Difference T-38 Taloon -- F-5 B
Erik Thomle Hoelsæter
Can anyone tell me the difference between
the T-38 Taloon and the F-5B?
As far as I can see,
the only difference by look is the
air-intakes,but I am sure it is a lot more differences than that.
Thanks in advance!
Ed Rasimus
jrw...@seanet.com (John Weiss) wrote:
>On 05/18/96 12:28PM, in message <4nl4sn$4...@hasle.sn.no>, Erik Thomle
The F-5B had a solid slab wing whereas the T-38 wing was aluminum skin
over honeycomb. The F-5B had larger wheels/tires, and had conventional
instruments while the T-38 had a flight director system. The F-5 had
leading edge flaps, larger speed brakes and a later, slightly uprated
version of the J-85 engine.
The B model did not have the M-39 20MM cannons, but it did have wing
hard points and wingtip stations.
>
>
John Weiss
On 05/18/96 12:28PM, in message <4nl4sn$4...@hasle.sn.no>, Erik Thomle
Hoelsęter <tho...@oslonett.no> wrote:
> Can anyone tell me the difference between
> the T-38 Taloon and the F-5B?
> As far as I can see,
> the only difference by look is the
> air-intakes,but I am sure it is a lot more differences than that.
>
> Thanks in advance!
>
I don't think the Talon has any provision for weapons. The F-5 carries a gun
and Sidewinders. The engine version may be different, too.
--
John Weiss
Bare Bones BBS, Seattle, WA
206-368-7672
e...@cbncp5.cb.att.com
In article <4nl4sn$4...@hasle.sn.no>,
Erik Thomle Hoelsęter <tho...@oslonett.no> wrote:
>
>Can anyone tell me the difference between
>the T-38 Taloon and the F-5B?
>As far as I can see,
>the only difference by look is the
>air-intakes,but I am sure it is a lot more differences than that.
>
>Thanks in advance!
>
The F-5B has leading edge slats the T-38 does not. The T-38 is missing the
wing farings to the intakes. The T-38 also lacks the housing at the base
of the tail rudder. The T-38 has a metal covering on top between the jet
exausts. Thats all I remember when converting an F-5B model to a T-38.
These ar external diffferences only.
Harold Hutchison
> Can anyone tell me the difference between
> the T-38 Taloon and the F-5B?
> As far as I can see,
> the only difference by look is the
> air-intakes,but I am sure it is a lot more differences than that.
One dead giveaway would be the weapons pylons or LACK of them.
Speaking of T-38s, how much to buy one from Davis Monthan?
--
"I'm waiting to see how they are going to try blame this one on me."
- Ollie North on Iran-Bosnia
Paal Naess
tho...@oslonett.no (Erik Thomle Hoelsćter) wrote:
>
>Can anyone tell me the difference between
>the T-38 Taloon and the F-5B?
>As far as I can see,
>the only difference by look is the
>air-intakes,but I am sure it is a lot more differences than that.
has.
Speaking of Northrop's, whatever happened to F-20? Seem to remember
reading about Yeager flying it, loving it, same thing with Gillcrist.
I found an article on F-5G, is that the same as the F-20?
Paal
Paal Naess
jrw...@seanet.com (John Weiss) wrote:
>I don't think the Talon has any provision for weapons. The F-5 carries a gun
>and Sidewinders. The engine version may be different, too.
Enters the AT-38B! First they took one T-38 and put a 7.62 gun pod along
the centerline, and "Hey, it works! let's call it the AT-38A. Then we
take some 100 other Talon's, do the same to them and call them AT-38B,
and send them to 479th. TTW, so they can really play out there!"
Paal "am I just dreaming?"
Ken Fischer
Paal Naess (pn...@sn.no) wrote:
: tho...@oslonett.no (Erik Thomle Hoelsæter) wrote:
: >
: >Can anyone tell me the difference between
: >the T-38 Taloon and the F-5B?
: Speaking of Northrop's, whatever happened to F-20? Seem to remember
: reading about Yeager flying it, loving it, same thing with Gillcrist.
: I found an article on F-5G, is that the same as the F-20?
Yes, there was two flying articles built, but
I think both crashed. After the crashes I studied
the design and came up with an opinion that the square
corners on the undersides of the fuselage might cause
an inherent stability in inverted flight at low speeds,
which could possibly be a real problem at low altitude.
But I guess I'll never know for sure.
Ken Fischer
JBerszoner
Concerning the F-20's. I worked at Northrop during those days, and
essentially politics did in the F-20. Northrop could not sell one F-20
because of it, despite superior flying characteristics and low cost
purchase and maintenance.
To the best of my knowledge, this is what happened.....someone else can
fill in the blanks.
The F-20 was going to be the future of aviation at it's most
cost-effective. One pilot, spare parts came from the F-5 program, low cost
purchase price (fixed price, no cost overruns) and small radar
cross-section. Some magazine "tested" it against the F-14, Mirage, MIG-27,
and one other a/c that escapes me. In "head-to-head" comparisons (no
flying, I think it was just compared spec by spec) the F-20 won hands down
in the areas of maneuverability, QRC (quick reaction capability) and
overall serviceability.
The Air Force considered purchasing the a/c for defensive roles, but
decided since it was so small, it could not sustain battle damage and
still bring the pilot home, even though "it flew circles around the
competition".
After much political wrangling, Northrop offered a fixed price purchasing
deal. The Air National Guard was looking to replace it's aging Phantoms.
Northrop offered them like 260 a/c for a good fixed price. I think it was
McDonnell that counteroffered with 200 refurbished F-14A's, for the same
money, but with escalating costs as they were shipped. Again, the
politicos took this agreement and tore it apart, pork-barrelling this 'n
that and the bottom line was McDonnell sold the National Guard less a/c
for more money than the original contract called for.
Above all that, since Northrop could not sell it's product to domestic
forces, then it was forbidden to sell the a/c overseas. Goodbye cost
effective F-20, hello rather archaic and expensive F-14.
Four of the aircraft were built, 2 crashed accidentally during testing, 1
crashed deliberately during testing, 1 taken "on the road" for promotions
(if you remember there was one in a Chrysler commercial. I don't know what
happened to that one).
Hope this helped.
john
Walt Shiel
The F-20 Tigershark's only head-to-head procurement contest was against the General
Dynamics Air Defense F-16A. GD cut its price almost to the point of losing money
on the deal, something Northrop could not afford to do then, and GD won. There were
no other credible US contracts for which the F-20 could compete and no foreign
country was willing to buy an American fighter (no matter how good it was or how
well it suited their mission) that the American military would not buy.
I worked for Northrop during those F-20 days (but on the B-2) and then worked on the
flight sim for the ANG ADF-16A program at GD later. Also got to sit in the seat of
the last F-20 at Edwards and "play" with the avionics and talk to one of the test
pilots (whose name escapes me at the moment). Neat little airplane...but he
wouldn't let me take it out for a test flight....bummer!
--
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Walt Shiel
Author: "Cessna Warbirds, A Detailed and Personal History
of Cessna's Involvement in the Armed Forces"
For More Info, Email: wsh...@airmail.net
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Ed Rasimus
Paal Naess <pn...@sn.no> wrote:
> Enters the AT-38B! First they took one T-38 and put a 7.62 gun pod along
>the centerline, and "Hey, it works! let's call it the AT-38A. Then we
>take some 100 other Talon's, do the same to them and call them AT-38B,
>and send them to 479th. TTW, so they can really play out there!"
> Paal "am I just dreaming?"
The T-38 was the T-38A. When Fighter Lead-In Training was initiated
and the weapons mods were added, the version was designated "B" model.
The c/l station could carry the gun pod or SUU-20 bomb/rocket
dispenser as well as a travel pod (not quite big enough to fit the
skis in for a week-end X-country. Also added was the gun sight and
camera. And, finally by 1982, the standardized blue on blue camo
pattern.
Fighter Lead-In provided incredible introductory BFM training for UPT
grads enroute to their first fighter as well as basic tactics and A/G
delivery. We also did FAC lead-in demonstrating both low and high
threat CAS missions.
Co-located with the 49 TFW we often got to fly against the F-15s. The
AT-38 didn't stand a chance one-v-one, but I've got a lot of film of
Eagles dancing the chicken in 2-v-2 situations (once we got to the
merge without assuming a face-shot). The advantage was that most of
the Talon drivers had lots of experience whereas the average Eagle
pilot in the squadrons had less than 500 hours in his system.
Ed Rasimus
Paal Naess <pn...@sn.no> wrote:
>tho...@oslonett.no (Erik Thomle Hoelsćter) wrote:
>>
>>Can anyone tell me the difference between
>>the T-38 Taloon and the F-5B?
> Look closely at the wing-roots; Talon has no leading edge extension, F-5
>has.
Don't confuse the F-5B with the F-5F. The B didn't have the leading
edge fillets. In fact, if you examine the F-5E/F you will note that it
is a totally different aircraft from the A/B---a Freedom Fighter on
steroids.
> Speaking of Northrop's, whatever happened to F-20? Seem to remember
>reading about Yeager flying it, loving it, same thing with Gillcrist.
>I found an article on F-5G, is that the same as the F-20?
Yes, the F-5G was the same aircraft as the F-20.
-{=[ TCP/SF2 ]=}-
Paal Naess (pn...@sn.no) wrote:
: tho...@oslonett.no (Erik Thomle Hoelsæter) wrote:
: >
: >Can anyone tell me the difference between
: >the T-38 Taloon and the F-5B?
: >the only difference by look is the
: >air-intakes,but I am sure it is a lot more differences than that.
: Look closely at the wing-roots; Talon has no leading edge extension, F-5
: has.
think the USAF T-38 are going to have the leading edge extension as
part of their upgrades.
: Speaking of Northrop's, whatever happened to F-20? Seem to remember
: reading about Yeager flying it, loving it, same thing with Gillcrist.
: I found an article on F-5G, is that the same as the F-20?
: Paal
the F-20 program has been killed. the F-20 was initially named as F-5G
and presume that implies that they are the same.
although the F-20 program has terminated, its results are found in the
later F-5E/F and the ROCAF's IDF program. For the later F-5E/F, they
have the shark-tip nose, more square-tapered wing root extension and
perhaps other. For the IDF program, it seems that the idea was to built
a ROC version of the F-20. not sure for that.
best regards.
--
*-----------------------------------------*
| CPL(NS) Tan C. P. ~{GoCz~} | |
| SkyFlash-II (071295) SkyFlash (030795) | |
| Spitfire (130695) SkyLark (120794) | __ /_\ __
| | (| o |)
| email : tanc...@pobox.org.sg | X---===o====\_/====o===----X
| (expt) tanchu...@pobox.org.sg | x+x " " x+x
*-----------------------------------------*
-{=[ TCP/SF2 ]=}-
John Weiss (jrw...@seanet.com) wrote:
: On 05/18/96 12:28PM, in message <4nl4sn$4...@hasle.sn.no>, Erik Thomle
: Hoelsæter <tho...@oslonett.no> wrote:
: > Can anyone tell me the difference between
: > the T-38 Taloon and the F-5B?
: > As far as I can see,
: > the only difference by look is the
: > air-intakes,but I am sure it is a lot more differences than that.
: >
: > Thanks in advance!
: >
: I don't think the Talon has any provision for weapons. The F-5 carries a gun
: and Sidewinders. The engine version may be different, too.
Not all F-5 carries guns. For the least, the F-5B don't.
: --
: John Weiss
: Bare Bones BBS, Seattle, WA
: 206-368-7672
--
Paal Naess
thu...@rmii.com (Ed Rasimus) wrote:
>Paal Naess <pn...@sn.no> wrote:
>> Look closely at the wing-roots; Talon has no leading edge extension, >>F-5 has.
>
>Don't confuse the F-5B with the F-5F. The B didn't have the leading
>edge fillets. In fact, if you examine the F-5E/F you will note that it
>is a totally different aircraft from the A/B---a Freedom Fighter on
>steroids.
Beg to differ; looking at the Talon and F-5A/B from above/below, you
will see a difference at the wing-root, a few inches behind the
air-intake. Admittedly not as large as on the E/F, there still is an
outgrowth. If it isn't an extension, what should I call it?
Paal
Darrell A. Larose
Harold Hutchison (hhutc...@cornell-iowa.edu) writes:
>> Can anyone tell me the difference between
>> the T-38 Taloon and the F-5B?
>> As far as I can see,
>> the only difference by look is the
>> air-intakes,but I am sure it is a lot more differences than that.
> Let me check my EMAIL stacks. I asked Joe Baugher about that.
> One dead giveaway would be the weapons pylons or LACK of them.
> Speaking of T-38s, how much to buy one from Davis Monthan?
I don't know about DM, but how about some nice rebuilt CF-5's. The
Canadian Air Force has our entire inventory of CF-5 up for sale, it
was suggested that Turkey was going to buy them, but no word on that
sale.
--
Darrell Larose
ad...@freenet.carleton.ca http://www.ncf.carleton.ca/~ad607
dar...@cesani.newforce.ca http://www.newforce.ca/~darrell/
José Herculano
> Speaking of Northrop's, whatever happened to F-20? Seem to remember
>reading about Yeager flying it, loving it, same thing with Gillcrist.
>I found an article on F-5G, is that the same as the F-20?
The F-5G Tigershark was renamed F-20 as a marketing move, when
it was percieved that the market for cheap viper-like aircraft
was more sofisticated than foreseen.
The F-20 was an wonderful aircraft, that got no sales. Like it's
"competitor", the F-16 J79, it was percieved - not correctly in this
case - as a second choice, somewhat inferior product in comparison
with the standard Vipers. It had some shortcomings, yes, in growth
potential, load carrying, avionics and range. But was a wonderful
dogfighter and an afordable alternative.
Jose
Robin Breyl
JBerszoner (jbers...@aol.com) wrote:
:...
: After much political wrangling, Northrop offered a fixed price purchasing
: deal. The Air National Guard was looking to replace it's aging Phantoms.
: Northrop offered them like 260 a/c for a good fixed price. I think it was
: McDonnell that counteroffered with 200 refurbished F-14A's, for the same
:...
McDonnel F-14A ?
For the air force ??
You didn't meant the F-15 Eagle, didn't you ?
Robin
_______________________________________________________________________________
cand. Ing. \ /
Robin Breyl \ /
\ __ _ __ /
______________\/__\/(_)\/__\/______________
\__| \___/ |__/
E-Mail to: br...@ikb.uni-essen.de
_______________________________________________________Impact! Boom! Oh, Yes!__
Anandeep Pannu
I am converting a 1/72nd scale PM Models F-5B into a T-38 Talon and had to
find out the differences in detail!
They are
(1) There a no leading edge extensions on the T-38; present on F-5
(2) There are no leading edge manouever flaps on the T-38 ; present on F-5
(3) The F-5 has a double fork on its nosewheel the T-38 has a single fork
(4) No brake parachute housing on T-38 - present on F-5 (rear of vertical
stabilizer above engine exhausts)
(5) Air intakes on T-38 extended with a trapezoidal shape intake edge; shorter
squarer intakes on F-5.
(6) Air brakes forward located on T-38 compared to F-5
(7) No tip tanks on T-38 ; present on F-5
(8) Landing light located under nose of T-38 on nosewheel of F-5.
The F-5A/B had similar engines but the F-5E had more powerful engines to the
T-38.
Hope that helps.
--
Anandeep Pannu
Research Programmer
Robotics Institute
Carnegie Mellon University
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs.cmu.edu/user/pannu/www/pannu.html
Ed Rasimus
tanc...@iscs.nus.sg (-{=[ TCP/SF2 ]=}-) wrote:
>although the F-20 program has terminated, its results are found in the
>later F-5E/F and the ROCAF's IDF program. For the later F-5E/F, they
>have the shark-tip nose, more square-tapered wing root extension and
>perhaps other.
The F-5E/F was operational in many locations before the F-20 program
first flew.
The F-20 was designed as a follow-on to the third-world fighter sales
of the F-5. It was to compete against down-rated aircraft like the
F-16/79, Mirage 5 and others. The idea being that first line
technologies would not be made available to all customers. When the
Carter administration undercut the program by arranging special deals
for fully equipped and engined F-16s to Pakistan, Korea and Turkey,
the rest of the world refused to be denied the same equipment that
USAF was using.
The result was that no foreign military sales of the F-20 were ever
made. The last gasp of the program was the attempt to sell it to the
USAF as an air defense fighter. That failed when ANG/AFRES units
received AD versions of F-16As and F-15As.
Dan Ford
One or two crashed. As the story is told, the USAF wouldn't buy it=20
because a) it was cheap and b) it wasn't the product of an AF development=
=20
project, and foreign govts wouldn't buy it because the USAF didn't.
Too bad. By all acounts it was a dandy aircraft, and anyhow its pet name=20
(Tigershark) would have been a nice compliment to Erik Shilling and the=20
rest of the American Volunteer Group.
- Dan
On 18 May 1996, Paal Naess wrote:
> tho...@oslonett.no (Erik Thomle Hoels=E6ter) wrote:
> >
> >Can anyone tell me the difference between=20
> >the T-38 Taloon and the F-5B?
> >As far as I can see,
> >the only difference by look is the
> >air-intakes,but I am sure it is a lot more differences than that.
> =20
> Look closely at the wing-roots; Talon has no leading edge extension, F-5=
=20
> has.=20
> Speaking of Northrop's, whatever happened to F-20? Seem to remember=20
> reading about Yeager flying it, loving it, same thing with Gillcrist.
> I found an article on F-5G, is that the same as the F-20?
> Paal
>=20
>=20
>=20
Richard H Smith
My father as pilot with the 462 Fighter Squadron, 506 Fighter Group,
7th Air Force. He was MIA on June 1, 1945, when I was 6 months old.
Anyone with information about that unit, or ideas about locating
information, please e-mail RHSm...@AOL.com
Thanks,
Richard Smith
JBerszoner
No F-20's were ordered. Once the rest of NATO discovered no domestic
service had purchased it, they decided not to also.
Dennis Jensen
In article <31a09d12....@news.rmii.com>,
ordered the aircraft, the project was cancelled.
Dennis
Walt Shiel
JBerszoner wrote:
>
> No F-20's were ordered. Once the rest of NATO discovered no domestic
> service had purchased it, they decided not to also.
It was never intended as a likely candidate for NATO sales...but mostly aimed at
developing countries where the F-5 had been sold and which were starting to look
seriously at buying F-16s.
--
==>For All E-Mail Replies, Use "wsh...@airmail.net"
=============================================================
Walt Shiel - Author: "Cessna Warbirds, A Detailed and
Personal History of Cessna's Involvement in the Armed Forces"
[For More Info, E-Mail: wsh...@airmail.net]
=============================================================
steven tobey
JBerszoner wrote:
>
> No F-20's were ordered. Once the rest of NATO discovered no domestic
> service had purchased it, they decided not to also.
Just out of curiosity does anyone know what happened to the surviving
airframes?
Steve
Jayarama N Shenoy
Walt Shiel <wps...@lfwc.lockheed.com> writes:
>>
>> No F-20's were ordered. Once the rest of NATO discovered no domestic
>> service had purchased it, they decided not to also.
>It was never intended as a likely candidate for NATO sales...but mostly aimed at
>developing countries where the F-5 had been sold and which were starting to look
>seriously at buying F-16s.
Was by any chance the F-5G offered, as a production license to India??
I rememeber reading about offer of some US aircraft being offered, possibly
by Northrop, in the latish-80's, for production. At that time, the US was
approached by India (mutual interest: US had a chance - important in 86 -
to wean India away from Soviet hardware) for help with the LCA, then not
even a paper design. So it could have been the _G_ version. India was at
that time looking for an advanced Jet trainer (and _still_ is), so it very
well could have been T-38's or F5-B's too. (They're not in consideration
now).
If it was the F5-G, it seems it would have met the LCA performance specs
and met them 15 years sooner! (THe LCA prototypes use one F404 engine
as well, incidentally).
Ken Koller
Paal Naess (pn...@sn.no) wrote:: >the T-38 Taloon and the F-5B?
: >As far as I can see,
: >the only difference by look is the
: >air-intakes,but I am sure it is a lot more differences than that.
: Look closely at the wing-roots; Talon has no leading edge extension, F-5
: has.
: Speaking of Northrop's, whatever happened to F-20? Seem to remember
: reading about Yeager flying it, loving it, same thing with Gillcrist.
: I found an article on F-5G, is that the same as the F-20?
Yep, the F-5G became the F-20 Tigershark. Something to do with Northrop
wanting to emphasise that the Tigershark was an all new aircraft.
Speculation is that they shot themselves in the foot when they did that.
INstead of having the well respeted F-5 moniker as a selling point,
foreign countries balked at the F-20.
Also, remember that the F-5B grew out of the T-38, not the other way
around. In an odd occurence, Northrop designed a fighter out of it's
trainer, instead of the other way around.
--
Ken Koller kko...@adnetsol.com
Fireline Images, Fire/Rescue/EMS photography
http://www.islandnet.com/~waynej/Ken_Koller/fireline.html
Jumpstart a life, learn CPR
Walt Shiel
Jayarama N Shenoy wrote:
> Was by any chance the F-5G offered, as a production license to India??
>
Maybe. My foggy old brain doesn't recall such a proposition, but it very well may have
been considered. I do know that Northrop was really pushing it. The F-5G was really
just the early nomenclature for the F-20...I think. I don't recall there being two
different aircraft...but if I'm wrong, I'm sure someone will correct me. <g>
Walt Shiel
steven tobey wrote:
>
> Just out of curiosity does anyone know what happened to the surviving
> airframes?
>
One of the two prototypes crashed during a demo flight (in Canada? that's what
sticks in my mind...). The other continued to fly for some time after Northrop gave
up on any sales. I'd be interested in knowing what became of it, too.
JBerszoner
Not necessarily true. Britain, Greece and Italy were considering the
purchase of F-20's for trainers and frontline a/c.
JBerszoner
That's not quirte true. Northrop developed the F-20 from the basic
airframe of the F-5 and was originally designated as a "G" model. The
unfortunate part was that Northrop could not sell 1 a/c, even after
spending approx. $1 billion of it's own money to develop the system.
Additions to the F-5G included QRC capability. I remember where a movie
was shown to us in management where the the F-5 and the F-14 were
scrambled at the same time. By the time the F-14 got warmed up, taxied,
and hit the runway, the F-20 was 14 miles and 38,000 ft away. Without
afterburners. Other things like advanced HUD's, avionics pods, the F404
engine and one seat performance made the a/c swifter and cheaper to
operate than many frontline NATO, Warsaw Bloc and soviet front line a/c of
the era.
Could not sell any because of political pressure and a real slick block
thrown by McDonnell, prevented any sales to be made.
JBerszoner
If I'm not mistaken, 2 were involved in accidents, 1 deliberately trashed
(don't know why), 1 went on the road (an example was in a Chrysler TV
commercial) and I don't remember what happened to it afterwards
Donny CHAN
In article <Pine.OSF.3.91a.96052...@christa.unh.edu>,
Dan Ford <d...@christa.unh.edu> wrote:
]One or two crashed. As the story is told, the USAF wouldn't buy it
]because a) it was cheap and b) it wasn't the product of an AF development
]project, and foreign govts wouldn't buy it because the USAF didn't.
]
]Too bad. By all acounts it was a dandy aircraft, and anyhow its pet name
]rest of the American Volunteer Group.
Two F-20s crashed. One in Canada, the other at an air show or demonstration
elsewhere.
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
| crs...@inforamp.net (Donny CHAN) |
| University of Toronto Mechanical Engineering 9T3+1 ERTW |
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
| "FIDES ET OPERA" - La Salle College motto |
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
Ed Rasimus
d.je...@geel.dwt.csiro.au (Dennis Jensen) wrote:
>I always thought that 4 F-20's were sold to Bahrain, but when no one else
>ordered the aircraft, the project was cancelled.
It would have been nice, but, nope. Not a single F-20 was ever sold to
anyone. The hopes and dreams at Northrop were that the sale of just
one would open the flood gates and prosperity would prevail. It didn't
happen.
et...@deltanet.com
In <31A253...@lfwc.lockheed.com>, Walt Shiel <wps...@lfwc.lockheed.com> writes:
>steven tobey wrote:
>>
>> Just out of curiosity does anyone know what happened to the surviving
>> airframes?
>>
>
>One of the two prototypes crashed during a demo flight (in Canada? that's what
>sticks in my mind...). The other continued to fly for some time after Northrop gave
>up on any sales. I'd be interested in knowing what became of it, too.
The last surviving F-20 (I believe that 3 prototypes were built) is
parked on a wall of the Museum of Science and Industry at Exposition
Park in Los Angeles.
========================================================================
et...@deltanet.com Eric Chevalier Compu$erve: 76010,2463
et...@netcom.com --------------------- Prodigy: GCXJ11A
http://www.deltanet.com/users/etech
========================================================================
Mary Shafer
On Tue, 21 May 1996 16:36:21 -0700, Walt Shiel <wps...@lfwc.lockheed.com> said:
W> steven tobey wrote:
> Just out of curiosity does anyone know what happened to the
> surviving airframes?
W> One of the two prototypes crashed during a demo flight (in Canada?
W> that's what sticks in my mind...). The other continued to fly for
W> some time after Northrop gave up on any sales. I'd be interested
W> in knowing what became of it, too.
Actually there were _three_ prototypes, not two. There were two
accidents, both at airshows (Canada sticks in my mind for one of them,
too, and the western Pacific Rim for the other). The cause of the
accidents was probably G-LOC, with the g onset being so rapid that the
pilot had none of the usual cues.
The third prototype kicked around here at the Northrop facility at
Edwards for a while, with Chuck Yeager using it as a backdrop for
battery commercials. I think it's now in the museum in Hawthorne
where the YF-23 is.
--
Mary Shafer NASA Dryden Flight Research Center, Edwards, CA
SR-71 Flying Qualities Lead Engineer Of course I don't speak for NASA
sha...@ferhino.dfrc.nasa.gov DoD #362 KotFR
URL http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/People/Shafer/mary.html
Mary Shafer
On 21 May 1996 18:25:53 -0400, jbers...@aol.com (JBerszoner) said:
J> Could not sell any because of political pressure and a real slick block
J> thrown by McDonnell, prevented any sales to be made.
Er, General Dynamics and the USAF F-16 mafia, not McAir. McAir's F-15
wasn't the competition, the GD F-16 was.
Saudi was going to buy the plane if it went into US service and we,
Dryden, were negotiating for some aircraft (support aircraft--chase,
proficiency, etc), which would have counted. They were only a few
orders short of what they needed to start production when the USAF
undercut them by getting GD permission to sell F-16s to many of the
F-20 customers. The USAF wanted to keep the F-16 line open and the
price low, so they cut Northrop off at the knees. At least, this is
the story I've always heard, from folks at Northrop, GD, and the F-16
CTF, as well as AvWeek. It may not be true, but it's very widely
believed.
Donny CHAN
In article <4ntfth$r...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>,
jbers...@aol.com (JBerszoner) wrote:
]That's not quirte true. Northrop developed the F-20 from the basic
]airframe of the F-5 and was originally designated as a "G" model. The
]unfortunate part was that Northrop could not sell 1 a/c, even after
]spending approx. $1 billion of it's own money to develop the system.
IIRC, didn't the F-5 series have two engines, while the F-5G/F-20 has one
engine? This is in addition to other structural differences.
Donny CHAN
In article <31A253...@lfwc.lockheed.com>,
Walt Shiel <wps...@lfwc.lockheed.com> wrote:
]One of the two prototypes crashed during a demo flight (in Canada? that's
what
]sticks in my mind...). The other continued to fly for some time after
Northrop gave
]up on any sales. I'd be interested in knowing what became of it, too.
If anyone's interested, the chapter titled "Tigershark!" in the book _Set
Phasers on Stun_ is a short account of the F-20A crash near Goose Bay Airport
in Labrador, Newfoundland, Canada. The cause of the crash is believed to be
human error: fatigue and G-LOC. Sorry, I read _Set Phasers on Stun,_ a book
about engineering designs and failures, years ago, and I didn't write down its
author, publisher, and ISBN.
Stainless Steel Rat
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On Tue, 21 May 1996 08:50:57 -0700, steven tobey <sto...@flash.net> wrote:
>Just out of curiosity does anyone know what happened to the surviving
>airframes?
Prototypes 1 and 2 crashed during airshows due to "pilot error" (best
guess is that the F-20's snap rolls were fast enough to cause g-loc).
Prototype 3 is on static display somewhere (I forget where). Prototype 4
was never finished.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQCVAwUBMaNEyJ6VRH7BJMxHAQEdbQQAvr0jJHnsNeUdccl+ky7JEYYtYILFJssq
4wa6sF7JXwLf/NLj8oMtQAYicMHcOHltFUt+dTgsP62l1Mj/DvSDqcAfRfPyPedm
CUQhGbUrnSCRh1GRIah35KxEyewQQkIMyGXFDKtRiRCHWWH1RzE9ho6MJJzfqBgU
ovrtooFYFwU=
=s6Dp
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Oh, your standard-issue Big Gun. Equipment Division made it, and now it's
part of my private collection. I was late because I... had to get it.
Stainless Steel Rat
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On 21 May 1996 12:10:58 -0700, kko...@adnetsol.com (Ken Koller) wrote:
>Yep, the F-5G became the F-20 Tigershark. Something to do with Northrop
>wanting to emphasise that the Tigershark was an all new aircraft.
"A New Fighter for a New Century... the F-20 Tigershark" or some such was
their advertising slogan.
>Speculation is that they shot themselves in the foot when they did that.
>INstead of having the well respeted F-5 moniker as a selling point,
>foreign countries balked at the F-20.
Nope; it was strictly political on the part of the Carter administration.
The US balked at exporting it, then cleared the F-16 for export instead.
>Also, remember that the F-5B grew out of the T-38, not the other way
>around. In an odd occurence, Northrop designed a fighter out of it's
>trainer, instead of the other way around.
One of the reasons that the Freedom Fighter/Tiger II was so well-liked by
Talon graduates, it acted like a hot-rod Talon :).
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQCVAwUBMaNFjp6VRH7BJMxHAQECYAQAur9M9rldh1HjBHT59cpKuAqbZKfEc2RH
Aj2wIFmmi2/Fh0jzwYcx4xRnfRSajkZDHJPjfVOVKWwKTn6KcfQ2Z9dlAfP6sYMl
30nzs+4x+MT+ZqNlnerY5CAuNXk2VW1+jBN7VFS2+eLW7w2kJYA2fs3xvhvamRMy
jWONhsU0tHw=
=klZC
Jim Herring
Mary Shafer wrote:
>
> On 21 May 1996 18:25:53 -0400, jbers...@aol.com (JBerszoner) said:
>
> J> Could not sell any because of political pressure and a real slick block
> J> thrown by McDonnell, prevented any sales to be made.
>
> Er, General Dynamics and the USAF F-16 mafia, not McAir. McAir's F-15
> wasn't the competition, the GD F-16 was.
>
> Saudi was going to buy the plane if it went into US service and we,
> Dryden, were negotiating for some aircraft (support aircraft--chase,
> proficiency, etc), which would have counted. They were only a few
> orders short of what they needed to start production when the USAF
> undercut them by getting GD permission to sell F-16s to many of the
> F-20 customers. The USAF wanted to keep the F-16 line open and the
> price low, so they cut Northrop off at the knees. At least, this is
> the story I've always heard, from folks at Northrop, GD, and the F-16
> CTF, as well as AvWeek. It may not be true, but it's very widely
> believed.
>
> --
As I remember it, the Carter administration told Northrop that the F-16
would not be exported. Then after the F-20 was built the government
(same administration) changed the rules.
Jim
Dennis Lee Jameson ()
Last time I saw an F-20 was out at mojave airport. about 4 to 5 years ago
from what i remember there were several of them. But I doubt there still
there.
Dennis Lee Jameson ()
This and the J79 version killed a airplane that that would have continued
a great line of aircraft.
On Wed, 22 May 1996, Mary Shafer wrote:
> On 21 May 1996 18:25:53 -0400, jbers...@aol.com (JBerszoner) said:
>
> J> Could not sell any because of political pressure and a real slick block
> J> thrown by McDonnell, prevented any sales to be made.
>
> Er, General Dynamics and the USAF F-16 mafia, not McAir. McAir's F-15
> wasn't the competition, the GD F-16 was.
>
> Saudi was going to buy the plane if it went into US service and we,
> Dryden, were negotiating for some aircraft (support aircraft--chase,
> proficiency, etc), which would have counted. They were only a few
> orders short of what they needed to start production when the USAF
> undercut them by getting GD permission to sell F-16s to many of the
> F-20 customers. The USAF wanted to keep the F-16 line open and the
> price low, so they cut Northrop off at the knees. At least, this is
> the story I've always heard, from folks at Northrop, GD, and the F-16
> CTF, as well as AvWeek. It may not be true, but it's very widely
> believed.
>
> --
Dominique Durocher
> Paal Naess (pn...@sn.no) wrote:
> : tho...@oslonett.no (Erik Thomle Hoelsæter) wrote:
> : >
> : >Can anyone tell me the difference between
> : >the T-38 Taloon and the F-5B?
> : Look closely at the wing-roots; Talon has no leading edge extension, F-5
> : has.
> : Speaking of Northrop's, whatever happened to F-20? Seem to remember
> : reading about Yeager flying it, loving it, same thing with Gillcrist.
> : I found an article on F-5G, is that the same as the F-20?
>
> Yes, there was two flying articles built, but
> I think both crashed. After the crashes I studied
> the design and came up with an opinion that the square
> corners on the undersides of the fuselage might cause
> an inherent stability in inverted flight at low speeds,
> which could possibly be a real problem at low altitude.
> But I guess I'll never know for sure.
Three were built, two crashed. The last one is mounted on a wall the the
San Diego air museum. On elittle detail, the first F-20 had an F-5 canopy.
It has a very different frame.
Dom
--
Dominique Durocher | "Vir, since when does intelligence have
dra...@odyssee.net | have anything to do with politics?"
SF Model Builders | Amb. Londo Mollari
Association | Babylon 5
Montreal, Canada |
Nils Mathisrud
Mary Shafer wrote:
>
(Stuff deleted)
>
> The third prototype kicked around here at the Northrop facility at
> Edwards for a while, with Chuck Yeager using it as a backdrop for
> battery commercials. I think it's now in the museum in Hawthorne
> where the YF-23 is.
Does the Hawthorne museum have a home page ? Or is there anywhere else
I can acquire information about the museum. I am interesed in both the
F-20 and YF-23 on display, and if I'm not wrong there is also an YF-17
displayed at the Hawthorne museum (can anybody confirm this please).
--
#########################################################################
Nils Mathisrud
email: et...@etn.ericsson.se
Chris Douglas
Donny CHAN wrote:
>
> In article <Pine.OSF.3.91a.96052...@christa.unh.edu>,
> Dan Ford <d...@christa.unh.edu> wrote:
> ]One or two crashed. As the story is told, the USAF wouldn't buy it
> ]because a) it was cheap and b) it wasn't the product of an AF development
> ]project, and foreign govts wouldn't buy it because the USAF didn't.
> ]
> ]Too bad. By all acounts it was a dandy aircraft, and anyhow its pet name
> ](Tigershark) would have been a nice compliment to Erik Shilling and the
> ]rest of the American Volunteer Group.
>
> Two F-20s crashed. One in Canada, the other at an air show or demonstration
> elsewhere.
>
> | crs...@inforamp.net (Donny CHAN) |
> | University of Toronto Mechanical Engineering 9T3+1 ERTW |
> +---------------------------------------------------------------+
> | "FIDES ET OPERA" - La Salle College motto |
> +---------------------------------------------------------------+
The USAF didn't buy the Tigershark because 1) it lacked range, 2) it lacked
payload, 3) its intended role was already being filled by the far more
capable F-16. It would have made a great aggressor, but at the time that
role was being filled by perfectly adequate F-5E's and T-38's.
It WAS a good lightweight, affordable fighter; it just didn't have a
place in the USAF.
--
-----------------------------------------------------
Chris Douglas - cdou...@origin.ea.com
Production Designer/Animator - Origin Systems, Inc.
-----------------------------------------------------
Opinions expressed are my own.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
You have escaped from it, but it is there, always following you.
It is there, in your heart and your mind, in the very depths and
recesses of your being. You have covered it up, escaped, run
away; but it is there. And the mind must experience it like a
purgation by fire. --Krishnamurti.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Walt Shiel
Mary Shafer wrote:
>
> Actually there were _three_ prototypes, not two. There were two
> accidents, both at airshows (Canada sticks in my mind for one of them,
> too, and the western Pacific Rim for the other). The cause of the
> accidents was probably G-LOC, with the g onset being so rapid that the
> pilot had none of the usual cues.
>
Yeah, you're right. I should have remembered that since I was working at Northrop at the
time! I'm going to plead age....
Walt
Jonathan Griffitts
In article <4nl4sn$4...@hasle.sn.no>, =?iso-8859-
1?q?Erik_Thomle_Hoels=E6ter?= <tho...@oslonett.no> writes
>Can anyone tell me the difference between
>the T-38 Taloon and the F-5B?
>the only difference by look is the
>air-intakes,but I am sure it is a lot more differences than that.
>
Not an answer to the question, just a related story:
Once upon a time my son (then 4 years old) and I were standing outside
an airfield fence watching a jet doing touch-and-goes.
He asked me "What kind of airplane is that?"
I said, "Either an F-5 or a T-38, but I don't remember how to tell them
apart."
After a pause, he said, "I think it must be an F-5, because I couldn't
see any teeth."
--
Jonathan Griffitts
AnyWare Engineering Boulder, CO, USA
voice/fax: 303 442-0556 email j...@qadas.com
Stainless Steel Rat
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On 22 May 1996 16:59:00 GMT, crs...@inforamp.net (Donny CHAN) wrote:
>IIRC, didn't the F-5 series have two engines, while the F-5G/F-20 has one
>engine? This is in addition to other structural differences.
Yes. The F-5 has a pair of J85 turbofans, the F-20 has a single F-404. The
F-404 weights more than the twin J85's but overall the F-20 comes up with a
T/W ratio about 15% better than the F-5.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQCVAwUBMaTPvp6VRH7BJMxHAQE4qgP/fT5DrUM0z0AycPKrJBXQYoqYUTnW2dL7
EmnmXfoJokil3neHc54Ex5C4f8j7QeiRL11wkCybRIC+XQgsa6i+pX6YW6fxOuLF
tnk2X0xBfaSxb4fH3DCr4dTvq60xfNDKgrvzFxqabf/XfcI50xBMeRI44+Drybxo
LQIU/uom3A4=
=uFER
Mary Shafer
On Thu, 23 May 1996 10:57:30 -0500, Chris Douglas <cdou...@origin.ea.com> said:
C> The USAF didn't buy the Tigershark because 1) it lacked range, 2)
C> it lacked payload, 3) its intended role was already being filled by
C> the far more capable F-16. It would have made a great aggressor,
C> but at the time that role was being filled by perfectly adequate
C> F-5E's and T-38's.
C> It WAS a good lightweight, affordable fighter; it just didn't have
C> a place in the USAF.
That was because it wasn't built for the USAF at all. Just like the
F-5, it was designed to be a lightweight, affordable, easily
maintained export fighter. It was really built for smaller more
developed countries, not for the all-up heavyweights. It would also
have been suitable for the more wealthy less developed countries, I
think. The Hawk was designed for much the same role.
The F-16 didn't fill the F-20's intended role in the USAF because it
wasn't designed to be an F-16 competitor. It was never pitched to the
USAF or any other air force belonging to large, wealthy industrialized
nations. It was pitched to countries flying F-5s, as a newer, better
model of a plane they were already familiar with.
There are a number of countries now trying to fly F-16s that probably
wish they'd stuck with their F-5s. The F-20, like the F-5, was
designed to be operated by less-sophisticated air forces than the F-16
was.
MICOMA
Mary Shafer wrote:
>
(Stuff deleted)
>
> The third prototype kicked around here at the Northrop facility at
> Edwards for a while, with Chuck Yeager using it as a backdrop for
> battery commercials. I think it's now in the museum in Hawthorne
> where the YF-23 is.
Believe it's the one which is display in the L.A. Museum of "Air & Space"
located next to USC.
Mike Weeks MIC...@aol.com
John P. Latz
sha...@ferhino.dfrc.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer) writes:
>Actually there were _three_ prototypes, not two. There were two
>accidents, both at airshows (Canada sticks in my mind for one of them,
>too, and the western Pacific Rim for the other).
The other crash was in South Korea.
>I think it's now in the museum in Hawthorne where the YF-23 is.
Close, its hanging (pointed nose up, attached to the wall) at the
aviation museum near USC.
john latz
Gordon
In article <31A41734...@eto.ericsson.se>,
Nils Mathisrud <et...@eto.ericsson.se> wrote:
>Does the Hawthorne museum have a home page ? Or is there anywhere else
>I can acquire information about the museum. I am interesed in both the
>F-20 and YF-23 on display, and if I'm not wrong there is also an YF-17
>displayed at the Hawthorne museum (can anybody confirm this please).
It's the "Western Museum of Flight" in Hawthorne, CA. They have a Web
page at http://www.wmof.com
ggs
Stainless Steel Rat
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On Thu, 23 May 1996 10:57:30 -0500, Chris Douglas <cdou...@origin.ea.com>
wrote:
>The USAF didn't buy the Tigershark because 1) it lacked range, 2) it lacked
>payload, 3) its intended role was already being filled by the far more
>capable F-16.
You forgot the most important reason: the USAF was not a prospective client
for the F-20. Tigershark was intended to be an export fighter upgrade to
aging F-5 fleets.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQCVAwUBMaYGN56VRH7BJMxHAQExZAP6Awy5YiT+n67nsK74WI8oFxecC4SxLwqH
aaGPjXYnx7YX2/W/teON82Ol+Z96CstiADcjPgMPAYgIuGbMW8mwlnNy1ToCY2Gv
QZiDE3P5sUpiP4srx5IojTaO38fdCTCOeNWL2D8gOGEpvs/U6nxg/g9Ca3n3K3yE
HPbn5lb5u7g=
=abr8
Lou Haas
While the F-20 design may not have been state of the art, it is
my opinion, that the jokers Northrop hired to fly those birds
were not state of the art either. E.g., thats what you get for
hiring cheap help.
Stainless Steel Rat
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>In article <4nl4sn$4...@hasle.sn.no>, =?iso-8859-
>1?q?Erik_Thomle_Hoels=E6ter?= <tho...@oslonett.no> writes
>>Can anyone tell me the difference between
>>the T-38 Taloon and the F-5B?
F-5B carries the same weapons as the F-5A; Talon is unarmed.
Quick recognition points. Look for wing rails; Talon does not have them.
Look for a "pinched" underbody just behind the intakes; Talon has an
hourglass shaped fuselage, F-5 has straight lines. Talon also has a more
pronunced "hump" behind the cockpit. Those are the most obvious cosmetic
differences.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQCVAwUBMaYHzJ6VRH7BJMxHAQFRXAQAxGpVC497KSWc0dufVlQ2o1YwJhotoTHd
hDXABemBoed0HESGK7kn52x/0pwsXeKcTQ3nXNVgzZrvPqxNzrg+8eQSG0qabPNo
4DKMHww5ew7xQazI3i8HfuKMOhE/xKcSQFSe6fViN9nKjuY4nzwiKVguHnYP1kVy
liWrW96xz6Y=
=5n/c
Ed Rasimus
bo...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Lou Haas) wrote:
A glib post, but wrong on both counts. The F-20 was "state-of-the-art"
in terms of aerodynamics, engine, avionics and weaponry. It possessed
excellent turn rate, sustainable G, climb, acceleration, top speed and
an exceptional sensor suite and BVR capability.
The demo pilots were part of the Northrop test staff, extensively
experienced ex-military graduates of either the USAF or USN test pilot
schools. They didn't come cheap.
Ed Rasimus
rat...@peorth.gweep.net (Stainless Steel Rat) wrote:
>>>Can anyone tell me the difference between
>>>the T-38 Taloon and the F-5B?
>
>F-5B carries the same weapons as the F-5A; Talon is unarmed.
Nope, no guns on the F-5B. the single seat "A" model mounts two M-39
20MM cannon.
>Quick recognition points. Look for wing rails; Talon does not have them.
>Look for a "pinched" underbody just behind the intakes; Talon has an
>hourglass shaped fuselage, F-5 has straight lines.
The "straight lines" you are referring to are on the later F-5E/F
aircraft. The F-5B, two-seat version of the F-5A has the same area
rule fuselage as the Talon.
> Talon also has a more
>pronunced "hump" behind the cockpit. Those are the most obvious cosmetic
>differences.
There is no "hump" behind the rear cockpit of either aircraft. The
rear canopy flows nearly straight line into the dorsal area which
tapers to the base of the vertical tail.
Donny CHAN
In article <4o4u6h$d...@freenet-news.carleton.ca>,
bo...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Lou Haas) wrote:
]While the F-20 design may not have been state of the art, it is
]my opinion, that the jokers Northrop hired to fly those birds
]were not state of the art either. E.g., thats what you get for
]hiring cheap help.
Likewise, it's my opinion that you're not very respectful to deceased test
pilots.
Paal Naess
crs...@inforamp.net (Donny CHAN) wrote:
> bo...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Lou Haas) wrote:
>]While the F-20 design may not have been state of the art, it is
>]my opinion, that the jokers Northrop hired to fly those birds
>]were not state of the art either. E.g., thats what you get for
>]hiring cheap help.
>Likewise, it's my opinion that you're not very respectful to deceased >test pilots.
On that subject, what happened to Grumman's Chuck Sewell?
Paal
Bob Collins
Ed Rasimus wrote:
>
> bo...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Lou Haas) wrote:
>
> >While the F-20 design may not have been state of the art, it is
> >my opinion, that the jokers Northrop hired to fly those birds
> >were not state of the art either. E.g., thats what you get for
> >hiring cheap help.
>
> in terms of aerodynamics, engine, avionics and weaponry. It possessed
> excellent turn rate, sustainable G, climb, acceleration, top speed and
> an exceptional sensor suite and BVR capability.
>
> The demo pilots were part of the Northrop test staff, extensively
> experienced ex-military graduates of either the USAF or USN test pilot
> schools. They didn't come cheap.
Jack Ridley died in a F-20 demoing it in Korea or Japan. He was
Chuck Yeager right hand when Yeager broke the sound barrier. He flew the
X-1 and everything else thrown his way. He was one HELLA'VA test pilot.
The Best, and they don't come cheap or like Jack anymore.
Stainless Steel Rat
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On Sat, 25 May 1996 14:35:41 GMT, in rec.aviation.military you wrote:
>>F-5B carries the same weapons as the F-5A; Talon is unarmed.
>Nope, no guns on the F-5B. the single seat "A" model mounts two M-39
>20MM cannon.
You're right; my oops. The guns are removed on the F-5B to make room for
the first seat (second seat is roughly where the single seat of the F-5A
is).
>The "straight lines" you are referring to are on the later F-5E/F
>aircraft. The F-5B, two-seat version of the F-5A has the same area
>rule fuselage as the Talon.
Are you sure about that? I could have sworn that the underwing lines on
all F-5's are all straight.
>There is no "hump" behind the rear cockpit of either aircraft. The
>rear canopy flows nearly straight line into the dorsal area which
>tapers to the base of the vertical tail.
Hmm... maybe it's the more rounded canopy that makes it seem like it's
somewhat more curved than the F-5.?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQCVAwUBMaiKkZ6VRH7BJMxHAQHB9AP/SmRTnLOe/HJMyhZfJd9v7zA45xua5Oyb
mFJy/bBlxxxk3PreyPZm/y+FTjYpPzRyfJFIazls5j7FOFUqrgB2fK8qS9YZnIoA
wQQymZ1bfODrtQtdNYlyEp7W3tHy8g+h5wVZatuXI0y70UtQ9MeBYJsXubLwXLGi
b4K4xBXWPWo=
=AqRn
Kevin Renshaw
Bob Collins <rcol...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> Jack Ridley died in a F-20 demoing it in Korea or Japan. He was
>Chuck Yeager right hand when Yeager broke the sound barrier. He flew the
>X-1 and everything else thrown his way. He was one HELLA'VA test pilot.
>The Best, and they don't come cheap or like Jack anymore.
>
I'm afraid you've gotten your facts messed up.
Jack Ridley died in 1957. He was riding as a passenger in a C-47 that crashed into Mount Fuji in Japan. The Edwards AFB Flight Tes=
t control builing is named in his honor (Ridley Mission Control Building)
Kevin Renshaw
"I'd tell you, but then I'd have to kill you..."
José Herculano
> Jack Ridley died in a F-20 demoing it in Korea or Japan. He was
>Chuck Yeager right hand when Yeager broke the sound barrier. He flew the
>X-1 and everything else thrown his way. He was one HELLA'VA test pilot.
>The Best, and they don't come cheap or like Jack anymore.
Sorry, but you're wrong. Jack died in a C-47 crash on Mount Fuji in
Japan, I believe back in 1957.
Jose
Mike
How many seats in an F-5? The T-38 is a two seater.
--
Stainless Steel Rat
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On Mon, 27 May 1996 10:40:36 -0700, Mike <vip...@azstarnet.com> wrote:
>How many seats in an F-5? The T-38 is a two seater.
F-5A,C,E are single seaters; F-5B,D,F are two-seat "trainer" versions of
the A,C,E models. F-5B looks a *lot* like T-38.
BTW, I was high about the "humped" look. For some reason my mind's eye
was looking at the sillouette of A-4, not F-5/T-38.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQCVAwUBMaoB/Z6VRH7BJMxHAQHBywQAuGjjOeYbGsRMHJLW5PzpmpnRQETVATlE
nv7E+USKslkiCJlkObpDKvDNhMoSUCmELYpKDW1udZhExPhGwoV1XqXwrADuPDD5
CRslG4InxB2TPmq2Cj5rxkQxtjYn+r9G6/wmQbyj1THK2NBJptH1TW8+AveXFb2J
d+JkBY0xXX0=
=K03g
Simon Lam
: Jack Ridley died in a F-20 demoing it in Korea or Japan. He was
: X-1 and everything else thrown his way. He was one HELLA'VA test pilot.
: The Best, and they don't come cheap or like Jack anymore.
Sorry bud. Ridley was a passenger in a DC-3 (C-47) which crashed into Mt.
Fuji back in the 50's.
--
Simon Lam
It's the man, not the machine.
E-mail:simo...@freenet.hamilton.on.ca
Ed Rasimus
rat...@peorth.gweep.net (Stainless Steel Rat) wrote:
>On Mon, 27 May 1996 10:40:36 -0700, Mike <vip...@azstarnet.com> wrote:
>
>>How many seats in an F-5? The T-38 is a two seater.
>
>F-5A,C,E are single seaters; F-5B,D,F are two-seat "trainer" versions of
>the A,C,E models. F-5B looks a *lot* like T-38.
Never saw a formally designated "C" model, although, I'm told that was
applied to the Skoshi Tiger mod with the bolt on refueling probe. I
don't know that there ever was a "D" model.
>
>BTW, I was high about the "humped" look. For some reason my mind's eye
>was looking at the sillouette of A-4, not F-5/T-38.
That would explain a lot, particularly if you were talking about an
A-4M. Strange things happen from different angles looking at aircraft.
I remember one time over North Vietnam, looking above my 105 at the
planform of an A-4 and finding it distinctly similar to a MiG-21.
Kevin Renshaw
Bob Collins <rcol...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
snip-snip
>> The demo pilots were part of the Northrop test staff, extensively
>> experienced ex-military graduates of either the USAF or USN test pilot
>> schools. They didn't come cheap.
>
> Jack Ridley died in a F-20 demoing it in Korea or Japan. He was
>Chuck Yeager right hand when Yeager broke the sound barrier. He flew the
>X-1 and everything else thrown his way. He was one HELLA'VA test pilot.
>The Best, and they don't come cheap or like Jack anymore.
>
Wrong!
For the record, the two Northrop test pilots who were killed doing demonstrations in the F-20 were
Darrell Cornell - Suwon, South Korea October 1984
David Barnes - Goose Bay, Labrador February 1985
Both crashes occurred during the same type of maneuver, a rolling pullup with the flaps and landing gear down. In both cases the ai=
rcraft departed controlled flight from an inverted condition at low altitude.
Paal Naess
>BTW, I was high about the "humped" look. For some reason my mind's eye
>was looking at the sillouette of A-4, not F-5/T-38.
>
Oh, you're excused. That's a *common* mistake, after all, those are dead
ringers!! ;-)
Paal
-{=[ TCP/SF2 ]=}-
: On Mon, 27 May 1996 10:40:36 -0700, Mike <vip...@azstarnet.com> wrote:
: >How many seats in an F-5? The T-38 is a two seater.
: F-5A,C,E are single seaters; F-5B,D,F are two-seat "trainer" versions of
: the A,C,E models. F-5B looks a *lot* like T-38.
Is there a -C and -D model? Thought that it is never in production?
: BTW, I was high about the "humped" look. For some reason my mind's eye
: was looking at the sillouette of A-4, not F-5/T-38.
: -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
: Version: 2.6.2
: iQCVAwUBMaoB/Z6VRH7BJMxHAQHBywQAuGjjOeYbGsRMHJLW5PzpmpnRQETVATlE
: nv7E+USKslkiCJlkObpDKvDNhMoSUCmELYpKDW1udZhExPhGwoV1XqXwrADuPDD5
: CRslG4InxB2TPmq2Cj5rxkQxtjYn+r9G6/wmQbyj1THK2NBJptH1TW8+AveXFb2J
: d+JkBY0xXX0=
: =K03g
: -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
: --
: Oh, your standard-issue Big Gun. Equipment Division made it, and now it's
: part of my private collection. I was late because I... had to get it.
--
*-----------------------------------------*
| CPL(NS) Tan C. P. ~{GoCz~} | |
| SkyFlash-II (071295) SkyFlash (030795) | |
| Spitfire (130695) SkyLark (120794) | __ /_\ __
| | (| o |)
| email : tanc...@pobox.org.sg | X---===o====\_/====o===----X
| (expt) tanchu...@pobox.org.sg | x+x " " x+x
*-----------------------------------------*
Walt Shiel
Ed Rasimus wrote:
>
> Never saw a formally designated "C" model, although, I'm told that was
> applied to the Skoshi Tiger mod with the bolt on refueling probe. I
> don't know that there ever was a "D" model.
The C/D models never made it past the concept stage. I don't believe any
"special" MDS was ever applied to the Skoski Tiger version.
Walt
--
joe_hegedus
In article <4o83lc$j...@hasle.sn.no>, Paal says...
> On that subject, what happened to Grumman's Chuck Sewell?
>Paal
>
Wasn't he killed in a TBM/TBF crash a few years ago?
Mark W. Schaeffer
In article <4nvh4l$6...@news.inforamp.net>, crs...@inforamp.net (Donny
CHAN) wrote:
> In article <31A253...@lfwc.lockheed.com>,
> Walt Shiel <wps...@lfwc.lockheed.com> wrote:
> ]One of the two prototypes crashed during a demo flight (in Canada? that's
> what
> ]sticks in my mind...). The other continued to fly for some time after
> Northrop gave
> ]up on any sales. I'd be interested in knowing what became of it, too.
>
> If anyone's interested, the chapter titled "Tigershark!" in the book _Set
> Phasers on Stun_ is a short account of the F-20A crash near Goose Bay Airport
> in Labrador, Newfoundland, Canada. The cause of the crash is believed to be
> human error: fatigue and G-LOC. Sorry, I read _Set Phasers on Stun,_ a book
> about engineering designs and failures, years ago, and I didn't write
down its
> author, publisher, and ISBN.
>
> +---------------------------------------------------------------+
> | crs...@inforamp.net (Donny CHAN) |
> | University of Toronto Mechanical Engineering 9T3+1 ERTW |
> +---------------------------------------------------------------+
> | "FIDES ET OPERA" - La Salle College motto |
> +---------------------------------------------------------------+
From Books in Print Online:
Author: Casey, Steven M.
Title: Set Phasers on Stun : And Other True Tales of Design,
Technology, & Human Error
Publisher: Aegean Pub, 1993 (Jul)
Description: 221p.
Status: Active Record
ISBN: 0-9636178-7-7
Price: Trade Cloth $24.95 (Retail Price)
-- Mark
--
Mark W. Schaeffer
mark...@ucla.edu
Stainless Steel Rat
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On 27 May 1996 22:57:06 GMT, Paal Naess <pn...@sn.no> wrote:
>>BTW, I was high about the "humped" look. For some reason my mind's eye
>>was looking at the sillouette of A-4, not F-5/T-38.
>Oh, you're excused. That's a *common* mistake, after all, those are dead
>ringers!! ;-)
Rub it it :).
No, seriously, my confusion was probably because both the A-4 and F-5 were
used for Agressor training, and A-4M has a hump on the back (a dromedary
A-4? :)
Re: F-5C/D. I am pretty sure that the C/D models are "Skoshi Tiger"
modifications to the A/B models. The C/D designations are apparantly
unofficial (I cannot find any specific references to them) but they stuck
enough to skip to E/F.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQCVAwUBMaueh56VRH7BJMxHAQGmqAQAuNnqAi/KMMCxACIhT1YFPTH+0Qe1bnW+
yRsVUeRUji0pET3U+DSCsiHUI1P5gIu2MWJVCtGDisBjJE9Zt2BCHlPmINhRvZiu
7aQzdw0rUqITMuTR+an2r+bm9DexOUMFJ57KpZC2XKSw814ro1olPPmoxyOgEPnC
dIjFVvgyrXI=
=RBIS
Ken Koller
John Weiss (jrw...@seanet.com) wrote:
: On 05/18/96 12:28PM, in message <4nl4sn$4...@hasle.sn.no>, Erik Thomle
: Hoelsæter <tho...@oslonett.no> wrote:
: > Can anyone tell me the difference between
: > the T-38 Taloon and the F-5B?
: > As far as I can see,
: > the only difference by look is the
: > air-intakes,but I am sure it is a lot more differences than that.
: >
: > Thanks in advance!
: >
: I don't think the Talon has any provision for weapons. The F-5 carries a gun
: and Sidewinders. The engine version may be different, too.
Actually, the AT-38B has the abililty to carry practice munitions on the
centerline hardpoint.
The 37TFW is the only USAF unit that operates this version of the T-38 if
memory serves me. The unit uses it to train new F-117 pilots and for
proficiency training. I've seen them in a three-tone blue camoflauge
scheme, and an all-over black.
--
Ken Koller kko...@adnetsol.com
Fireline Images, Fire/Rescue/EMS photography
http://www.islandnet.com/~waynej/Ken_Koller/fireline.html
Jumpstart a life, learn CPR
an41...@anon.penet.fi
she...@purcell.ecn.purdue.edu (Jayarama N Shenoy) wrote:
]Walt Shiel <wps...@lfwc.lockheed.com> writes:
]>> No F-20's were ordered. Once the rest of NATO discovered no domestic
]>> service had purchased it, they decided not to also.
thu...@rmii.com (Ed Rasimus) wrote:
|It would have been nice, but, nope. Not a single F-20 was ever sold to
|anyone. The hopes and dreams at Northrop were that the sale of just
|one would open the flood gates and prosperity would prevail. It didn't
|happen.
Bahrain *did* order 4 Tigersharks, but after Carter banned Taiwan,
the biggest operator of F5 in whole world, from buying any,
and Pak refusing in favour of F-16A, the production line
was never built and the 4 Tigersharks were never produced.
]>It was never intended as a likely candidate for NATO sales...but mostly aimed at
]>developing countries where the F-5 had been sold and which were starting to look
]>seriously at buying F-16s.
]
] Was by any chance the F-5G offered, as a production license to India??
No. At the time USA was more interested in assasinating Indira Gandhi
than selling military hardware to India.
] I rememeber reading about offer of some US aircraft being offered, possibly
]by Northrop, in the latish-80's, for production. At that time, the US was
The Pakis were offered F-5 by Carter after Soviets came to the
aid of Afghanistan. But it didn't have the range to attack
Indian nuclear facilities. I read in American book, that
USAF officers were quizzed repeatedly on whether which planes
(in different configurations) could reach Indian cities with
sensitive nuclear facilities. In those days Pakis, despite
their claims otherwise, did not have the bomb. By attacking
Indian nuclear facilities they had a nuclear capability with
out having a bomb, they could attack our nuclear plants
and release massive amounts of radiation in India.
After they finished (?) their bomb, they agreed to sign
a treaty abolishing attacks against nuclear facilities.
]approached by India (mutual interest: US had a chance - important in 86 -
]to wean India away from Soviet hardware) for help with the LCA, then not
]even a paper design. So it could have been the _G_ version. India was at
]that time looking for an advanced Jet trainer (and _still_ is), so it very
]well could have been T-38's or F5-B's too. (They're not in consideration
]now).
Bizarre story, the last F5 was destroyed years earlier. We were
producing Mig21bis (far superior to F5G) and Jaguars. Plans
for local production of Mig-29 were underway as well.
Offering F5 would be an insult!
]If it was the F5-G, it seems it would have met the LCA performance specs
]and met them 15 years sooner! (THe LCA prototypes use one F404 engine
]as well, incidentally).
LCA has performance specs similar to F16C not F16A and certainly
not F5/20. It also have very strong stealth feature with none
of the planes above have.
--****ATTENTION****--****ATTENTION****--****ATTENTION****--***ATTENTION***
Your e-mail reply to this message WILL be *automatically* ANONYMIZED.
Please, report inappropriate use to ab...@anon.penet.fi
For information (incl. non-anon reply) write to he...@anon.penet.fi
If you have any problems, address them to ad...@anon.penet.fi
Ken Fischer
Kevin Renshaw (ka...@airmail.net) wrote:
: For the record, the two Northrop test pilots who were killed doing
: Darrell Cornell - Suwon, South Korea October 1984
: David Barnes - Goose Bay, Labrador February 1985
: Both crashes occurred during the same type of maneuver, a rolling
: pullup with the flaps and landing gear down.
: In both cases the aircraft departed controlled flight from an inverted
: condition at low altitude.
I haven't flown since 1947, but isn't it a bad idea
to invert with flaps down?
Ken Fischer
Lou Haas
That's what you get for hiring CHEAP help!
Michael Williamson
Ken Koller wrote:
> : I don't think the Talon has any provision for weapons. The F-5 carries a gun
> : and Sidewinders. The engine version may be different, too.
>
> Actually, the AT-38B has the abililty to carry practice munitions on the
> centerline hardpoint.
>
> The 37TFW is the only USAF unit that operates this version of the T-38 if
> memory serves me. The unit uses it to train new F-117 pilots and for
> proficiency training. I've seen them in a three-tone blue camoflauge
> scheme, and an all-over black.
The AT-38 is used as well for Introduction to Fighter Fundamentals (IFF), the fighter lead in school. All
armament provisions are based on a single centerline pylon, as the AT/T-38 has a different wing than the F-5,
and can not carry any type of armament or fuel tanks there.
The F-5 has strakes at the wing root, where the leading edge of the wing is extended forward toward the
inlet. This is the quickest way to tell the two aircraft apart, if no armaments are loaded/visible on the
F-5. There are also differences in the landing gear due to the higher weight of the F-5 when loaded, if
memory serves.
Mike Williamson
Stainless Steel Rat
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On Wed, 29 May 1996 16:55:38 GMT, kfis...@iglou.com (Ken Fischer) wrote:
>: In both cases the aircraft departed controlled flight from an inverted
>: condition at low altitude.
> I haven't flown since 1947, but isn't it a bad idea
>to invert with flaps down?
In the case of the F-20, not so bad. The aircraft has the manoeverability
to remain stable in that configuration. Apparantly it is too manoeverable,
which probably caused a rapid g load, thus inducing gLOC at low altitude,
and when that happens....
Both crashed F-20s were performing similar low-level aerobatics when this
occoured. Attempts to simulate the conditions with T-38s were
inconclusive.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQCVAwUBMa3m/56VRH7BJMxHAQETWAQAgjoZpTQ2A/qyfF8AL4J1zfGGAqUYsyAc
Qqqo8t4gJ8BxXPdffhjhH/6JcprqcRsQioQoNKFWomSZxcCY96+WZac8kZkmeVNJ
MEJmTA06XfTzOzZSbxfx4D/C0CqIFf3zuf6Pe9qcrpwXiKYWhJET5X4LmcYeSl4r
UuAsB3eJR/8=
=Tkag
Ken Koller
Ken Koller (kko...@adnetsol.com) wrote:
: : I don't think the Talon has any provision for weapons. The F-5 carries a gun
: : and Sidewinders. The engine version may be different, too.
: Actually, the AT-38B has the abililty to carry practice munitions on the
: centerline hardpoint.
: The 37TFW is the only USAF unit that operates this version of the T-38 if
: memory serves me. The unit uses it to train new F-117 pilots and for
: proficiency training. I've seen them in a three-tone blue camoflauge
: scheme, and an all-over black.
I erred. The 479th Tactical Training Wing based at Holloman AFB also
flies the AT-38B.
Joe Vincent
Actually, the 479thTTW has been inactivated (disbanned) and the AT-38Bs have been
given to the Training Command, now called AETC, or Air etc by the troops). These
are stationed at several pilot training bases as seperate squadrons to train new
pilots going to fighters, somewhat like the concept of the fighter lead-in program.
As usual, the gaining commands are still complaining about the quality of the
product.The more things change, the more they stay the same. . .
--
Joe Vincent YGBSM!
(jvin...@netten.net)
Frank DeAngelo
If it hasn't been mentioned yet, the powerplants are different. The
T-38 uses two GE J-85-5 turbojets with afterburner. The F-5 uses two
GE J-85-21 with afterburner. The -5 bleeds energy at lower throttle
settings. The -21 uses variable stators in the first three stages and
has no bleed valves. The -21 produces more thrust. Also the F-5 have
anti-iced engine inlets. The T-38 just have the engine front frame
anti-iced.
Frank DeAngelo
Steve Av
> In article <31A253...@lfwc.lockheed.com>,
> Walt Shiel <wps...@lfwc.lockheed.com> wrote:
> One of the two prototypes crashed during a demo flight
> The other continued to fly for some time after Northrop gave
> up on any sales. I'd be interested in knowing what became of it, too.
There were actually THREE F-20s that were completed. One crashed in
Canada, one crashed in Korea (inverted stall at low altitude), and the
third one is in the LA County Museum of Flight. A fourth aircraft was
mostly complete and the third one never flew after Northrop gave up on
sales in late 1986. None of the four aircraft were really prototypes, but
were of a production configuration. Production tools were mostly complete
when the program was killed.
-Steve A.
bryan osborne
Another way to tell, if you can get close, is that the T-38
doesn't have leading edge slats, whereas the F-5 does. I found
that out the hard way, trying to fly as tight a pattern as an F-5
at Williams AFB in UPT. F-5s also have weather radar, I think