Talk:Boeing–Saab T-7 Red Hawk/Archive 1

Archive 1

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): CASEYJO98. Peer reviewers: Chynes17.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:13, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Naming

According to the official Boeing webpage the aircraft is called the Boeing T-X. This agrees with all the refs currently cited in the article. Where did BTX-1 come from? - Ahunt (talk) 15:02, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps the Type Certificate? - BilCat (talk) 15:10, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

I just checked. It doesn't have one, which is not a surprise for a military aircraft. The only use of "BTX-1" I can find is on Airliners.net which is WP:SPS and likely based on this Wikipedia article. I think this article needs to be moved to Boeing T-X.- Ahunt (talk) 15:18, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

The FAA entry for N381TX calls it a BTX-1. http://registry.faa.gov/aircraftinquiry/NNum_Results.aspx?NNumbertxt=381TX MilborneOne (talk) 15:19, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

What do we do about the all the other refs, including the company official page that call it Boeing T-X? I have to say that I had a hard time finding this page, I almost started a fresh article at Boeing T-X. We at least need to make it a redirect. I would argue that WP:COMMONNAME would prevail here and it should be at Boeing T-X. Officially by its TC the Cessna 350 Corvalis was a Model LC42-550FG, but we don't give the article that title. .- Ahunt (talk) 15:51, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

As well as the FAA other sources also use BTX-1 http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/defense/2016-09-13/boeing-pulls-wraps-new-jet-air-forces-t-x-competition http://www.combataircraft.net/2016/10/12/boeingsaab-t-x/ and Janes http://www.janes.com/article/63795/final-t-x-contender-unveiled-aad16d2 who call the second aircraft BTX-2. A lot of referencdes uses Boeing T-X to refer to the whole training system which is the aircraft and simulators etc. MilborneOne (talk) 16:12, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

If BTX-1 is just an individual aircraft and BTX-2 is another then we have a problem. Recommendations? - Ahunt (talk) 16:17, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

We may well have to go with your suggestion as Boeing T-X, it does give the impression (which also hints at in the launch stuff) that the two aircraft are different rather than then just another one. MilborneOne (talk) 16:20, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

I'd go with either Boeing/Saab T-X or Boeing T-X. Despite the absence of Saab in Boeing's pages, other sources, such as this one, use Boeing/Saab T-X. As to BTX-1 and BTX-2, it leads one to think the internal model name is BTX. Boeing may well come out with its own designation/name in the near future, as with the "SB>1 Defiant". - BilCat (talk) 16:28, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

The SAAB website doesnt use Saab! but rather Boeing T-X ! MilborneOne (talk) 19:04, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

If the aircraft gets selected it will get a US mil designation and name and get moved there, but until then I suggest that moving it to Boeing T-X would be best. - Ahunt (talk) 22:06, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Just out if interest the second aircraft #00002 "N382TX" is also registered as a "BTX-1" so it looks more like a Boeing type designation. MilborneOne (talk) 16:10, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Specifications

The specifications are, at best, dubious. Empty weight is implausibly low for the observed size of the aircraft. At the same time, the performance appears to be incredibly poor. It's rival with empty weight twice greater than cited here attains M=1.5 and climbs at 200 m/s. With thrust-to-weight ratio of 1.4, that comes from the given gross weight and engine rating, Boeing's trainer would be no less than a rival to F-22 in flight performance. All that said, the source for the claim seems to fail Wikipedia's standarts for reliability: I found no author's name, no information about editorial board or editorial policy, neither who owns or administrates the site. 84.253.101.179 (talk) 09:06, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Agree the source says the figures are estimated by the author - "Values presented on this page for the Boeing-Saab T-X are estimated on the part of the author. They will be revised when official specifications of the aircraft are revealed by the manufacturer." - needs to be removed. MilborneOne (talk) 10:41, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Much of it seems to be based on the Saab Gripen ...

According to some newsreports the Saab Group will build the rear fuselage, and possibly more, of the T-X in a new manufacturing plant in the US, which is really no surprise since most of the fuselage of the T-X seems to come straight from the Gripen, including the engine (the T-X will use the GE F404, while the Gripen uses the Volvo RM-12, a license-built version of the F404; except for the under development E/F versions of the Gripen, which will use the GE F414G, a derivative of the F404 that delivers 20% more thrust, an engine that could be used for a later upgraded T-X...), and the landing gear of the T-X seems to be identical to the one on the Gripen. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 15:26, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

If you can find a WP:RS that supports this it can be added to the article, otherwise it is really speculation. - Ahunt (talk) 15:33, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

@Ahunt: It was mainly intended to inspire others to look for sources. That the T-X will use the same engine as the Gripen A/B/C/D is no speculation (FYI the F414G is a version of the F414 developed especially for Saab, optimised for use in single-engine aircraft and powerful enough to enable supercruise in aircraft the size of the Gripen and T-X), BTW, nor is it speculation that Saab intend to build a manufacturing plant in the US [1] or that Saab's share of the total value of the contract is about 30% (mentioned in multiple foreign language sources). But if you want a pure speculation, I can add that I strongly believe that the T-X will one day be available also as a relatively low-cost single-seat multi-role combat aircraft, based even more on the Gripen... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 16:12, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

It is interesting to note that Boeing's official page on the type doesn't mention Saab and says the aircraft is made 90% in the USA. - Ahunt (talk) 16:32, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Did you really expect Boeing to admit that it's not entirely their design? And the 90% includes Saab's new manufacturing plant in the US (which, IIRC, will be built somewhere in Tennessee), with the remaining 10% possibly to a large extent coming from Sweden. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 16:46, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Facts are a bother these days. Let's see if we can get it right in the article at least! - Ahunt (talk) 17:40, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Most sources I've read indicate that the BTX is a clean-sheet design. Also, several aircraft in the BTX's class use the F404, including its primary competitor, the KAI T-50, so that's not proof by itself the BTX is "based on" the Gripen. Rather, the F404 is simply a good choice for aircraft in this class. I think it's possible that Saab used the Gripen as a starting point for the BTX design, but does it use actual structures from the Gripen? Probably not. Landing gear is often shared between aircraft designs by the same company, and even by other companies in a few cases, so that's not unusual. Could they share avionics, actuators, and other smaller parts? Probably, as the supply chain is already in place. As the design enters production, we'll hear more information about the specifics of the BTX's design, and if those sources indicate the degree of commonality between the BTX and Gripen, we can cite them in the article. - BilCat (talk) 19:24, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Quite true, which is why I noted we need a ref to make that claim. A close comparison of photos of the two aircraft does not show many external similarities. The rear fuselage is quite different, as would be expected when one design has a single fin and the other a twin fin. - Ahunt (talk) 19:35, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Military designation

How long before this aircraft receives a designation according to the 1962 United States Tri-Service aircraft designation system? Other aircraft, including the KC-45 and KC-46 got their designation even before chosen, but this hasn't received a designation after over a month. According to the next available number it looks like it may be called the T-4, but they have done goofy things with the numbering system in the past, so who knows. --rogerd (talk) 18:07, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

No telling, really. Certainly before it enters service. - Ahunt (talk) 19:31, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Concur. There's no set time for it to happen. More than likely, it will be T-54 or T-55, as that's the series that's been used lately. But one never knows. They might even follow the pattern of the out-of-sequence T-6 Texan II, and call it the "T-17 Stearman II"! - BilCat (talk) 19:58, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

... or "PT-17 Kaydet II". - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 20:38, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

While those are interesting options, the Stearman was a basic trainer, and this is an advanced trainer. The T-6 was actually an advanced trainer during WW2, but they re-used that name for a modern basic trainer. Something like the "Talon II" might be cool, considering it is a lot like the aircraft it replaces. --rogerd (talk) 21:47, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

I was being sarcastic with "T-17 Stearman II", and Thomas probably was also with his suggestion. Air Force designations over the last 30 years or so tend to wander all over the place, numerically speaking, and the names can be unimaginative; "B-21 Raider" is an example of both. The "F-35" selection was unexpected, as LM had already printed up material in anticipation of it being "F-24", which was the next available number. Also, Lockheed was apparently not happy with "Raptor" for the F-22, preferring "Lightning II", but everything in the middle 90s was being named after dinosaurs because of Jurassic Park. Yeah, I know the AF says it was after the term for a bird of prey, lol, but dinosaurs were all the rage then. Even the NBA team in Toronto was named the Raptors around that time. - BilCat (talk) 22:01, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

They could name it "T-xx Griffin"... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 23:08, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Actually, I was wondering, when the aircraft gets an official designation, will a new article be created, or will this article be renamed? The KC-X article is separate from the KC-46 article, but in this case, it is a lot simpler. --rogerd (talk) 04:24, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

No, because the program article is at T-X program, equivalent to the KC-X article. This is the article on the Boeing aircraft, no matter what it's titled. - BilCat (talk) 04:40, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

It's actually about the aircraft designed, and built, by Boeing and Saab, not just Boeing. Boeing unfortunately have a habit of trying to pass all aircraft off as being all their own, no matter how large or small their share of the project is. Just look at the MH-139, presented by Boeing as the "Boeing MH-139" with no mention of where they got the design from, even though it's only a license-built renamed Leonardo (i.e. AgustaWestland) AW139. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 18:04, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

• We, WP:Aircraft typically only use the prime contractor name as part of the article name. Non-primes usually have a smaller role. I can only come up with two aircraft that have a subcontractor that's a major partner (F-22 with Lockheed Martin & Boeing and YF-23 with Northrop and McDonnell Douglas). -Fnlayson (talk) 18:20, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Interesting quotes (from here): "Boeing would act as the prime contractor, with Saab as primary partner to cover design, development, production, support, sales and marketing" (said when Boeing and Saab’s Joint Development Agreement for the all-new jet training aircraft was formally announced on December 6, 2013) and "The last time Saab designed a clean-sheet aircraft was 1982. T-X will be a clean-sheet design. It will give us a good chance to design from scratch" (said by the CEO of Saab). Judging by that the T-X is more Saab than Boeing. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 19:54, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

But it has to be a "Boeing" to win the US government contract ! MilborneOne (talk) 20:13, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Boeing put its name on a European helicopter it was trying to market in the 70s (I think the Bo 105, but I'm not sure), so it's not unique to the present. As to manufacturer/prime contractor, as far as I can tell, Boeing basically hired Saab to (help) design and produce the aircraft. It's possible Saab had already designed it and was looking for a US partner, but if so, that was done entirely behind the scenes. However, from what I've read, Boeing wanted a risk-sharing partner more than anything else. The Gripen may well have been a design starting point, but the resulting design clearly looks more like a baby Hornet than a mini-Gripen.

As to the title, I have no issue with "Boeing/Saab T-X", but the majority of reliable sources usually just state "Boeing". I'd certainly have an issue with "Saab/Boeing T-X" or even "Saab T-X", as Boeing is clearly the prime contractor here. - BilCat (talk) 22:04, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Specs again

For User:Fnlayson. I have to repete again. The specifications from "militaryfactory.com" are, at best, dubious and incoherent. Empty weight (7,165 lb = 3,250 kg) is implausibly low for the observed size of the aircraft. It's engine alone wieghs 2,282 lb (1,036 kg). At the same time, the performance appears to be incredibly poor for the given gross weight and given thrust. It's rival with empty weight twice greater than cited here attains M=1.5 and climbs at 200 m/s. With thrust-to-weight ratio of 1.4, that comes from the given gross weight and engine rating, Boeing's trainer would, at least, match F-22 in flight performance. On the other hand, what is the evidence for reliability of "militaryfactory.com"? As it is stated on the cited webpage: "Values presented on this page for the Boeing-Saab T-X are estimated on the part of the author. They will be revised when official specifications of the aircraft are revealed by the manufacturer." Who is the author? What confirms that (s)he is qualified to calculate the performance of third party's aircraft? What input (s)he has used to make the calculations? 84.253.101.179 (talk) 15:00, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I tagged that source for verification earlier. The speed and climb rate seem reasonable. I had not compared the weights and T/W ratio yet, but fair points. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:04, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Reasonable only in ballpark terms. Since we don't know the weight of the aircraft we might expect it to be anywhere from 30 to 50 kft/min. Why to keep whipping a dead horse? Why to use data calculated by an anonymous author with unknown credentials? 84.253.101.179 (talk) 15:14, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Renamed to T-7A Redhawk

Here's the source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2jC8vmQaAno&fbclid=IwAR1rUn-47EC_QR6ZnIZzJwWGvyKK3wL0b_xnS77G6wnJ27KVLRf5EbWuSoY

I'm at work now, so can't get around to updating the article, but this will significantly impact this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LetUsNotLoseHeart (talk • contribs) 18:54, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Virtue of Twin Tails?

The design section quotes Boeing's promotional materials, saying "The twin-tails provide better stability and control.". This should be questioned because twin tails have no inherent tendency to stabilize better than any other tail configuration. In fact, in the early wind-tunnel testing of the F-16 twin tails were tried and found to create instability that was uncontrollable even with digital flight controls. What support is there for this claim? The question should be "Better than what?" What else was tried and what were the results? Soon front-line fighters will have NO tail at all. Are we then to conclude they are unstable? This is a silly and so far unsupported claim that must be vetted or removed.

Solidpoint (talk) 00:49, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

We can just attribute it to the manufacturer. - Ahunt (talk) 00:55, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

I've removed it for now. It needed a citation. By definition, more control surfaces of the same size = more control, but it was an unreferenced and vague claim (more control than what?). Feel free to re-add without the vagueries Buffs (talk) 20:04, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

@Solidpoint: I've removed it (see above), but I missed your initial question. no tail indeed = unstable. In order to be maneuverable, aircraft have to be somewhat unstable. The more instability, the more they can turn and maneuver. The B-2 is inherently unstable and has "elevons" that are computer controlled to correct for this inherent instability. Tailless fighters would face the same challenge. Buffs (talk) 02:14, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

militaryfactory.com as a ref

I did a run through of this website and it seems to be a corporately-run information site and part of a bigger network of websites, although there is no owner nor any editorial staff named. Is is really self published then, say anymore than Time magazine or the New York Times is self-published? - Ahunt (talk) 17:32, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

If it was a commercial operation then you would expect some signs of ownership, the whois setup appears to put it in a self-published arena, you would not expect a commercial company to use these type of paid for servers and web management. MilborneOne (talk) 17:48, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

It is a matter of whether this source is a valid and reliable source or not. Change to more apprioate tag if needed. I had tagged it with {{Verify source}} before and got an unclear 'verification' of it here. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:15, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

That is a true, a whois shows that it is hosted on Cloudflare, which is a rent-a-server outfit, but more importantly the owner shows up as "Tech Name: Domain Privacy Service FBO Registrant." So whomever is running is trying hard not to be found. It all makes it sound a bit dodgy, although the information there seems accurate enough. - Ahunt (talk) 19:42, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm for removing Military factory.com and its specs from the article altogether. - BilCat (talk) 03:13, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Well if you don't think it is reliable that would be the route to go. - Ahunt (talk) 14:22, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

 Done - BilCat (talk) 05:34, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

I've removed Military Factory data again, which was added back today. To repeat from the section above, their T-7 page clearly states: "Values presented on this page for the Boeing-Saab T-X are estimated on the part of the author. They will be revised when official specifications of the aircraft are revealed by the manufacturer." In other words, the specs are just guesses. - BilCat (talk) 22:59, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Request move to Boeing-Saab T-7 Red Hawk

As the title says, the article should be moved to Boeing-Saab T-7 Red Hawk, as both companies are behind the product. I dont remember how to start a proper move discussion so if anyone would like to start one that would be great.--Blockhaj (talk) 12:20, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

That is fine to bring it here, as you have done. What we need is a ref that indicates that it is called that or at least that both companies are manufacturing it and not just Boeing building it and Saab contributing parts. The Boeing official page says Boeing’s T-7A Red Hawk was purpose-built... so they don't to call it that. The Saab official page says T-7A is a Boeing-Saab cooperation ..., but doesn't call it the "Boeing-Saab T-7 Red Hawk". I am not seeing any reliable aerospace news sources called it the "Boeing-Saab T-7 Red Hawk". - Ahunt (talk) 12:32, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Well to my knowledge Saab will be setting up a factory in the US for production, but under Saab jurisdiction, etc. Boeing built the first 2 T-X prototypes but Saab is the one to build the first pre-prodiction T-7A, meant for ground trials. https://www.saab.com/newsroom/press-releases/2021/saab-makes-first-t-7a-delivery

Anyway, to the actual name, Boeing uses the name Boeing-Saab T-7A Red Hawk on their website for example (although misspelled as "Boeing-Saab eT-7A Red Hawk") https://www.boeing.com/features/2021/02/t-7a-red-hawk-begins-us-production.page --Blockhaj (talk) 12:51, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

I think that Boeing ref you cited is pretty persuasive. If Boeing calls it that we probably should agree. - Ahunt (talk) 13:08, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. The name is very common in the aviation community and ive even heard it being used in daily speech by people working at Saab.--Blockhaj (talk) 13:18, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

I added the above citation to the article. Ahunt if you feel the discussion has concluded a move, would you like the honor to move the article?--Blockhaj (talk) 13:25, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Still not convinced it is the common name, even the Boeing reference above uses the term "Boeing T-7A Red Hawk" all over the same page. Interestingly SAAB are only building the aft-section. MilborneOne (talk) 13:31, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

The reason the name Boeing-Saab T-7 might not be as common as just Boeing T-7 is probably due to Boeing being the initiators fo the project, Saab joining in a year or so after the initial design being drawn up. The name is also fairly long and can be annoying to write several times over. National pride might also be a reason why Boeing T-7 is more common in the US, vs Boeing-Saab T-7 in Sweden. Even then, i found yet another formal article using the combo Boeing-Saab, here as "Boeing-Saab T-X", proving the name has been around prior to the reveal of the designation T-7: https://www.saab.com/markets/united-states/the-journey-to-west-lafayette ("On September 27, 2018, the U.S. Air Force chose the Boeing-Saab T-X as its new jet trainer.") The article also goes over some of Saab involvement, such as setting up a Saab factory for the aircraft in West Lafayette, Indiana. As for their part in the development, they have mainly worked on the computer systems for the aircraft, taken from the Gripen E to my knowledge to save money and time.--Blockhaj (talk) 14:07, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

When doing google searches i get circa 5000 results for "Boeing T-7" vs 3500 results for "Boeing-Saab T-7", proving the latter is not an uncommon name. Sure it is not the most common name, but neither is it uncommon, and considering that it is more formal and more explanatory for the product i think the name Boeing-Saab T-7 Red Hwk is more suitable for the article, even considering POLA.--Blockhaj (talk) 14:20, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Just to note Google searches are not realiable and can change depending on where in the world you are. So clearly your result from a browser in Sweden would not be the same as in the US. MilborneOne (talk) 14:33, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Also note the contract with the DoD is with Boeing and not Boeing-Saab. MilborneOne (talk) 14:34, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Yeah we need a more thorough discussion before a move. Let's hear from some more editors. - Ahunt (talk) 14:37, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Comment Google Search results are as follows:―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 14:46, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

• "Boeing T-7 Red Hawk" 3,830
• "Boeing T-7A Red Hawk" 5,060
• "Boeing-Saab T-7 Red Hawk" 998
• "Boeing-Saab T-7A Red Hawk" 3090 3,090

To answer MilborneOne, the contract with US DoD does not reflect the products producers, aka Boeing-Saab. Even then, what is your source for Saab not being part of the contract with the US DoD? For several years ive heard that Saab was part of the contract, especially since the product uses programming from the Gripen E.

As for the discussion, i know a person who might be interested in joining. @BilCat: would u be interested in joining this discussion, as u usually take great interest in aviation articles.--Blockhaj (talk) 14:51, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Link for order to the Boeing Company https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R44856/11 MilborneOne (talk) 15:21, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the source. Interestingly the combo name "Boeing-Saab T-X" is used several times in that pdf, yet another point to move the page in my opinion.--Blockhaj (talk) 15:30, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

• OK, but every entry in that CRS report lists the involved companies in the name. It does not necessarily mean much since they are following the same approach for all. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:41, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

I also prefer "Boeing-Saab", as they are the major partners. Usage is mixed in sources, but as Boeing itself is now using both, I support the move. (I'm fairly consistent on that: I supported "Bristol Fairchild Bolingbroke", a version of the Bristol Blenheim built under license by Fairchild Canada, but it was moved to Bristol Bolingbroke as it was determined it was the common name.)

@Blockhaj: "eT-7A" is not a typo, but a new USAF designation. I thought it had been added to the article already, but it hasn't been as yet. See SECAF unveils new “eSeries” classification in nod to Department’s digital future for more information. Although not mentioned in this press release, FlightGlobal states the USAF says the “e” prefix will be dropped once an aircraft heads into its production phase. Up to this point, the new designation has basically been ignored in the press. BilCat (talk) 20:52, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

@Ahunt: the aircraft is called Boeing-Saab T-X in the contract with the DoD, indicating it is called that by more parties than just Saab.--Blockhaj (talk) 21:57, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Okay, I see that now. Thanks. - Ahunt (talk) 21:58, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

• I can not seem to find this independent source for the contract that lists "Boeing-Saab". The CRS report does not seem to count since that was originally written a few years ago and updated since. -Fnlayson (talk) 02:09, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

So have we reached a verdict that the article should be moved?--Blockhaj (talk) 00:41, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Normally on Wikipedia discussions like this are run for seven days to allow other editors who are watching the article, but not necessarily here every day, to comment. So please check back on 6 January 2022. See WP:NOHURRY. - Ahunt (talk) 01:53, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

There's been no more responses for nine days. Since this isn't a formal move discussion, I don't think we're obligated to have it closed by a non-involved editor. Any objections to moving it soon? BilCat (talk) 20:27, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Seems there is no opposition to not moving it and we have several formal sources using the proposed name. I'm gonna go ahead and move it.--Blockhaj (talk) 23:54, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

"eT-7A"

@BilCat: u mentioned that the USAF has started to use a new "e"-prefix designation system etc. Could u implement this into the article?--Blockhaj (talk) 00:05, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Blockhaj I've added a mention of the designation in the variants section. - ZLEA _T\^C 02:57, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Great.--Blockhaj (talk) 13:35, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Supersonic? Top Speed?

There is no mention in the text of supersonic performance nor top speed in the specifications which seems extremely abbreviated Bachcell (talk) 22:42, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

That is a good question. Neither the Boeing nor Saab official websites, nor any of the aviation press stories referenced have mentioned a design top speed. The Flight Global ref said it reached 230kt (430km/h) on one test flight. Some speculative web sources have some numbers published, but these are not in any way reliable and so we haven't cited them. The USAF does not have an official fact sheet on the airplane posted yet. Even the official USAF announcement about the purchase of the type makes no mention of performance at all. That is all we have right now. - Ahunt (talk) 22:58, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Based on the engine, role and general config i would assume it can go mach 1.2 or sum shit like that, otherwise it's probs limited to 900 km/h.--Blockhaj (talk) 23:06, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Well as a policy we don't speculate here on Wikipedia, we need WP:RS to add any specs. I am sure they will be forthcoming, just not yet. - Ahunt (talk) 23:08, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Specs

There is no creditable source for the max takeoff weight for the T-7. Please stop adding a max takeoff weight until you have a creditable source. And BTW key aero is not a creditable source .. the page you linked to was behind a paywall and had no numbers. BTW, the number you list is literally unbelieveable aas it is less than hlaf the coresponding weights for other f404 powered airplanes like the Tejas or T-50.Kitplane01 (talk) 18:22, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

• There's been numerous people involved with this article. Please don't imply everybody is at fault with a catch all "you". Regards -Fnlayson (talk) 18:38, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Your removal of sourced content without seeking consensus is becoming disruptive. The figure is reported by multiple reliable sources, so your WP:OR claim that it is "literally unbelieveable" is not a valid reason to remove said figure and sources from the article. If you are able to provide a reliable source that refutes the figures, then we can remove them? Until then, the figures will stay in the article. - ZLEA _T\^C 18:48, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Can you please provide this source? Kitplane01 (talk) 18:50, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

The burden of proof is on you to provide sources if you wish to refute another reliable source. Do not remove sourced content again. - ZLEA _T\^C 18:54, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

I was not trying to refute a reliable source. I was removing unsourced data. That's a different thing.

Now you have a citation that I cannot verify. **Have you personally seen this suposed data?** Because the number is crazy low compared to other similar airplanes. Kitplane01 (talk) 19:16, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I have personally seen this "suposed" data. An aircraft's engine is not the only factor that affects its MTO. For example, perhaps the T-7's structure is weaker than that of the T-50 or Tejas, significantly reducing the MTO compared to those aircraft. Obviously, the exact reason for the reduced MTO is not known, and until it is, we have no grounds to refute it unless other reliable sources do so. - ZLEA _T\^C 19:34, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

There is no way the plane is that light. No plane with a F404 is that light. Not one, not close. I'd bet a large pile that they copied from the bad wikipedia data, and we we cite the bad data they got from us.

This is a citation to a source most people cannot see, and the data itself is wrong

I'll stop after this .. Do you personally believe a T-7 is 1/2 the weight of a T-50? Kitplane01 (talk) 19:56, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Your claim that Key.Aero copied bad data from Wikipedia is very serious, as it would mean that Key.Aero itself would not meet Wikipedia's criteria for reliable sources. If you have evidence of Key.Aero copying data from Wikipedia, please bring it up at WP:RSN so that it can be discussed and possibly added to the list of unreliable sources. As for your question, I will do some research on the aircraft and get back to you. - ZLEA _T\^C 20:17, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

I have not been able to find any information on the T-50's construction, but I did find this 2019 FlightGlobal article in which it is said that the T-X is of mostly metal construction, but does not specify what metal was used. Without knowing exact materials used or the internal structure of the T-7 and T-50, I cannot accurately assess the plausibility of the T-7 being half the weight of the T-50. That said, the figures are backed up by reliable sources (I will continue to call them reliable until there is an WP:RSN consensus to the contrary), so I have no reason to doubt them. One possible explanation for the apparent discrepancy is the fact that both the T-50 and Tejas were designed for both training and combat (with even the trainer variants being capable of carrying weapons), meaning that they likely would need a stronger airframe to allow the aircraft to carry ordnance on multiple hardpoints. Meanwhile, the T-7 was primarily designed solely for unarmed training, meaning that it would not require as strong of an airframe. While a combat variant of the T-7 has been proposed, the specifications in question are for the original trainer variant which is not intended to carry weapons.

But let's not get carried away with WP:OR. As of right now, we have reliable sources that back up the weight figures and none that refute said figures. You have two options if you want to remove the weight figures from the article. First, you could provide a reliable source that refutes the figures. Or, you could make a case at WP:RSN that those sources copied bad data from Wikipedia and should therefore be considered unreliable. Better yet, you could contact the authors of those sources and ask where they got the figures from, and maybe make your case to them about the figures being implausible. If they agree, then maybe they will retract or rewrite the articles. - ZLEA _T\^C 21:22, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

So this is what happened:

The wiki article used militaryfactory.com as a reference, and copied that data. But we know that data is crap, because the same web page said Values presented on this page for the Boeing-Saab T-X are estimated on the part of the author. They will be revised when official specifications of the aircraft are revealed by the manufacturer.

In other words, the specs are just guesses. Everyone agreed and the reference was removed but unfortunately the data was kept. Now it's unreferenced data known to be guesses.

Then later I am along and tried to remove the unreferenced data. But you found another reference with the exact same numbers. Did Key Aero copy from the unreferened Wiki data that everyone agreed was just guesses, or did they copy from military factory.com directly that everyone also know was just guesses. I don't know, but we're certain they did not get the data from Boeing or the Air Force, which will not provide this data.

Summary: (1) The actual numbers are secret and neither Boeing nor the USAF will publish them (2) The militaryfactory.com data was guesswork, and we know this because they said so themselves (3) Wikipedia published this data and (4) Wikipedia continues to publish it with a new reference using the same numbers that militaryfactory.com originally provided that are guesses. Kitplane01 (talk) 00:59, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Again, if you have evidence that Key.Aero or any other source copied from Wikipedia or another unreliable source, bring it to WP:RSN. - ZLEA _T\^C 01:11, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Also, per WP:PAYWALL, "do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly to access." The Key.Aero article used as a source does indeed include a table of specifications including MTO. - ZLEA _T\^C 18:54, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Key.Aero is a highly respected industry source. Although I do not have access through the paywall, its reported figure here for the MTOW is corroborated by another and freely-available reliable source, the journal website of the Air & Space Forces Association, here. So the claim of "plenty" of corroborating RS appears justified. As noted above, a paywall is no barrier to citing anyway, so we have two RS against the personal opinion of one editor. The suggestion that the figure is not believable is pure Original Research and speculation on the part of the dissenting editor. It may in part be explained by the use of advanced materials, and also by the fact that this is a pure trainer variant; we know this because the US is expressing interest in an F-7 light fighter variant. By contrast, other similar types are already capable of the light fighter role. This role brings with it a more comprehensive weapons system and avionics fit and a more powerful engine variant, so the plane ends up a good deal heavier. The published figures are consistent with this scenario, so there is scope for editorial disagreement here. But there is no scope for slightly paranoid theories about respected RS, nor for going against the clear many-to-one consensus in this discussion. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 04:54, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

As noted above, the max-takeoff weight is also in the Air & Space Forces magazine as well - A&SF is apparently the "official publication of the Air & Space Forces Association". It is also a little higher than a T-38, so it's not impossible if you aren't going to be hanging external fuel or other stores onto the aircraftNigel Ish (talk) 14:11, 5 April 2024 (UTC)