AT-38C Oil Study Finished ...
Wade Meyers
12" x 18"
Oil on Canvas Panel
This is the half-scale study which shows AT-38Cs of the 49th FTS
"Black Knights" bouncing two Weapons School F-15E Strike Eagles over a
Nellis range. The Moody AFB, Georgia based 49th is one of two
Introduction to Fighter Fundamentals squadrons whose Instructors
frequently go to Nellis to offer dissimilar training.
The full sized (24" x 36") work will be donated to the 49th FTS at
Moody.
"In progress" details can be found on my site. Go here:
http://wademeyersart.tripod.com/id57.html
Cheers! Wade
Note: I'm posting three URLs to the pic below b/c I don't know which
one works with GoogleGroups. If no pic, go here:
http://wademeyersart.tripod.com/id41.html
[IMG]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v76/Chicoartist/Study_BlackKnights_finished.jpg[/IMG]
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v76/Chicoartist/Study_BlackKnights_finished.jpg
<img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v76/Chicoartist/Study_BlackKnights_finished.jpg">
Steve Mellenthin
AT-38, much less an AT-38C. I know that when the fighter transition program
started at Holloman in the late 70s IIRC, the planes were T-38s fitted with
practice bomb dispensers and gun pods like the F-5s and were called AT-38s.
Can anyone clarify?
Steve
>Subject: AT-38C Oil Study Finished ...
>From: chico...@yahoo.com (Wade Meyers)
>Date: 8/5/2004 12:59 PM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <aaaae12a.04080...@posting.google.com>
>[]
>
Ed Rasimus
Mellenthin) wrote:
>A friend of mine who works at Boeing tells me there is no such thing as an
>AT-38, much less an AT-38C. I know that when the fighter transition program
>started at Holloman in the late 70s IIRC, the planes were T-38s fitted with
>practice bomb dispensers and gun pods like the F-5s and were called AT-38s.
>
>Can anyone clarify?
>
>Steve
Why would someone who works at Boeing have insight into a Northrop
product or an AF nomeclature?
First, let's deal with AT-38B. The base T-38 used for years in UPT has
been the T-38A. When the Aggressor program started, the first
generation Aggressors flew T-38As. When F-5Es became available that
had been scheduled for delivery to the VNAF in 1975, the Aggressors
were equipped with the F-5.
Lead-in needed a C/L pylon and camera-capable gunsight for the
mission. The T-38A was modified with a C/L pylon capable of carrying a
SUU-20 practice bomb dispenser or a SUU-11 mini-gun along with a
fold-down manually depressible gunsight with 16mm camera. The
structural mod made the airplane a B model and it was designated
AT-38B. We had something like 130 of them for four training squadrons
at Holloman. We had only a handful (something like six) A models,
which were the remnants of the Thunderbird T-38 fleet.
The C model is the glass cockpit update. I'm out of the business now,
but I would imagine that if the source airframe for the upgrade were
an AT-38B, then the glass airplane would be an AT-38C.
Whether discussing F-5A or F-5E (or two-seat B or F), the F-5 is
definitely not a T-38. The F-5 has a slab wing rather than built up
honeycomb, leading edge flaps, bigger landing gear, a tail hook and
numerous other differences that leave only a similar planform.
I've got four years at Holloman and about 1400 hours (acquired at
around 0.9 hours/sortie) of AT-38B experience.
Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
"Phantom Flights, Bangkok Nights"
Both from Smithsonian Books
***www.thunderchief.org
Steve Mellenthin
>The C model is the glass cockpit update. I'm out of the business now,
>but I would imagine that if the source airframe for the upgrade were
>an AT-38B, then the glass airplane would be an AT-38C.
>
>Whether discussing F-5A or F-5E (or two-seat B or F), the F-5 is
>definitely not a T-38. The F-5 has a slab wing rather than built up
>honeycomb, leading edge flaps, bigger landing gear, a tail hook and
>numerous other differences that leave only a similar planform.
>
>I've got four years at Holloman and about 1400 hours (acquired at
>around 0.9 hours/sortie) of AT-38B experience.
Hi Ed,
That was pretty much what I told him. I would assume the painting of the
"AT-38Cs" attacking two F-15Es in the Nevada desert is ficticious at least at
this time. Thanks for the validation.
Boeing is doing the upgrade to the T-38C so that is why they have at least some
insight into the current program.
Steve
Wade Meyers
Thanks for the 'clarification' to Steve's post. The official
designation for the upgrades to the TALON is "T-38C", just like there
was a "T-38A". As you say the "B" designation was taken up,
officially, by the AT-38"B". That's why this new jet is called the
"C".
New engines, inlets and exhaust nozzles, TCAS, GPS and glass cockpits
are among the highlights of the upgrade. The UPT 'white jets', too,
will eventually all be C-models. As you can imagine, guys heading for
jets like the Strike Eagle were less than prepared for the gee-whiz
gadgetry of the glass after flying steam gauges - no matter how good
their BFM skills.
I am not 100% sure if the C-models flying with the Introduction to
Fighter Fundamentals troops have been designated AT-38C *yet*, but I
think that's not long in coming since the IFF jets do have gunsights,
something that separates them from the UPT jets ... I suppose that if
tradition was consistent, as in your day, the IFF jets would be called
AT-38D, to show their true 'difference' in mission.
Ah, but I just paint them (and ride in them) . . . love your books, by
the way!
Cheers,
Wade Meyers
"I am not 100% sure if the C-models flying with the Introduction to
Fighter Fundamentals troops have been designated AT-38C *yet* . . . "
I meant to add to that the IFF guys all call their jets AT-38C - I
just don't know if the bean-counters have come up with that OFFICIAL
designation yet. Like I said, I think AT-38D would be more
appropriate based on the use of "B" with the AT-38B.
Wade Meyers
> "AT-38Cs" attacking two F-15Es in the Nevada desert is ficticious at least at
> this time. Thanks for the validation.
Hi Steve,
They go to Nevada all the time . . . in fact, I worked very closely
with one of the 49th FTS IPs while designing the composition of my
painting.
The official Air Force Fact Sheet on the T-38 states, in part:
--------------------
Air Education and Training Command uses a modified version, the
AT-38B, to prepare pilots for fighter aircraft such as the F-15, F-16
and A-10. The AT-38B has a gun sight and practice bomb dispenser.
The Talon first flew in 1959. More than 1,100 were delivered to the
Air Force between 1961 and 1972 when production ended.
Pacer Classic is a program designed to extend the structural life of
the T-38 to 2020. Future major modifications to the T-38 avionics
systems will result in all Talons being redesignated as T-38C models.
--------------------end quote.
AETC now uses the C-model in this IFF role. So, looks like even
official USAF literature has yet to be updated . . .
As I told Ed, the IFF troops all refer to their jets as "AT-38C", and
it is sometimes referred to as "AT-38C" in official literature. It is
used in the role of the AT-38B, and it *does* have the HUD, unlike the
straight C-model. One example:
http://www.aetc.randolph.af.mil/se2/torch/back/2002/0211/abort.htm
Official? Hmm, maybe not on paper in the budget, yet, but there's
nothing "ficticious" about my painting, either in the scene or the
title.
Either way, it's fun talking about it!
Ed Rasimus
wrote:
>Hi Ed,
>
>Thanks for the 'clarification' to Steve's post. The official
>designation for the upgrades to the TALON is "T-38C", just like there
>was a "T-38A". As you say the "B" designation was taken up,
>officially, by the AT-38"B". That's why this new jet is called the
>"C".
>
>New engines, inlets and exhaust nozzles, TCAS, GPS and glass cockpits
>are among the highlights of the upgrade. The UPT 'white jets', too,
>will eventually all be C-models. As you can imagine, guys heading for
>jets like the Strike Eagle were less than prepared for the gee-whiz
>gadgetry of the glass after flying steam gauges - no matter how good
>their BFM skills.
It's nice to get an update on the status of an old friend aircraft.
The AT-38Bs we had at Holloman when I was there ('81-85) certainly had
tired engines. In UPT 20 years earlier, we went X-C at FL 410 and .9
mach. The old engines couldn't stabilize at those altitudes any more
and we routinely took them X-C at FL 310-330. Higher altitudes made
them VERY susceptible to "out-of-the-envelope" flameouts.
New engines must make a real difference in performance of an already
agile airplane. The glass, HUD, etc. would really be a kick to fly.
>
>I am not 100% sure if the C-models flying with the Introduction to
>Fighter Fundamentals troops have been designated AT-38C *yet*, but I
>think that's not long in coming since the IFF jets do have gunsights,
>something that separates them from the UPT jets ... I suppose that if
>tradition was consistent, as in your day, the IFF jets would be called
>AT-38D, to show their true 'difference' in mission.
I assume that the HUD/gunsight includes video as well. Do you know if
they're wired for an ACMI downlink to be carried on the pylon?
>
>Ah, but I just paint them (and ride in them) . . . love your books, by
>the way!
So far it's only "book"--the second will be released in February '05.
It's in production right now.
And I like your painting. It brings back memories of a lot of
dissimilar we did at Holloman where we got regular opportunities to
fly against the 49th F-15Cs.
We would also deploy to support defensive ACM for the A-10 training
unit at Davis-Monthan acting as aggressors and to Patrick AFB for
OV-10/O-2 FAC training, acting as ground attack aircraft. The AT-38
has proven itself a very versatile asset.
Wade Meyers
"and it *does* have the HUD, unlike the
straight C-model . . ."
I have to check myself . . . all the Cs will/do have the HUD.
HOWEVER, I *do* have a picture of "AT38C" painted on the jet ... email me for a pic.
Wade
Wade Meyers
In my quest to find out more about the proper designation, I've found
out from Randy Haskin, a friend of mine who is an IP down at Moody
(and who took the picture cited below) that there is no physical
difference between the T-38C and the IFF "AT-38C". Both have HUDs,
and both have NO centerline station - even the IFF jets. The C/L
pylon went out a while back.
The only difference between the UPT student jets and the IFF jets are
the paint jobs. Introduction to Fighter Fundamentals C-model jets
(your old Fighter Lead-In) are rapidly approaching all being painted
in the new "F-16" style camo - as in my two paintings (see my site) -
and the UPT (now called SUPT for "Specialized" UPT - they now have
'tracks' Fighter/Recce/Attack and Bomber/Tanker - the fighter boys go
fly 38s in the last half of SUPT, and the heavy drivers go fly the
T-1A Jayhawk) C-model jets are going to the OREO scheme, with darker
forward and rear sections.
Thus, there is NO AT-38C ... at least officially, because there are no
physical differences as I said. However, the IFF troops are really
trying to get the AT-38C label to stick, but they are fighting higher
ups who insist that no AT-38C designation has been assigned. However,
my personal opinion is that the IFF jets should be so designated
OFFICIALLY because of their unique mission relative to the
undergraduate jets.
Besides, they've already got "AT38C" painted on the jets! See these
links till one of them works for a picture taken today:
[IMG]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v76/Chicoartist/AT38C_painted.jpg[/IMG]
<img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v76/Chicoartist/AT38C_painted.jpg">
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v76/Chicoartist/AT38C_painted.jpg
Mike Williamson
Since (as has been posted previously in this thread) there
isn't any physical differences between the "UPT" C and "IFF"
C models, there definitely won't be a D model designation
for the aircraft. The reason for the B designation was that
there were physical diffences to the aircraft that do not
exist in the C model.
They might be able to swing an "A" pre-designator, as there
is some precedent for it with the A-10, but IIRC that was
for political/treaty reasons rather than a strict mission change.
The reason the folks at IFF call them AT-38Cs is simply that
their previous jets were AT-38Bs.
Mike
matheson31
Magazine" profiles the AT-38b at Holloman as part of the 46th Test Wing.
Clearly there are ACMI pods on centerline stations in several of the photos.
--
Les Matheson
F-4C(WW)/D/E/G(WW), AC-130A, MC-130E WSO/EWO (ret)
"Mike Williamson" <williamso...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:41153D49...@earthlink.net...
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.734 / Virus Database: 488 - Release Date: 8/4/2004