MILITARY LOCKHEED MARTIN T-50A
56 | http://www.airinternational.comcockpit and the displays and ergonomics used
to aid the pilot and crew. In the case of the
T-X, both cockpits must feature a large area
display that provides the same functionality
and information front and aft.
The instructor pilot will normally fl y in
the aft cockpit and teach the student pilot
in the front cockpit, but the aircraft can
be fl own from either cockpit to include all
actions necessary to recover the aircraft
without relying on front-seat occupant
assistance. However, for instructor pilot
upgrade training, the qualifi ed instructor sits
in the forward cockpit and the instructor
undergoing upgrade is seated aft. Therefore,
both cockpit confi gurations must optimise the
ability to provide instruction in accordance
with syllabuses for AETC’s Specialised
Undergraduate Pilot Training, Pilot Instructor
Training, and Introduction to Fighter
Fundamentals programmes.
T-X must also provide the ability to fl y
the aircraft tactically without the need to
reference cockpit console information using
front and aft cockpit head-up displays suitable
for all advanced pilot training fl ying tasks.
The family of systems must have scenario
input capability for pre-planned and real-time
tactical scenario injects for the aircraft by
either aircrew position, and those for a virtual
air tra c control environment for the GBTS at
both the cockpit and console.
Other capabilities include an external
carriage capability with a MIL-STD-1760
compatible aircraft/store electrical interface
to accommodate either a weapons systems
support pod or a travel pod.
The T-X family of systems must also provide
the ability to conduct aerial refuelling training
in the simulator for day and night lighting
conditions, including full visual display; the
aircraft must have the capability to accept
installation of an aerial refuelling receptacle
without signifi cant structural modifi cations orthe need to move or redesign other systems
or subsystems.Son of a Golden Eagle
What about Lockheed Martin’s contender, the
T-50A? The aircraft was specifi cally developed
as a trainer to replace the T-38 Talon in the
Republic of Korea Air Force. Development
was undertaken in partnership with Korea
Aerospace Industries. With a future US Air
Force trainer requirement on the horizon
(the T-50 was developed in the late 1990s),
Lockheed Martin made a smart moving in its
involvement with the T-50, a ready-to-go
option for what today is known as T-X.
The T-50’s design shares about 70% design,
component and parts commonality with the
F-16. Lockheed Martin’s T-50 chief test pilot
Mark Ward, a former F-16 pilot himself, says
the company took all of the best parts of the
F-16, looked at them in relation to the training
mission and identifi ed which ones should
be translated to a trainer aircraft. Ward gave
some examples: “The F-16 uses a hydrazine-
based emergency power system. Hydrazine
is a high-maintenance [substance] and a little
more problematic with fuels, so you don’t
want to have to deal with it in the training
mission in which jets are turning every day, so
we did away with the system. The T-50 has
a basic auxiliary power unit system that does
the job of the old EPU system, and we have
also tied that with a thermal battery. Both
systems are highly reliable and require little or
no maintenance, which helps to drive the total
cost down and reliability up.”
Another example is the F-16’s side stick
controller. This is a force sensor, so it moves
hardly at all, but it senses force. After lots
of studies of F-22 and F-35 operations,
Lockheed Martin engineers noticed that if
they used a displacement stick, still a side stick
controller, but with more sensitivity to motion
that senses displacement instead of force, thepilot has a better fl ying experience. Lockheed
Martin’s studies revealed that pilots are able
to control the jet better and like the feel of it
better. Mark Ward said Lockheed Martin has
used full displacement stick systems in the
T-50 to give the aeroplane a more natural feel
than the F-16.
Ward’s third example is the landing gear.
He said: “The F-16’s landing gear is relatively
short and sti , and while the aircraft is easy
to land, it tends to bounce down the runway,
which is not what we want in a trainer aircraft;
we want to teach with an aeroplane that has
more basic landing characteristics than the
F-16. So, the T-50’s landing gear is a di erent
design, one that allows the pilot to either set
the aircraft down fi rmly at a sink rate as high
as 13ft/sec [a carrier landing sink rate], but
the landing gear absorbs the load without a
bounce, or grease it on to the runway when
the aeroplane just settles nicely and doesn’t
bounce. The redesign on the landing gear
makes a huge di erence in providing a good
solid trainer as required for training a student.”
For his fi nal example, Ward cited the GE
F404 engine, the same variant used by the
F-18 Hornet, with millions of hours of fl ight
time on the design. He said the T-50 team,
which includes GE Aviation, added a dual
FADEC system that allows the pilot to move
the throttle carefree “anywhere, anytime”,
similar in form and functionality to the engine
control systems fi tted in the F-22 Raptor
and the F-35 Lightning II, and many fourth-
generation aircraft, too.Cockpit and display
Discussing pilot expectations of a modern
aircraft, Ward said the T-50 team identifi ed
the need for a large touchscreen cockpit
display to the exact dimensions as the screen
fi tted in the F-35. He said: “The screen is laid
out in a similar format to an F-35, but uses
slightly di erent portals: a blend between“Both systems are highly reliable and require
little or no maintenance, which helps to drive
the total cost down and reliability up.”
Lockheed Martin’s T-50 chief test pilot, Mark Ward