The plane, which can be modified to accept two hard points per wing (it’s not a requirement to have any), can be refueled in flight just behind the flight instructor’s position, Davis said.
Trident said:... which may be the answer to the pitot question - one of the two completed airframes has it, and they revealed the example which doesn't.
TomS said:Hey, I knew the various images didn't match up.
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,13751.msg288454.html#msg288454
TomS said:Air Force magazine confirms the MLG and nose gear are both from the F-16.
Trident said:2. F-16 gear - weird. As someone else has already noted, it is likely to be oversized and overweight. While borrowing landing gear assemblies from established donor aircraft for prototypes is definitely not unusual, changing to a bespoke design later seems strangely at odds with Boeing's pitch that the aircraft is essentially production-representative.
3. What could possibly be so secret about the ejection seats?! I mean, K-36s would be a tough sell in the current political climate - so much so that I can't see them having gone there in the first place, however. Excepting that, though - what's in a seat?
Trident said:A few more thoughts:
1. Twin tails - weight is a disadvantage, but it offers the opportunity to do away with a separate airbrake, even with a F-16/Su-27-style single TE moving surface. This may sound like a fairly minor benefit, but it frees up the fuselage spine for a refueling receptacle (T-100, I'm looking at you).
2. F-16 gear - weird. As someone else has already noted, it is likely to be oversized and overweight. While borrowing landing gear assemblies from established donor aircraft for prototypes is definitely not unusual, changing to a bespoke design later seems strangely at odds with Boeing's pitch that the aircraft is essentially production-representative.
3. What could possibly be so secret about the ejection seats?! I mean, K-36s would be a tough sell in the current political climate - so much so that I can't see them having gone there in the first place, however. Excepting that, though - what's in a seat?
kcran567 said:It really looks like an OUTDATED DESIGN sorry, just strikes me as a trainer project that Saab or Boeing has on a shelf for 25 years and shook the dust off it for this competition.
The design features really date from 15-20 years prior including the landig gear design. The landing gear does not look to be to big at all for the aircraft, but as others have noticed borrowed from the f-16.
The whole thing just smacks of an older design.
At least the Northrop design has a few innovations added to the basic T-38 design, and also looks alot leaner, lighter and more affordable.
Sundog said:Boeing is going for top end performance with lower cost (Black Diamond).
The aircraft was designed to meet the "threshold" requirements for T-X, and if the Air Force does not give extra credit for capability beyond that, "we're going to win," Davis said.
and if the Air Force does not give extra credit for capability beyond that, "we're going to win," Davis said.
Sundog said:kcran567 said:It really looks like an OUTDATED DESIGN sorry, just strikes me as a trainer project that Saab or Boeing has on a shelf for 25 years and shook the dust off it for this competition.
The design features really date from 15-20 years prior including the landig gear design. The landing gear does not look to be to big at all for the aircraft, but as others have noticed borrowed from the f-16.
The whole thing just smacks of an older design.
At least the Northrop design has a few innovations added to the basic T-38 design, and also looks alot leaner, lighter and more affordable.
That's because you don't understand aerodynamics. Aerodynamics today is the same as it was 25 years ago. You aren't going to go tailless, have thrust vectoring, something stealthy, etc, because all you are doing is adding unnecessary cost and you guarantee you will lose. None of the most advanced aerodynamic and control technologies are required to meet the specifications. The aerospace companies would have been insanely stupid to design what you wanted to see. Aircraft are designed by the mission requirements, not the wishes of fanboys (And I am a fanboy too, who loves advanced designs as well, which is why I am still drooling through <u>Flying Wings and Radical Things</u>. )
The difference and advanced technology is in the training system itself. That's where these designs are vastly different from anything designed before; in the cockpit where it will matter most. Also, there is no way the T-38 had anywhere near the alpha capability that any of these designs have.
kcran567 said:If the design itself, manufacturing, and materials are tried and true and 20-30 years dated, where is the cost savings compared to the others?
I suspect that the test pitot came off for the rollout so the aircraft was "EMD" ready.TomS said:Interesting that it had a test pitot before the rolled in into the paint shop. Wind tunnel testing?
sferrin said:kcran567 said:If the design itself, manufacturing, and materials are tried and true and 20-30 years dated, where is the cost savings compared to the others?
How do you know what manufacturing techniques they're using? As for the design, all you know is what it looks like on the outside. I guarantee you it doesn't look like a 30 year old aircraft under the OML.
kcran567 said:Am also interested in manufacturing techniques and materials. Looks conventional and similar to the Lockheed Martin T-50 overall except for the twin tails. If the design itself, manufacturing, and materials are tried and true and 20-30 years dated, where is the cost savings compared to the others? I see what you are saying about the cockpit training systems, but technology is moving so fast in this area and software is there really going to be that big a difference in cockpit simulation capability? Sorry, just a little disappointed was expecting more.
“It is a production jet at this stage,” averred Darryl Davis, president of Boeing’s Phantom Works, standing in front of a second jet already being subjected to structural proof tests. The two companies are building a plane with very little touch labor and are using advanced adhesives, 3-D printing (additive manufacturing to the faithful) and other techniques to “break the cost curve,” Davis told reporters after the unveiling this morning. Bending the cost curve is, of course, Air Force Secretary Deborah Lee James’ effort to rein in development and procurement costs.
Davis, whose Phantom Works includes the luridly famous Black Diamond production experiments, said production knowledge gleaned from both companies’ commercial and defense experience meant they would rely on “orders of magnitude less touch labor.”
As an example of the advanced techniques being employed, Program Manager Ted Torgerson walked over to the plane’s cockpit. Currently, a cockpit takes about six weeks to build and requires expensive equipment to hold it and the materials needed to build it. We’ve taken a six-week process and brought it down to eight days,” Torgerson said.
The twin tails also allow the airplane to be shorter, which reduces weight and cost, Davis said.
vmaddux said:I have it on good authority from one of the sub contractors, the the landing gear is from a Gripen , not an F-16. which makes more sense then Boeing getting landing gear fro Lockheed.
Sundog said:kcran567 said:Am also interested in manufacturing techniques and materials. Looks conventional and similar to the Lockheed Martin T-50 overall except for the twin tails. If the design itself, manufacturing, and materials are tried and true and 20-30 years dated, where is the cost savings compared to the others? I see what you are saying about the cockpit training systems, but technology is moving so fast in this area and software is there really going to be that big a difference in cockpit simulation capability? Sorry, just a little disappointed was expecting more.
From this article at Breaking Defense posted upthread by TomS;
“It is a production jet at this stage,” averred Darryl Davis, president of Boeing’s Phantom Works, standing in front of a second jet already being subjected to structural proof tests. The two companies are building a plane with very little touch labor and are using advanced adhesives, 3-D printing (additive manufacturing to the faithful) and other techniques to “break the cost curve,” Davis told reporters after the unveiling this morning. Bending the cost curve is, of course, Air Force Secretary Deborah Lee James’ effort to rein in development and procurement costs.
Davis, whose Phantom Works includes the luridly famous Black Diamond production experiments, said production knowledge gleaned from both companies’ commercial and defense experience meant they would rely on “orders of magnitude less touch labor.”
As an example of the advanced techniques being employed, Program Manager Ted Torgerson walked over to the plane’s cockpit. Currently, a cockpit takes about six weeks to build and requires expensive equipment to hold it and the materials needed to build it. We’ve taken a six-week process and brought it down to eight days,” Torgerson said.
marauder2048 said:Sundog said:Boeing is going for top end performance with lower cost (Black Diamond).
Which is contradicted by:
The aircraft was designed to meet the "threshold" requirements for T-X, and if the Air Force does not give extra credit for capability beyond that, "we're going to win," Davis said.
http://www.airforcemag.com/Features/Pages/2016/September%202016/Boeing-Unveils-Twin-Tail-T-X.aspx
Harrier said:Depending on how the election goes, 'American jobs' could be a deciding factor. Appearances might matter, especially against a Russo/Italian and South Korean design.