T-7A Red Hawk From Top Mach Studios Released! (12/30)

StormILM said:
The airspeed being lower is a limitation of the airframe, not the engine power. I am confident that if the pilot leaves the T-7 in burner, it will easily slip through Mach. It looks like the US Navy is vetting the T-50, the M-346, and T-7 as an Advanced Trainer for FCLP and Aggressor Roles al. Since the Navy is doing away with the T-45C and also CQ (Carrier Qualification) using Dedicated Trainer. It appears they are going to use the new jets for FCLP only and do the CQ in the Simulator and then live with an F/A-18F Super Hornet. The E-2D community will train FCLP and CQ in-house on that type. From the looks of it, LM is way ahead of their competitors on this contract as well as the next Advanced Trainer Program with the USAF. Looks like they will have that RTG before the T-7 enters service.
Click to expand...
Storm - I researched the aircraft capable of "super cruise" and did not see the T-50 listed as a super cruiser (like the F-22, Su-57, J-20 and maybe F-15), so the T-50 has to use burner also to exceed Mach 1. I also saw several articles that stated the T-50 was originally "designed" (or perhaps marketed) as Mach 1.5, but is now only going Mach 1.1. I have not conducted extensive research on the matter. My understanding is that the T-7 was designed to exceed Mach 1, but has still not been tested in the supersonic regime.

If you want to be 100% accurate, airspeed is based on flight testing (specifically flutter testing). At least as far as the public is concerned the T-7 is currently tested to Mach .975. The aircraft is computer designed, but extensive flight testing is still prudently required. It is possible the airframe could exceed expectations and be capable of handling a more powerful / faster engine. I guess turning on the burner is adding engine power...right?

With regard to Navy Fleet Carrier Landing Practice and Carrier Quals, the whole "new" thought about "no" Training Command (there is a difference between the Training Command and the Replacement Training Squadrons) Carrier Quals is based on flight control software in the F-35s and F-18s. It is still to be seen if the Navy brass will go for that. For example, the F-35 that kept flying after the pilot ejected a couple years ago shows pilot's are relying too much on the software and forgetting that the aircraft still flies without software. The pilot in that case failed to rely on his tertiary instruments, ejected and the plane continued to fly for 60 miles or so. The pilot is no longer a military pilot and the aircraft is no longer in service.
 
I thought that the era of aircraft that had manual backup systems, i.e. control cables, was over. I was under the impression that without software, computer controlled systems, the current military aircraft were not flyable?
 
Navy Chief said:
I thought that the era of aircraft that had manual backup systems, i.e. control cables, was over. I was under the impression that without software, computer controlled systems, the current military aircraft were not flyable?
Click to expand...
You may be correct Chief, I should have said "...without primary flight control software." The accident report and investigation are out on the internet and it was a complicated failure in a challenging flight environment. The inquiry board, however, still found the pilot at fault because the aircraft was "flyable" and he had peanut gauges that were reliable. I don't know the details of "flyable" or systems involved in that determination as some of the report is "classified" and many redacted phrases.
 
Agree with all on the model, quick test flight out of Edwards and happy with the purchase. My 1st Top Mach Studios model and I like how much they put into the cockpit knowing many functions will come in later releases (menus). Seems like alot of power, but should be expected with the F-18 motor in the back. Given the lack of MSFS weapons, would like to see the virtual software based weapon systems modeled offered in current IRL trainers like the M-346, even a basic CCIP that kept score would be cool. When I should sit down and decide on a new cpu, I'm getting caught up on some models I overlooked (IFE F-35, Cowan B222).
 
rvn817j said:
Storm - I researched the aircraft capable of "super cruise" and did not see the T-50 listed as a super cruiser (like the F-22, Su-57, J-20 and maybe F-15), so the T-50 has to use burner also to exceed Mach 1. I also saw several articles that stated the T-50 was originally "designed" (or perhaps marketed) as Mach 1.5, but is now only going Mach 1.1. I have not conducted extensive research on the matter. My understanding is that the T-7 was designed to exceed Mach 1, but has still not been tested in the supersonic regime.

If you want to be 100% accurate, airspeed is based on flight testing (specifically flutter testing). At least as far as the public is concerned the T-7 is currently tested to Mach .975. The aircraft is computer designed, but extensive flight testing is still prudently required. It is possible the airframe could exceed expectations and be capable of handling a more powerful / faster engine. I guess turning on the burner is adding engine power...right?

With regard to Navy Fleet Carrier Landing Practice and Carrier Quals, the whole "new" thought about "no" Training Command (there is a difference between the Training Command and the Replacement Training Squadrons) Carrier Quals is based on flight control software in the F-35s and F-18s. It is still to be seen if the Navy brass will go for that. For example, the F-35 that kept flying after the pilot ejected a couple years ago shows pilot's are relying too much on the software and forgetting that the aircraft still flies without software. The pilot in that case failed to rely on his tertiary instruments, ejected and the plane continued to fly for 60 miles or so. The pilot is no longer a military pilot and the aircraft is no longer in service.
Click to expand...
I agree, however, in this day and time they are trying to cut long term costs and seem to believe that AR/AI is the future of training. It all points to the eventual removal of humans from aircraft and vehicles. This is due to the lowering expectations and reality that the intake numbers of fit/qualified individuals has dramatically decreased over the years and will only get worse due to the wrong focuses in our overall education system. Even the US Army is now preparing to field uncrewed trucks and weaponized vehicles, even looking at the same in main battle tanks. Personally I am not comfortable with this in the slightest but considering the changes in warfare in recent years, tech is going to be the name of the game with lessening human interface (the Conductor of the Orchestra so to speak). We've had automation for some time which my mindset is that it is certainly good enough to kill you if you can't operate the machine without it from the skill and "manual reversion" mindset.

Anyhow, my apologies for veering off the intended path about this magnificent simulator model which BTW I keep finding really cool coding buried in the VC. This is one sharply made sim model!
 
Apparently the T-7A doesn't currently show up in 2024. Sigh. Was gonna buy tomorrow when my monthly auto-redeem of MS points drops $10 in my MS account, but likely will hold off.
 
You guys will find a lot of cool features in the HUD and Systems sub-menus. One is that you can switch the HUD to F-22 mode and select Thermal and also Synthetic Vision for night and poor weather IFR. This model really impresses me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top