T-X Thread

mixelflick · by **mixelflick** » 14 Sep 2016, 21:01

smsgtmac wrote:Boeing lifted the skirt today. Pretty plane, nice lines, and an interesting planform, but I have to wonder about the words I was hearing out of the spokespeople's mouths about being designed to the 'thresholds' and cost. They are either going the low cost approach 'for the win', or they are sandbagging.
http://www.boeing.com/features/2016/09/ ... 09-16.page
tx_rollout_630x354.jpg

..and I can't believe you guys weren't all over it when it happened

Great looking plane (and I generally gloss over trainers, lol). You know though, the way things are going - shouldn't the winning design have some (even a rudimentary air to air/ground) combat capability?

SpudmanWP · by **SpudmanWP** » 14 Sep 2016, 21:03

The Boeing plane has accommodations for two hardpoints per wing.

rheonomic · by **rheonomic** » 14 Sep 2016, 21:23

T-X should have weapons only if it's in the requirements. Design so that it's easy to add (e.g. think about where stores will go, use an open systems architecture), but if the requirements don't list A2A/A2G capability then it's gold-plating and will only add to cost and schedule.

count_to_10 · by **count_to_10** » 14 Sep 2016, 22:08

KamenRiderBlade wrote:http://www.defensenews.com/articles/tx-trainer-northrop-grumman-boeing-saab

Northrop's offering really does look like the old F-20 Tigershark

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_F-20_Tigershark

It does, but it also has chines around the cockpit, normally a stealth feature (while still having a single vertical stabilizer, which is not). I wonder if it has to do with handling. The way that the chines have a lower angle of attack than the wings would contribute to aerodynamic instability.

linkomart · by **linkomart** » 15 Sep 2016, 10:50

count_to_10 wrote:
KamenRiderBlade wrote:http://www.defensenews.com/articles/tx-trainer-northrop-grumman-boeing-saab

Northrop's offering really does look like the old F-20 Tigershark

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_F-20_Tigershark

It does, but it also has chines around the cockpit, normally a stealth feature (while still having a single vertical stabilizer, which is not). I wonder if it has to do with handling. The way that the chines have a lower angle of attack than the wings would contribute to aerodynamic instability.

I'd say its just paintwork, not a chine.

regards

durahawk · by **durahawk** » 15 Sep 2016, 17:43

madrat wrote:Boeing once again demonstrated they have a massive PR department. Northrop Grumman will probably lose due to not marketing well. Lockheed Martin will - like Raytheon - suffer from NIMBY. And Textron has the g** awful straight wing.

Boeing has the best looking airframe at this point. It's hard to hate Raytheon's T-100 design. And Lockheed Martin certainly is no slouch in providing a functional product. Even though I think the engine and tail layout of the Textron is the best, it just doesn't have the big picture solved. And even though I adore Northrop Grumman's front section, long sleek and slender lines, long tradition with this weight class and the USAF syllabus, and rugged looking design, I'm thinking they only have a slight chance to win.

It's easy for me to, it's a YAK! Genuine Ruskie airplane in Italian leather.

BTW, Textron dropped the Scorpion out of T-X awhile back when the expanded the maneuverability requirements.

With regards to Boeing's entry, I see lot's of Hornet DNA there, almost like it's an airplane designed to keep St Louis in business. Definitely a good looking airplane though.

Interesting to note that three of four entrants are F404 powered, so either way GE Aviation will be playing a stacked deck for this contract. Lot of happy folks up in Lynn.

count_to_10 · by **count_to_10** » 15 Sep 2016, 21:45

linkomart wrote:
count_to_10 wrote:
KamenRiderBlade wrote:http://www.defensenews.com/articles/tx-trainer-northrop-grumman-boeing-saab

Northrop's offering really does look like the old F-20 Tigershark

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_F-20_Tigershark

It does, but it also has chines around the cockpit, normally a stealth feature (while still having a single vertical stabilizer, which is not). I wonder if it has to do with handling. The way that the chines have a lower angle of attack than the wings would contribute to aerodynamic instability.

I'd say its just paintwork, not a chine.

regards

?
Looks like a chine to me.

madrat · by **madrat** » 16 Sep 2016, 00:44

Looks like a lip, possibly a joint

popcorn · by **popcorn** » 16 Sep 2016, 01:01

Not easy visualizing the shape of it's wing. Also that flat section of the bottom fuselage in between the wing and the horizontal tail.

count_to_10 · by **count_to_10** » 17 Sep 2016, 00:58

madrat wrote:Looks like a lip, possibly a joint

popcorn wrote:Not easy visualizing the shape of it's wing. Also that flat section of the bottom fuselage in between the wing and the horizontal tail.

I was talking about the line of shadow that runs from the top of the intake to the tip of the nose. To me, that looks like a chine, much the same as the F-22 and F-35 have.

popcorn · by **popcorn** » 17 Sep 2016, 01:10

count_to_10 wrote:I was talking about the line of shadow that runs from the top of the intake to the tip of the nose. To me, that looks like a chine, much the same as the F-22 and F-35 have.

I was interested in the wing shape, not that line on the forward fuselage.

rheonomic · by **rheonomic** » 17 Sep 2016, 01:33

popcorn wrote:I was interested in the wing shape, not that line on the forward fuselage.

Hard to tell with the angle, but it almost looks like a T-38 wing with a LERX.

sferrin · by **sferrin** » 17 Sep 2016, 02:28

rheonomic wrote:
popcorn wrote:I was interested in the wing shape, not that line on the forward fuselage.

Hard to tell with the angle, but it almost looks like a T-38 wing with a LERX.

The F-5E/F had that:

rheonomic · by **rheonomic** » 17 Sep 2016, 04:14

sferrin wrote:The F-5E/F had that:

As well as F-20. My impression of the NG a/c is a lot of F-20 heritage, with design changes by Scaled to meet the T-X reqmts (e.g. the godawful VT for more directional stability at high alpha) and to reduce production and operation costs.

It'll be interesting to see how much h/w from F-20 they reused. Wouldn't be surprised if they reused gear and actuators at the least.

smsgtmac · by **smsgtmac** » 17 Sep 2016, 05:41

I thought the NG landing gear looked like F-5 (vs. T-38) gear as well. I'm becoming more interested in this as a candidate for a couple of reasons.
Did NG
1. Design this bird to reuse as much existing F-5/T-38 support equipment/hangars/facilities as possible?
2. Ask themselves what would an F-20 look like if they didn't reuse existing F-5 structure, but leveraged all the Aero they knew then and added it to what we know now?

I ask the second question because of the similarities (like horizontal stab anhedral) and differences to the F-5/F-20 design and my (right or wrong) understanding of the F-5's limitations, what the F-20 improved upon, and what post-4th gen maneuverability would require to be added. To me, all those things together point to something like we see in the spy shots.

I think the systems and feel of the competing trainers, and the fidelity thereof to the aircraft that trainees will graduate into will be the key to winning this contract, but it's fun to think about the aero.