If Boeing had the N400's forward section with Saab's tail design then nobody complains I am sure. M346N certainly had a good looking front, too. (But its origin made it a no-go.) T-7A's tail was the golden b-b.
T-X Trainer - Boeing T-7A Red Hawk
- Thread starter flateric
- Start date
I think that a lot of my fellow posters here dismiss too easily that Saab unconventional approach and numerous claims of simplified manufacturing and cost decrease were not able to match the reality of the program. We know,(and we see) that Boeing had to redesign the airframe to be more conventional in order to match the price point. You can see in a lot of small details that this plane was not optimized the way Boeing has used us to see. Attentive Readers here probably remember how I pointed early to the the crude lack of ingress and egress systems that would provide a safe access for both pilots. But I haven´t yet mentioned the MesserscHawk canopy that lacks proper side hinges to fully open to a correct angle (see how taller pilots have to crawl out of their seats snakes like!*)... Well clearly, Saab early design busted the budget and now Red Hawk stands as a compromised design (until Block II?).
I would hence not attribute the low supersonic Mach to some aerodynamic features. It´s just more likely limited by material quality due to cost and proper R&D budgets. The canopy for example we know had some early troubles is probably designed to be as safe as cost effective while matching service´s requirements instead of opening the Mach number...
*remarkably this was noticeable during the first delivery reception ceremony!
I would hence not attribute the low supersonic Mach to some aerodynamic features. It´s just more likely limited by material quality due to cost and proper R&D budgets. The canopy for example we know had some early troubles is probably designed to be as safe as cost effective while matching service´s requirements instead of opening the Mach number...
*remarkably this was noticeable during the first delivery reception ceremony!
Last edited:
- Joined
- 6 November 2010
- Messages
- 6,022
- Reaction score
- 7,575
Prime contractor Boeing has a recent history of poor project management, what proof do you have of SAAB as a major cause of T-7 troubles?
Gripen ground equipment has perfectly servicable access ladders. Gripen canopies open just fine.
'Walmart' access ladders for T-7 are a US thing.
Conjecture.
Never Boeing's fault?
Last edited:
Well, as you are an old member here, I would invite you to read back this thread to close all your bullet points.*
And since you are even older in this Aerospace Fana community, I will point you toward your old Keypub days, reading that well illustrated post of old TViP that already pointed to the rear cockpit access for IP.
But Saab is (was?) a dynamic company and took the bull by the horns nearly in the same lapse of time with a revised access ladder.
*If you know a bit of aerospace you can just watch Boeing/Saab material displaying their manufacturing line or airframe image that clearly shows that Saab nut/rivet free composite assembly technique is... Nowhere to be seen! (that was matched by Boeing communication b/w)
And since you are even older in this Aerospace Fana community, I will point you toward your old Keypub days, reading that well illustrated post of old TViP that already pointed to the rear cockpit access for IP.
But Saab is (was?) a dynamic company and took the bull by the horns nearly in the same lapse of time with a revised access ladder.
*If you know a bit of aerospace you can just watch Boeing/Saab material displaying their manufacturing line or airframe image that clearly shows that Saab nut/rivet free composite assembly technique is... Nowhere to be seen! (that was matched by Boeing communication b/w)
- Joined
- 6 November 2010
- Messages
- 6,022
- Reaction score
- 7,575
Tried that to no avail.
You seem to know when this type of ladder was introduced.
Enlighten me, please.
The absence of SAAB-specific 'assembly techique' indicates that SAAB is a major cause of T-7 delays and cost-overruns?
Try again.
Scott Kenny
ACCESS: USAP
- Joined
- 15 May 2023
- Messages
- 16,977
- Reaction score
- 24,091
The fact that it was supposed to be SAABs assembly techniques were able to get the T-7 flying sooner, and then a total redesign that removes them for more traditional techniques does not suggest the cause for the delays?
- Joined
- 6 November 2010
- Messages
- 6,022
- Reaction score
- 7,575
Fair point, I am not that conversant with the T-7 project.
Was nut/rivet free construction originally considered? If so, when/why was it dropped?
Because of incompatability with Boeing practice/expertise, for instance?
Was nut/rivet free construction originally considered? If so, when/why was it dropped?
Because of incompatability with Boeing practice/expertise, for instance?
Scott Kenny
ACCESS: USAP
- Joined
- 15 May 2023
- Messages
- 16,977
- Reaction score
- 24,091
I am not aware of the reason for the redesign, a poster here suggested it was for easier/faster production.
- Joined
- 19 February 2007
- Messages
- 1,600
- Reaction score
- 3,281
EXCLUSIVE: Air Force to approve T-7 trainer production within days - Breaking Defense
The US Air Force will declare its T-7 Red Hawk training jet ready for production this month, following years of delays.
US Air Force T-7A Red Hawk Trainer Jet Passes Electromagnetic Safety Test for Ejection System
T-7A Red Hawk trainer jet passes electromagnetic safety test, ensuring safe ejection near radar and EW systems.
www.armyrecognition.com
