your own conclusions as to their priorities.
 
Can someone point me to a good (accurate) 3-view drawing of T-7A? I tried my best on Google, but couldn't find anything useful :(

Btw, the specs on Boeing's homepage are rather poor:
Boeing Specs.png
 
Last edited:
Has their been any news about the test program lately? The T-50 seems to be getting a surprising number of orders in its combat capable versions. Maybe such a variant of the T-7 like they've talked about has a chance of some success there if the T-50 doesn't eat up that market first. Considering the proliferation of such aircraft in recent years it seems to me like Northrop had a good idea with the F-20 but just did it a few decades too early.
 
Colonial-Marine said:
Has their been any news about the test program lately? The T-50 seems to be getting a surprising number of orders in its combat capable versions. Maybe such a variant of the T-7 like they've talked about has a chance of some success there if the T-50 doesn't eat up that market first. Considering the proliferation of such aircraft in recent years it seems to me like Northrop had a good idea with the F-20 but just did it a few decades too early.
Click to expand...
See post #1239 on previous page: https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/t-x-trainer-boeing-t-7a-red-hawk.13751/post-653524
 
Scaled Composites, which began at the site in 1982, has offered its Model 400 Swift aircraft for display alongside the NASA CV-990 modified for testing space shuttle tires, a F-4D Phantom fighter and a Saab Draken supersonic jet trainer.
Click to expand...

www.avpress.com

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 www.avpress.com
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom