T-X Thread

sferrin · by **sferrin** » 01 Oct 2018, 01:16

marsavian wrote:With its very high thrust to weight ratio it would be quite an energy handful in close maneuvering, perhaps they can add a few to the aggressor squadrons to supplement the F-16s.

The T-50 would have likely been a better choice for that.

weasel1962 · by **weasel1962** » 01 Oct 2018, 01:27

Boeing's offering came in under $20m per unit vs $25m for the T-50. x 350 units = an extra sqn of F-35s.

marsavian · by **marsavian** » 01 Oct 2018, 01:37

sferrin wrote:
marsavian wrote:With its very high thrust to weight ratio it would be quite an energy handful in close maneuvering, perhaps they can add a few to the aggressor squadrons to supplement the F-16s.

The T-50 would have likely been a better choice for that.

That's literally twice the weight on the same engine. The T-X will have a dry thrust/weight ratio of around unity even when fully tanked up. For BFM DACT it will be some opponent and provide good exercise for all. Good choice for a pure trainer.

p.s. the twin tails will also provide good AoA performance according to the manufacturers which is relevant to future F-35 users.

geforcerfx · by **geforcerfx** » 01 Oct 2018, 17:17

Someone listed some specs from militaryfactory.com, If these are true the T/W ration on this jet will be insane.

Empty weight: 7,165lbs
Max TOW: 12,125lbs

Dry: 11,000lbf
Wet: 17,700lbf

T/W Dry: .91
T/W Wet: 1.46

Even if the empty weight turns out a lot higher in the 11,000-12,000 lb range the aircraft could still easily have a 1 T/W ratio.

sferrin · by **sferrin** » 01 Oct 2018, 17:26

Yeah, not sure about those weights. If true then yeah, it should fly rings around a T-50 (assuming the structure and aerodynamics are up to the task). It's listed top speed is significantly less than the T-50 however.

weasel1962 · by **weasel1962** » 02 Oct 2018, 07:55

Reminds me of when Singapore retrofitted the F404-GE-100D into the TA-4s back in the 80s. The airframe literally cracked at supersonic. Its a credit to GE and the F404 design that it will continue on decades later.

Corsair1963 · by **Corsair1963** » 02 Oct 2018, 07:58

Sounds like a good trainer for the F-35 to me.... :wink:

litzj · by **litzj** » 02 Oct 2018, 13:19

https://jaesan-aero.blogspot.com/2018/1 ... g-t-x.html

I have made some pictures for T-X

marsavian · by **marsavian** » 02 Oct 2018, 13:33

This has the potential to be developed into the new F-5E but the trick would be to still keep the cost under say $40m so its cost would still be its most attractive feature. Obviously would need an AESA, ECM, internal gun, external missiles maybe an IRST from Saab too but any additional weight could be alleviated by putting in the 13,000/22,000lb F414. This airframe/engine combination has future potential in that regard which Boeing/Saab will no doubt not be slow to exploit once trainer sales are well under way.

weasel1962 · by **weasel1962** » 03 Oct 2018, 00:41

With twin vert stablizers, would the new trainer have more similar flight performance akin to the F-35/F-22 than the standard trainers? At least the pilot trainee would be able to experience the control differences rather than this being theoretically explained.

litzj · by **litzj** » 03 Oct 2018, 00:58

weasel1962 wrote:With twin vert stablizers, would the new trainer have more similar flight performance akin to the F-35/F-22 than the standard trainers? At least the pilot trainee would be able to experience the control differences rather than this being theoretically explained.

Except high AoA range, flight characteristics with FBW is almost same among different jets.

At high AoA, Boeing's design seems like having characteristics that of F/A-18E or F-35; characteristics of F-22 with TVC cannot be repeated because of lack of TVC. However, there is no Air-force trainer having expensive TVC for just one-reason.

zero-one · by **zero-one** » 03 Oct 2018, 09:47

Could it be another case of giving what the AF wants and not just what they need (ATF program)
Far as I know, the only major maneuvering consideration was sustained 6.5 to 7.5G turns. High AOA may have been a little extra Boeing decided to add

marsavian · by **marsavian** » 03 Oct 2018, 11:19

Could it be another case of giving what the AF wants and not just what they need (ATF program)

Helped but the fixed priced deal clinched it too. Looks like a single engine cross between a Hornet and a Fulcrum

.

madrat · by **madrat** » 03 Oct 2018, 12:54

Fulcrum? Not even remotely similar in its detail. More like a miniaturization of a cross between F-16 and Super Hornet. The really cool design feature is using McDonnell engineering to go twin verts rather than one proportionately extra tall vert like in the T-50. This is a much easier on the eye design. Those extra tall single vertical tails in the T-50 allow it to do high angle of attack maneuvers. But so does this twin design. The single is slightly more efficient weight-wise, but otherwise offers very little difference other than standing out as big and ugly.

sferrin · by **sferrin** » 03 Oct 2018, 12:57

madrat wrote:Fulcrum? Not even remotely similar in its detail. More like a miniaturization of a cross between F-16 and Super Hornet. The really cool design feature is using McDonnell engineering to go twin verts rather than one proportionately extra tall vert like in the T-50. This is a much easier on the eye design. Those extra tall single vertical tails in the T-50 allow it to do high angle of attack maneuvers. But so does this twin design. The single is slightly more efficient weight-wise, but otherwise offers very little difference other than standing out as big and ugly.

The YF-22 was a horror from the side. (God only knows how big it would have been had they gone with a single tail.) Giant tail on the Tornado doesn't look too bad.