Tailhook on a T-38 ?
CCBlack
Ross Perot Jr.(s) T-38 Talon parked for display. I noticed this T-38
was set up with a tail hook. Here is a photo of the bird in flight
and if you look closely you can see the tail hook below the horizontal
stabilizers.
http://www.airliners.net/open.file/0747670/L/
My question was ... if regular Air Force T-38's don't have a tail
hook ... why would Mr. Perot set his up with one ? I'm aware that
F-15's and F-16's and other USAF jets in the past have had tail hooks
that they would use in case of some sort of braking emergency. They
would use the tail hook to engage a " barrier ", with some kind of
cable arresting system. Is this the same case with Mr. Perot's T-38 ?
Chris
Stephen Bierce
>F-15's and F-16's and other USAF jets in the past have had tail hooks
>that they would use in case of some sort of braking emergency. They
>would use the tail hook to engage a " barrier ", with some kind of
>cable arresting system. Is this the same case with Mr. Perot's T-38 ?
>
>Chris
Yes, and Air Force T-38s and F-5s have this feature too.
It's also a known fact that the F-5/T-38 family started with a Northrop
proposal for a fighter jet capable of operating off CVE-class carriers,
which were still in use in the 1950s. Unfortunately for the proposal, the
Navy was too keen to get the nuclear-powered supercarriers up and running
to care about updating the Jeep carriers for jet ops.
Stephen "FPilot" Bierce/IPMS #35922
{Sig Quotes Removed on Request}
Rob Arndt
prevent runway overruns in the event of a high-speed abort on takeoff,
or brake failure on landing. Most military airfields, and a number of
civilian fields (joint-use), have arresting gear strung across the
runway at the ends, and various points in-between.
All of these have/had a tailhook: F-15, F-15E, F-16, F-5, F-4, F-105,
F-100, F-104, F-106. Look closely at the photos of these planes
underneath the rear fuselage for confirmation.
Even the stealth F-117A Nighthawk has a tailhook too. However, due to
stealth needs, its tailhook is located inside a door under the
fuselage that opens first, and the hook then drops out.
AFAIK, the A-10 is the only USAF "fighter"-type aircraft without a
tailhook.
Rob
Curt
news:4726997f...@news.vic.com...
I've never seen a T-38 from USAF, USN or NASA with a tail hook. Not to say
they don't exist but I can find no evidence.
If that is a tailhook under Perot's, they must have done some strengthening.
http://www.airliners.net/open.file/1216517/L/
http://www.airliners.net/open.file/1123122/L/
http://www.airliners.net/open.file/1018357/L/
http://www.airliners.net/open.file/1023768/L/
Curt
KVPS
Dudley Henriques
Air Force perhaps doing over run testing but the T38's at the Naval Test
Pilot's School didn't have tail hooks.
--
Dudley Henriques
Urban Fredriksson
>If that is a tailhook under Perot's, they must have done some strengthening.
It looks like a hook:
http://richard-seaman.com/Aircraft/AirShows/Nellis2004/Highlights/T38.jpg
And it's been referred to as "rebuilt".
--
Urban Fredriksson http://www.canit.se/%7Egriffon/
A king and an elephant were sitting in a bathtub. The king said, "pass
the soap" and the elephant said, "No soap, radio!"
Ed Rasimus
There's no reason why Ross couldn't have added a hook. While AF T-38s
don't have hooks, the F-5A has had one as an option for FMS purchasers
and the steroid-pumped F-5E had one standard. Clearly it would be a
departure end barrier hook and not stressed for approach-end
engagement like an F-4 or A-7 hook.
It would make sense if you had that much money invested in a toy to
consider the advantage of grabbing a wire on a departure end mishap
rather than get wrapped in a pop-up webbing contraption which would
bend up the sheet metal considerably.
Notice also that the pictured airplane has a dragchute added at the
base of the vertical fin, above the tailpipes. No T-38s with drag
chutes, but almost all F-5s had one--though it was seldom needed or
used.
Might also write up the crew-chief for failure to secure the access
door after engine start!
Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
www.thunderchief.org
www.thundertales.blogspot.com
Dudley Henriques
It is interesting what one can do with money :-)
If he did indeed put a hook on that bird, I'm guessing they did one hell
of a lot of redesigning inside the tail section to handle any shock from
an engagement. If I remember right, that aft section on the Talon wasn't
all that solid a structure inside.
What's puzzling to me assuming he did have a hook installed is just
where he thought he might be using engagement systems with the hook
considering the airplane's non military role?
I'm sure he gets invited to a few places where engagement systems are in
place, but enough of that to warrant a tail hook?
Methinks Mr. Perot perhaps likes to land long ?? :-))
--
Dudley Henriques
Gatt
> It's also a known fact that the F-5/T-38 family started with a Northrop
> proposal for a fighter jet capable of operating off CVE-class carriers,
> which were still in use in the 1950s. Unfortunately for the proposal, the
> Navy was too keen to get the nuclear-powered supercarriers up and running
> to care about updating the Jeep carriers for jet ops.
Is it me? I've always considered the T-38 to be one the most
aesthetically-pleasing jet airframes ever. It has the seductive qualities
of an old (Ford) Mustang or Corvette.
-c
Dudley Henriques
The Talon is aptly named. Sitting on the ramp it looks exactly like it's
name. It's very appearance speaks of speed.
In my book it's one of the most beautifully designed airplanes ever created.
Not only that, but many who have flown the T38 bristle at the term
"trainer".
Although easy to fly in the right hands, the Talon can be every bit as
feisty and dangerous to handle as the highest performance fighters that
pilots going through the program flew after they flew the T38.
In fact, the Talon was designed with this in mind. If you could handle
the T38 well, you most likely would have had little problem
transitioning into what followed.
--
Dudley Henriques
Typhoon502
> I've never seen a T38 equipped with a tail hook. I can't speak for the
> Air Force perhaps doing over run testing but the T38's at the Naval Test
> Pilot's School didn't have tail hooks.
I have a theory/suspicion that Perot's bird is actually an F-5F (or at
least partly an F-5F) instead of a purebred T-38. I did a quick scan
of the F-5, F-20, and T-38 images on Wikipedia, and of the three
types, only the F-5s had very clear and obvious tailhooks. The F-20
appeared to have a fairing over the coupling point for the tailhook,
although I seem to remember a model I built of the F-20 once and it
had a TH. But the T-38s just as obviously did NOT have hooks.
Harry Andreas
<dhenr...@rcn.com> wrote:
> What's puzzling to me assuming he did have a hook installed is just
> where he thought he might be using engagement systems with the hook
> considering the airplane's non military role?
> I'm sure he gets invited to a few places where engagement systems are in
> place, but enough of that to warrant a tail hook?
> Methinks Mr. Perot perhaps likes to land long ?? :-))
Dudley, the hook may simply be for appearances sake, like putting a
1942 USAAF roundel on a vintage P-40, or invasion stripes on a P-51,
or a 3 foot high (non-functional) spoiler on a rice rocket.
Except heavier.
People do a lot of funny things for appearance.
--
Harry Andreas
Engineering raconteur
Ed Rasimus
<dhenr...@rcn.com> wrote:
>It is interesting what one can do with money :-)
Indeed it is. A couple of years ago Ross Sr. invited the entire River
Rats reunion group (about 800 folks) to his "ranch" near Alliance
airport just N. of Ft. Worth. A fleet of about 80 air-conditioned tour
buses escorted by the Ft. Worth police motorcycle patrol took us from
the downtown Sheraton to the ranch.
Greeted by lots of free bars, huge barbecue dinner served on linen
with silverware, no paper-plates involved. Country-band playing,
cowboys riding and roping, pictures aboard a longhorn steer, and while
eating a close-up demo first by the US aerobatic champion and then a
high performance demo from the T-38.
Finished up with Ross bringing out the Dallas Cowboys cheer-leaders to
meet the fat old fighter pilots.
>If he did indeed put a hook on that bird, I'm guessing they did one hell
>of a lot of redesigning inside the tail section to handle any shock from
>an engagement. If I remember right, that aft section on the Talon wasn't
>all that solid a structure inside.
The tailcone and slab section that comes off for engine access
wouldn't hold it, but the hook apparently is mounted ahead of that on
the centerline keel. Same structural member that carries the
centerline station "slug" a few feet ahead.
>What's puzzling to me assuming he did have a hook installed is just
>where he thought he might be using engagement systems with the hook
>considering the airplane's non military role?
>I'm sure he gets invited to a few places where engagement systems are in
>place, but enough of that to warrant a tail hook?
>Methinks Mr. Perot perhaps likes to land long ?? :-))
Ross Jr. came through "Fighter Lead-In Training" at Holloman while I
was flogging the AT-38 there around 1983-84. He was a pretty good
airplane driver and had no problems landing long, although he did go
"bingo" fuel on an air-to-air solo mission because he left his speed
brakes down and didn't realize it.
Ross, like George W. Bush, went through USAF pilot training and became
operational flying with the Texas ANG. Similar situation for Dino
Martin, who died flying an F-4 for the California ANG.
Dudley Henriques
absolutely a T38 or I'm getting REAL old and need my glasses changed :-)
--
Dudley Henriques
Dudley Henriques
Ya gotta hand it to whoever spends their money taking care of those who
serve.
It's good to learn Perot Jr. is a fair stick. I'd sure hate to see that
beautiful bird get dinged.
I've been trying to figue out the writing on the canopy rails. It's a
number 1 TB paint job so that would have to be Patterakis, Parrish, or
Lowery if pure authenticity was the goal, but I don't think that's it.
It says something else I can't quite make out. I think it's the "Spirit
of America" or something similar.
Anyway, it's a beautiful job and very well done. Bob Gore, who designed
that paint job originally for the Thunderbirds (regardless of what
Creech might have said :-) while he was assigned to them as their PA
officer is a friend of mine and still going strong out here.
--
Dudley Henriques
Dudley Henriques
I'd be very surprised to find out that Perot had put a hook on his bird
just for appearances sake. He went all out for authenticicity as far as
I can determine.
Could be though....I never say never when it comes down to trying to
figue out these things :-)
--
Dudley Henriques
Ed Rasimus
Yes, it's a T-38 and definitely NOT an F-5F. The F-5E and F were
considerably larger than the Talon. The comparable F-5 two-seater
would be the B model, but even there you'd quickly see the differences
such as leading edge flaps and bulging wings for the larger main
landing gear tires.
guy
> "Stephen Bierce" <sbie...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
Certainly the best looking US jet ever - for me anyway
Guy
Ed Rasimus
<dhenr...@rcn.com> wrote:
>Although easy to fly in the right hands, the Talon can be every bit as
>feisty and dangerous to handle as the highest performance fighters that
>pilots going through the program flew after they flew the T38.
>In fact, the Talon was designed with this in mind. If you could handle
>the T38 well, you most likely would have had little problem
>transitioning into what followed.
While the T-38 was and still is an incredible performer, it isn't a
very difficult airplane to fly except for possibly the high approach
and landing speeds which are faster than today's teen fighters, but
not as fast as most of the century series jets that were
contemporaneous.
The airplane doesn't exhibit any of the adverse yaw characteristics
which were common in high performance fighters, doesn't have any
pitch-up or departure tendencies, is virtually impossible to spin
(although if one gets there, it is also virtually unrecoverable), and
can be flown quite comfortably putting the stick into any corner of
the cockpit at almost any time. The stall characteristics are probably
as honest and docile as any swept wing aircraft every built except
maybe the venerable F-86 Sabre with loads of feedback and simple
recovery.
It's certainly no Cessna 172, but it also isn't any sort of
widow-maker either.
Bill Shatzer
> On 30 Oct, 15:03, "Gatt" <g...@damnnearwiley00.com> wrote:
-snip-
>>Is it me? I've always considered the T-38 to be one the most
>>aesthetically-pleasing jet airframes ever. It has the seductive qualities
>>of an old (Ford) Mustang or Corvette.
> Certainly the best looking US jet ever - for me anyway
I was always sorta partial to the XF-90.
Cheers,
Curt
> door after engine start!
> Ed Rasimus
> Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
> "When Thunder Rolled"
> www.thunderchief.org
> www.thundertales.blogspot.com
The crew chief is in the clear- that's a blade antenna although I've never
seen one there. I know the door is farther aft as I closed many before and
after flight. The Aggressor T-38s at Clark would pull so many Gs the doors
would overcome their latches. It was routine after an ACM sortie to tighten
up all the fasteners under the boattail. We lost two jets due to
over-stressing the airplanes until we converted to F-5Es.
--
Curt
KVPS
Jack G
tailhook came from an F-5 that had the hook? I'm sure parts from many
aircraft were used to make up that T-38.
Jack G.
"CCBlack" <ccbla...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1193704386.0...@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
Dudley Henriques
it originally wasn't all that bad. It was either Bendix or Collins if I
remember right (getting older you know :-) As a civilian play toy, his
main issue even with integrated Collins in there for IFR would be range
and ice.
--
Dudley Henriques
Leadfoot
>
> Notice also that the pictured airplane has a dragchute added at the
> base of the vertical fin, above the tailpipes. No T-38s with drag
> chutes, but almost all F-5s had one--though it was seldom needed or
> used.
The F-5's at Willie popped theirs quite a bit. Might have been a training
thing. I'm aware of a few that um, er were um, er "liberated" for much
needed shade purposes as the Arizona sun is quite hot.
I can also tell you that while the Willie F-5's rarely needed much runway
when the Canadian F-5 Sqdn came in for two weeks to use the the Yuma Gunnery
range they were fully loaded and needed damn near all 10,000 feet to take
off. Not sure if that makes a difference when landing since the ordnance
should have been gone but it was alot more fun to watch ;-)
Leadfoot
>
> It's certainly no Cessna 172, but it also isn't any sort of
> widow-maker either.
We had two that crashed at the end of the runway and one that lost control
at 18,000 feet.
The rumor mill on both EOR crashes was that the students should have been
flunked out. The one that lost control at 18,000 feet was a missing cotter
pin on a just replaced hydraulic actuator resulting in some article 15's for
the guys who replaced and inspected them.
We also had an F-5 whose Saudi Arabian prince student got target fixation
and followed his ordnance (FFAR?) into the target. The largest piece left
was the vertical stab and that was maybe 3x5. The rest of the plane was
aluminum slivers. There is a reason why they take a picture of everyone's
teeth when you enter active duty because that was all that was left of the
pilot
Mike Williamson
Ed-
Aside from the parachute housing, the belly under the wing looks
modified as well. The fuselage looks a bit deeper below the wing,
to me, almost as if the aft fuselage is from an F-5.
Also, if the access door you're looking at is the red thing on the
bottom just forward of the wing trailing edge, I think that it is
a blade antenna, though the T-38 doesn't have one there- I presume the
radio and navigation stack is significantly different than the ones
we flew in UPT. At the speeds the 38 flies at, I don't see an
access door hanging that close to vertical in the slipstream.
Thinking back to the T-38 though, I seem to recall that there was
ONE T-38 with a parachute fitted- wasn't one fitted to the aircraft
during spin testing?
But between the parachute housing and the hook, I'm leaning toward
an F-5 rear fuselage section, though the front fuselage and intakes
just scream T-38...
Mike
CCBlack
> I've been trying to figue out the writing on the canopy rails. It's a
> number 1 TB paint job so that would have to be Patterakis, Parrish, or
> Lowery if pure authenticity was the goal, but I don't think that's it.
> It says something else I can't quite make out. I think it's the "Spirit
> of America" or something similar.
> Anyway, it's a beautiful job and very well done. Bob Gore, who designed
> that paint job originally for the Thunderbirds (regardless of what
> Creech might have said :-) while he was assigned to them as their PA
> officer is a friend of mine and still going strong out here.
Hey Dudley, maybe I can be of some help here. On the rear canopy
rail it says " Alliance-Texas ", and on the front canopy rail it says
" Spirit of Alliance ". Ross Perot Jr. is the owner and developer of
the Ft. Worth, Alliance Airport ( the airport at which I saw this
aircraft displayed during the airshow held every year ). The only son
of Ross Perot, Perot Jr. has aggressively expanded the family
fortunes, primarily through real estate in the North Texas area.
Looking at one of my photo's from the airshow that day, this
aircraft has the civil registration # of NX385AF ( if that helps
any ). This # was displayed on a card stuck in the rear inside canopy
rail.
One of the most pristine privately owned military aircraft I've
ever seen.
Chris
Dudley Henriques
not a bad stick either from what Ed has said.
--
Dudley Henriques
tscottme
report already typed up. At the very large civilian flight school I worked
at the Saudi students were universally lazy, ham-handed, too important to
study, and constantly blaming everyone for everything. If a Saudi student
failed any test or task it might be the fault of any random collection of
people he never met but it was certainly never his fault.
--
Scott
Ed Rasimus
You're right. I saw another picture of the airplane and it clearly is
a VHF antenna. The Thunderbird Talons had a VHF installed and they
carried the blade on the dorsal behind the rear cockpit canopy.
I never noticed starter doors opening in flight very often, but we'd
sure pop dzus fasteners with regularity.
We lost two AT-38s during my four years at Holloman. Both were
structural failures--one was a wing tip separation at high g-load in a
BFM engagment, the other was a slab failure at very low altitude
immediately after take-off on a functional check flight. Both pilots
survived.
Ed Rasimus
<dhenr...@rcn.com> wrote:
>Curt wrote:
>>
>> The crew chief is in the clear- that's a blade antenna although I've never
>> seen one there. I know the door is farther aft as I closed many before and
>> after flight. The Aggressor T-38s at Clark would pull so many Gs the doors
>> would overcome their latches. It was routine after an ACM sortie to tighten
>> up all the fasteners under the boattail. We lost two jets due to
>> over-stressing the airplanes until we converted to F-5Es.
>>
>I'd love to get a look at the avionics package in that bird. What was in
>it originally wasn't all that bad. It was either Bendix or Collins if I
>remember right (getting older you know :-) As a civilian play toy, his
>main issue even with integrated Collins in there for IFR would be range
>and ice.
Basic equipment was one UHF radio and TACAN. Instrumentation was a
flight director (ADI/HSI) and ILS. No radar, no INS, no GPS, no VHF,
no VOR.
You're right about ice--the J-85 was VERY sensitive to ice damage and
there was no form of de-icing.
Range deteriorated over the years in service. In the early days we
would routinely fly cross-country at FL 450 and .9 M. That would give
a very comfortable 800-1000 mile range. As the birds got older, the
engines got de-tuned and were more sensitive to high altitude
throttle-movement induced flameouts. We seldom took trips above FL 330
and cruise speed dropped to about .84 M. Range decreased to around
400-600 NM.
Still, it's a gas-and-go intermediate stop with not much support
required, so multiple hops aren't much of a problem.
Rob Arndt
XF-90:
http://www.personal.kent.edu/~ccarey/pages/images/xf90-1.jpg
A P-80 with pointy nose and swept wings ;)
Rob
Dudley Henriques
Just got an email from a reliable source that tells me this airplane has
a ton of glass cockpit in it;;; more than the new C's.
Must be nice!
D
--
Dudley Henriques
Ed Rasimus
<dhenr...@rcn.com> wrote:
>Ed Rasimus wrote:
>>
>> Basic equipment was one UHF radio and TACAN. Instrumentation was a
>> flight director (ADI/HSI) and ILS. No radar, no INS, no GPS, no VHF,
>> no VOR.
>>
>
>Just got an email from a reliable source that tells me this airplane has
>a ton of glass cockpit in it;;; more than the new C's.
>Must be nice!
>D
That makes sense. The wiring, power-supply, antenna placements, panel
sizes, etc. all got engineered for the C model upgrade, so if one were
assembling a private jet (I assume it's licensed in "experimental"
class) it wouldn't be all that difficult to go first-class.
Dudley Henriques
The licencing of this airplane, if everything is known :-) should be the
most "interesting" part of this private ownership equation as relates to
a private military jet.
I think everybody in the warbird community knows that "something" is
going down on this thing but exactly what is what's keeping everybody
"buzzing".
I know most of it has to do with the airplane's relationship to a museum
tie in and the legal eagles are dealing with that.
I know how messy things like this can get when the lawyers go head to
head with the government. It can get to be VERY expensive.
I had an old friend back in the IFPF days who owned a gorgeous Mk 16
Spitfire. He got into one of these government things fooling around with
the "vintage museum" thing and ended up being forced to advertize the
airplane in Trade-A- Plane. (Don't ask me why as I've never quite
figured it all out :-) I do remember that he put a price tag on the bird
that no one short of God himself could afford. He managed to keep it
that way for a long time.
My personal feelings on Perot's bird are that I wish him luck and I'd
really like to see him keep this airplane. He's done a tremendous job in
restoring it and it had to cost him a fortune. From what you have said,
he seems like a fair stick to go with it, and being the capitalist pig
that I am, I'm hoping he gets to enjoy this little toy of his for many
years to come.
D
--
Dudley Henriques
Howard Austin
Ed Rasimus <rasimus...@verizon.net> wrote:
>While the T-38 was and still is an incredible performer, it isn't a
>very difficult airplane to fly except for possibly the high approach
>and landing speeds which are faster than today's teen fighters, but
>not as fast as most of the century series jets that were
>contemporaneous.
While instructing UPT in the T-38 in 1962 at Big spring we used 140kts
as final approach speed.
>
>The airplane doesn't exhibit any of the adverse yaw characteristics
>which were common in high performance fighters, doesn't have any
>pitch-up or departure tendencies, is virtually impossible to spin
>(although if one gets there, it is also virtually unrecoverable),
If I remember correctly the Dash 1 back then stated 'If the aircraft
is allowed to enter a stabilized spin, loss of the aircraft and crew is
probable."
>can be flown quite comfortably putting the stick into any corner of
>the cockpit at almost any time. The stall characteristics are probably
>as honest and docile as any swept wing aircraft every built except
>maybe the venerable F-86 Sabre with loads of feedback and simple
>recovery.
>
>It's certainly no Cessna 172, but it also isn't any sort of
>widow-maker either.
I agree. The most forgiving aircraft I ever flew. Example: Nose up 60
degrees, throttle idle, at stall stick full aft with full rudder,
(classic spin entry) the aircraft would do a slow speed, sloppy barrell
roll.
>Ed Rasimus
>Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
>"When Thunder Rolled"
> www.thunderchief.org
> www.thundertales.blogspot.com
Howard Austin
--
--
Howard Austin <how...@earthlink.net>
none
CCBlack
> There's no reason why Ross couldn't have added a hook. While AF T-38s
> don't have hooks, the F-5A has had one as an option for FMS purchasers
> and the steroid-pumped F-5E had one standard. Clearly it would be a
> departure end barrier hook and not stressed for approach-end
> engagement like an F-4 or A-7 hook.
Hey Ed, how does the pilot in an F-5E select ' down-taihook ' ?
Is it just a simple switch ... and can it be raised by the pilot once
it's lowered ? The reason I ask is, in the F-101 Voodoo for example
wasn't the tailhook a one time use thing ? Once it was down that was
it ... spring-loaded I think. And the F-106 had the same type of
tailhook ... a one time use deal ?
Chris
Curt
IIRC, the pilot pulled a T-handle to release a mechanical latch and an
accumulator forced the hook down. If you are using the hook we can assume
you are in a bad situation and do not want to rely on electrics. It could
not be retracted from the cockpit; the ground crew forced it back up into a
latch. The F-106 and the F-101 used a simple leaf spring. Simple and easy
but I was told they could bounce over the cable, which made the whole thing
pointless. And of course could not be reset from inside. Later aircraft used
some sort of hydraulic device to hold the hook down.
Never saw an F-5 use the hook although I did watch a Marine F-4 leave a
gouge down Tyndall's runway once. He stopped in the overrun. The chute was
rarely used in the F-5E although when it was time for repack we made a 781A
entry to deploy the chute on the next full stop. Which the pilot was happy
to do.
--
Curt
KVPS
Dudley Henriques
> While instructing UPT in the T-38 in 1962 at Big spring we used 140kts
> as final approach speed.
>
> Howard Austin
>
Hi Howard;
Sounds a bit slow for final. I used 155kts plus fuel or an on speed
indexer. Were you guys light :-)
--
Dudley Henriques
Vaughn Simon
"Dudley Henriques" <dhenr...@rcn.com> wrote in message
news:vuWdnf1Y0MRgjbTa...@rcn.net...
> Sounds a bit slow for final. I used 155kts plus...
Wow. This is real culture shock. VNE for my usual steed is 145kts.
Vaughn
Mike Williamson
> F-5A 65-10573 after civilian purchase."
> http://www.pbase.com/airlinerphotos/2004_aviation_nation
>
> Tailhook?
> http://tinyurl.com/3eyola
> http://www.airliners.net/open.file?id=0166055&size=L&width=990&height=672&sok=JURER%20%20%28nvepensg_trarevp%20%3D%20%27Abeguebc%20G-38%20Gnyba%27%29%20%20BEQRE%20OL%20cubgb_vq%20QRFP&photo_nr=5
>
> Aircraft data
> http://www.airport-data.com/aircraft/N385AF.html
>
> 82-0049 Grumman X-29A
> Rebuilt with fuselage from F-5A 65-10573 ex RNoAF.
> Now on display outside NASA facility, Edwards AFB, CA.
> http://home.att.net/~jbaugher/1982.html
>
> 65-10365 to NASA as N5784NA.
> Mated with nose of F-5A 65-10573 to form flying
> T-38A/F-5A flying under private ownership as
> N38MX from Fort Wayne IAP, Indiana.
> http://home.att.net/~jbaugher/1965.html
I think they screwed up the description of using an F-5A nose. Here
are some photos of the F-5A and the nose doesn't look anything
like a T-38. The F-5B on the other hand, does look quite similar, as
the cockpit is shifted noticeably forward of the intakes to make room
for the second cockpit. Notice also the T-38 has the rounded intakes,
while the F-5A and B both have the squared off intake.
http://www.zap16.com/mil%20fact/f5%20freedomfighter.htm
Mike
Ed Rasimus
Final approach was 155 KIAS plus one knot per hundred pounds of fuel
over 1000 remaining. Touchdown about 140.
Base turn was 20 knots faster.
Dudley Henriques
Works for me. It's been a ton of years since then, but my memory recalls
initial was around 280. I liked it a bit higher as it was easy to drag
it down to gear speed at 240 during the pitch out anyway :-)
Base turn was about 175 dirty with final at 155 and on the mains at
about 130 plus fuel.
I found the airplane very easy to decellerate with aerodynamic braking
and favored this method rather than dumping the nose wheel.
DJ
--
Dudley Henriques
Howard Austin
Ed Rasimus <rasimus...@verizon.net> wrote:
Obviously we flew the aircraft at different stages of its life, brand
new when I flew it, no dents or dings. After a training flight we were
usually light on fuel, so no need for added speed. Our standard for
teaching the student to land was, 140kts on final, power set for 500fpm
descent. This is what we did at Big Spring with new aircraft in 1962. I
have no comment on what others may have done.
An aside; At the time I flew it, the aircraft was capable of mach 1.4.
How does that compare with what others have experienced later?
Dudley Henriques
My memory's toast these days but if you're talking level flight, the top
end was variable somewhat with weight, but I seem to remember something
just short of about 1.2 at 36K, but the high mach dive limits were a lot
higher.
Dudley
--
Dudley Henriques
Ed Rasimus
<how...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>In article <5pmji3tsqtia9nhb9...@4ax.com>,
> Ed Rasimus <rasimus...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>>Final approach was 155 KIAS plus one knot per hundred pounds of fuel
>>over 1000 remaining. Touchdown about 140.
>>
>>Base turn was 20 knots faster.
>>
>
>Obviously we flew the aircraft at different stages of its life, brand
>new when I flew it, no dents or dings. After a training flight we were
>usually light on fuel, so no need for added speed. Our standard for
>teaching the student to land was, 140kts on final, power set for 500fpm
>descent. This is what we did at Big Spring with new aircraft in 1962. I
>have no comment on what others may have done.
>
>An aside; At the time I flew it, the aircraft was capable of mach 1.4.
>How does that compare with what others have experienced later?
>
>Howard Austin
My first experience with the Talon was at Willy in late 1964, so the
airplanes were new at the time. We flew final at 155 plus fuel,
however I've got a vague recollection (the only kind I get these
days!~) of tales that when first delivered the aircraft was flown at
140 on final, but that was found to be too unforgiving for UPT
students and the dash-1 was changed to reflect the faster speeds.
My later experience was 1981-85 flying it as an AT-38B in the Fighter
Lead-in program at Holloman. These airplanes were used hard and
although the ATC fleet had been cherry-picked for late production
aircraft with low over-G history, the mission took a rapid toll on
them. Where UPT might fly an average 1.5 hour sortie with lots of
instrument, nav, traffic patterns, etc. the TAC airplanes averaged
closer to .9 hour sorties with seldom a ride that didn't carry
sustained high-g manuevering.
In '64 when I got my JC ride, it was before positive control airspace
and speed restrictions, so it was take-off, accelerate to .9M, then
A/B climb to FL450, hump over to supersonic and generally hit 1.4M
typically in less than five minutes from break release. They could do
1.4 quite comfortably at FL 400 and above.
In TAC, we usually didn't get supersonic airspace--that was the
territory of the 49th TFW F-15 squadrons at Holloman. But, when we did
the airplance still slipped through the mach without much prompting
quite regularly in air-air engagments. At ALL altitudes including
remarkably low ones.
Ron
Sounds exactly like some of my experiences dealing with Saudis in the
past year in Riyadh.
Steve Hix
Ron <nmfir...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Oct 31, 4:00 am, "tscottme" <blahb...@blah.net> wrote:
> > I thought Saudi fighter pilots reported for duty with their future accident
> > report already typed up. At the very large civilian flight school I worked
> > at the Saudi students were universally lazy, ham-handed, too important to
> > study, and constantly blaming everyone for everything. If a Saudi student
> > failed any test or task it might be the fault of any random collection of
> > people he never met but it was certainly never his fault.
>
> Sounds exactly like some of my experiences dealing with Saudis in the
> past year in Riyadh.
Sounds very like what the other ground instruction staff were reporting
when IASCO began training students from the area for Gulf Air in the
mid-70s; which was a huge change from their experience training Japanese
candidates for Japan Air Lines.
Different cultures.