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

New T-7 arrive at Edward

www.linkedin.com

412th Test Wing, Edwards Air Force Base on LinkedIn: #usaf #afotec #afmc

Safely landed and ready for test! Another Boeing T-7A Red Hawk and a BTX prototype have arrived at Edwards. The aircraft will enhance the ongoing flight test…
www.linkedin.com www.linkedin.com

T-7 No embedded stairs.jpg

But did the Swede did it again?!*
Notice the lack of recessed ladders to deplane, for an aircraft that would spend a significant part of its service life deployed away from the squadron's airfield, forcing the instructor pilot to make his way down to the front cockpit like a rope walker (that looks awfully precarious to do such multiple times a day)?!
See also how the brackets to secure the canopy locked position will invariably be damaged/bent by pilots using them to secure their footing.

Notice also the spin chute on the BTX.

EDIT:
Adding two pictures below that display where recessed ladders could be positioned but hold apparently none:

70627_t7a_gallery_new3_960x600_232919.jpg

Boeing-T-7A-assembly-800x534.jpg


*It was the same mistake that came originally with the Gripen. (You can trace back my comment at the time via google).
 
Last edited:
t-7a-red-hawk-and-btx-1-prototype-aircraft-arrived-at-v0-cam6ilg39akd1.jpeg


www.dvidshub.net

VIDEO: Additional T-7A and BTX-1 Aircraft Arrive at Edwards AFB

An additional T-7A Red Hawk and BTX-1 prototype aircraft arrived at Edwards AFB on August 21, 2024, to enhance the overall T-7A flight test program. 416th FLTS Commander Lt Col. Charles Brantigan and T-7A Integrated Test Force Director Lt Col. Jonathan Aronoff accompanied Boeing test pilots in...
www.dvidshub.net www.dvidshub.net
 
@TomS ; I posted those two images because both planes are at here at the same distance relatively to the static camera but at half the a/c length from each others (the closest I could get). If we look only at the V-tail, the T-7 one are definitively higher than those on the BTX.
 
TomcatViP said:
@TomS ; I posted those two images because both planes are at here at the same distance relatively to the static camera but at half the a/c length from each others (the closest I could get). If we look only at the V-tail, the T-7 one are definitively higher than those on the BTX.
Click to expand...
Look at the ground markings. The "smaller" plane is in the middle of the Y lines, the nosewheel of the "larger" is the the merge of the Y lines to the taxiway centerline. That's a good 100-200ft closer!
 
@Scott Kenny : if you look at the taxiway markings, you can better estimate distances with the path line junction at the center of both images. It is undoubtedly that both planes are not 100ft apart. Look at the BTX front shadow and that of the rear extreme of the T-7 one.
Then watch the video to estimate grossly their speed and see if 100ft could have been covered b/w the two screenshots.
 
Last edited:
TomcatViP said:
But did the Swede did it again?!*
Notice the lack of recessed ladders to deplane, for an aircraft that would spend a significant part of its service life deployed away from the squadron's airfield, forcing the instructor pilot to make his way down to the front cockpit like a rope walker (that looks awfully precarious to do such multiple times a day)?!
Click to expand...

Probably safe to say it doesn't have an integrated ladder because the USAF didn't require one. If they wanted one, T-7 would have one.
Also, I would think as a trainer the aircraft will spend most of their life at the same airfield. Where would they deploy to? The ladder they used at Edwards doesn't look like a T-7 specific piece, so if the crew have to egress at another airfield, any ladder lying around could be used.
 
eagle said:
Probably safe to say it doesn't have an integrated ladder because the USAF didn't require one.
Click to expand...
Both the USAF and the Royal Swedish Air Force have always had to deal with a fearsome enemy, the beancounters! Their 'logic' often defies the very concept of sanity, much less operational realities (not to mention the lives that depend on little things like mission critical systems).
 
eagle said:
Probably safe to say it doesn't have an integrated ladder because the USAF didn't require one. If they wanted one, T-7 would have one.
Also, I would think as a trainer the aircraft will spend most of their life at the same airfield. Where would they deploy to? The ladder they used at Edwards doesn't look like a T-7 specific piece, so if the crew have to egress at another airfield, any ladder lying around could be used.
Click to expand...
Same reason it has a manual canopy.
 
Does anyone know when -7001 and 7003 first flew? Or what has become of -7004 and -7005 - which were to have been at Edwards by now?
 
Last edited:
It seems contrary to any logics that what is the very essence of a Naval pilot isn´t anymore properly present in their syllabus. What could go wrong will go wrong. And worst at war.

Rationally, the cost approach does not make sense, 1st, see the above argument. Second if deleting the tailhook is there to allow trainee to use a lighter/cheaper trainer aircraft... Why not having 2 different models? Carrier qualifications are done near Naval bases for safety reasons, in case you have to divert for example. You can have based there your beefed up birds and just buy a regular USAF version for flight training, making sure it can land without flaring etc... The economy of scale would be favorable with the offset of the full syllabus flight hours per trainee on the land only version (less flight hours logged - And a relatively small fleet of carrier capable airframe shared among many squadrons running deck qualifications exercises).

Rationally, I don´t see what would be the real advantages of deleting the hook. Loosing pilots in hanger, because of mission stress or accident in the landing pattern following battle damage would be immensely more costly. IMOHO, I would even say, impounding a cost so heavy to seriously compromise USN success.

What the proponents are offering here is only akin to trading a bicycle (the said so expensive trainer) for a sport car (the X*100M$ fighter jet).
 
Last edited:
TomcatViP said:
Rationally, I don´t see what would be the real advantages of deleting the hook. Loosing pilots in hanger, because of mission stress or accident in the landing pattern following battle damage would be immensely more costly. IMOHO, I would even say, impounding a cost so heavy to seriously compromise USN success.
Click to expand...

Eliminating the arrestor-hook seems to be a classic example of bean-counters engaging in short-sighted penny-pinching, hopefully this decision will be reversed in the near future.
 
Last edited:
TomcatViP said:
It seems contrary to any logics that what is the very essence of a Naval pilot isn´t anymore properly present in their syllabus. What could go wrong will go wrong. And worst at war.
Click to expand...
Before getting all worked up why don't you read up about Magic Carpet (otherwise known as precision landing mode (PLM)) and see what it actually offers pilots.
TomcatViP said:
Rationally, the cost approach does not make sense, 1st, see the above argument. Second if deleting the tailhook is there to allow trainee to use a lighter/cheaper trainer aircraft... Why not having 2 different models? Carrier qualifications are done near Naval bases for safety reasons, in case you have to divert for example. You can have based there your beefed up birds and just buy a regular USAF version for flight training, making sure it can land without flaring etc... The economy of scale would be favorable with the offset of the full syllabus flight hours per trainee on the land only version (less flight hours logged - And a relatively small fleet of carrier capable airframe shared among many squadrons running deck qualifications exercises).
Click to expand...
Having two different aircraft variants, one of which is more expensive and only there for a supposed minor part of the curriculum is ridiculous and would be costly. If you are really wanting the pilots to 'manually fly' this part of the curriculum, use a modern simulator.
TomcatViP said:
Rationally, I don´t see what would be the real advantages of deleting the hook. Loosing pilots in hanger, because of mission stress or accident in the landing pattern following battle damage would be immensely more costly. IMOHO, I would even say, impounding a cost so heavy to seriously compromise USN success.
Click to expand...
There are savings in both cost and time which translates into more effective use of budget and ability to generate trained pilots. there is no compromise.
 
NMaude said:
Eliminating the arrestor-hook seems to be a classic example of bean-counters engaging in short-sighted penny-pinching, hopefully this decision will be reversed in the near future.
Click to expand...
It's not short sighted. It is smart use of budget and is based upon the real world.
 
At one point, the plan was to field a new advanced trainer to conserve actual flight hours on the Goshawks for carrier landing training. Has that gone out the window in the new solicitation?
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom