My grandfather was the head of design for this aircraft. He was honored at a dinner of Air Force personnel. They said the T38 was the 100 year fighter jet.
Oh he was was he. Well it is not such a great aircraft from a maintenance point of view. From an ATC maintenance officer perspective: 1. The removeable boatail was a terrible design. Here take off the back of the aircraft to get the engines out. What? I have to potentially mess up my flight controls to do engine work? The logisticians at HQ nevver understood that the field needed at least quadruple the number of engine/boatail dollies as originally projected to carry out maintenance. The aircraft should have been designed so you could remove the engines without dismantling part of the flight control system and the fuselage. 2. Honeycomb aircraft parts are a maintenance nightmare. Should have used conventional ribs, stringers, and thicker skins in many honeycomb aeas. Yes, weight increase, but huge maintenance savings. 3. Notice how the F-5 ended up with some real tires and brakes instead of the skinny rapid wearing T-38 equipment. Conflicts between maintenance and operations about tires were constant. We needed something that lasted a lot longer. 4. The Talon's rapidly growing wing problems were mainly due to the unanticipated switch to more low level flght training. Nothing the designers could have predicted. We were going to be Mach 3.0 at 60,000 feet in a B-70 and then suddenly we were Mach 0.5 at 600 feet in a B-52. Aircraft got beaten up in new low altitude operations in ways the designers and engineers were never told to design for. 5. The SAS(Stability Augmentation System) was frequently broken and unusable to the pilots. Pain in the neck costly system. 6. Afterburner no light at 50,000 or whatever altitude above 40,000 feet it was. Lots of Functional Check Flights(FCFs) ended up with that write up. Pull the boatail, pull the engine, etcetera. See this is where the take the back end of the aircraft off to do engine maintenance cost us as far as maintenance hours. The student pilots loved it as it was way cooler than the Mighty Tweet T-37. The ability to fly high above lots of weather was another favored characteristic. One of the best sights was a dawn takeoff with the afterburners emitting those blue flames. We had blue flames while many other jets only emitted boring orange afterburner flames. Fastest parts getter we had. Have the depot or another ATC base pack up a part that could fit in the travel pod and a nice cross country round trip would have it to us really quickly. Same day in many cases. Overnight in others. We had a wartime mission. After the USA was bombed we were to go flying and do damage assesments. People thought we were lying when we told them that. Chemical warfare suits, etcetera, we did it.
why call it a "fighter jet", as it looks like the ONLY US aircraft incapable of mounting bombs and missile racks, GOOD on YOU, finally one which is SAFE to be bellow!!, at least you can't get shitted on by this bird 🙂
1,400 hrs in T-38. That’s 1,200 sorties. Class 87-03 Williams AFB. Last assignment was T-38 PIT IP Randolph. Great jet to fly. And yes. I remember the day I solo’d it first time and solo cross country. Salute to you all. “Ox”. Texas
I have a pair of these in 1/48 scale ( Trumpeter Series) one is complete, painted it the gloss black sceme, while im in the process of building the second one in the traditional white trainer version. When I was stationed at G.F.N.D. in the 80s we had at least one of them at our base. Im assuming to train the buff and K.C.-135 Pilots. Anyway I've always liked this airplane along with the F-4 Phantom II and F-15E.
I Flew Talon at Laughlin AFB ,Del Rio,Tx class of 7610 . I was only 22 years old . I can't believe they trusted me fly solo cross country in this white rocket . I loved every bit of challenge. If you could fly this ,You can flying everything They told me . Wow .
They say its flying characteristics were perfect for transitioning to the F-4. I was fortunate enough to be dual-qualed in this and the KC-135 near the end of the Cold War. Good times.
We always liked to get the pod which was not usually available. You could carry a lot of Coors back to home base. Otherwise it was a twelve pack in the seat box that I think could be empty if not over water. Memory is fading.
it was not excellent visibility from the rear cockpit. The interesting thing about being an IP in the rear seat is you learn what you can see and worry about what you cannot see.
Why is that guy wearing his parachute during preflight?? Also, I do not ever remember asking my wingman to check my hydraulic fluid level in flight. Two knee slippers in the first 5 minutes.
Imagine the T-38 powered by a single GE J85-21 (3500/5000 pound thrust) engine like that used in the F-5E instead of the two GE J85-5 engines. While the total military and afterburner thrust would be reduced somewhat, the reduction would be offset by the weight saved by the elimination of one of the engines and associated mounting hardware. The resulting aircraft would be more affordable, lighter, and more economical to operate and maintain and would be an excellent replacement for the aging T-38 fleet. Imagine the F-5A powered by a single GE J85-21 engine, the nose section shortened by about three feet and with a multimode air to air/air to ground radar, HOTAS flight controls, glass instrument panel, GPS and inertial navigation radios, and a heads up display.
Sounds similiar to something else . What was it called? Oh, yeah the F-20 Tigershark. Sorry, but at the time the USAF was screwing up the T-46 program intended to replace the T-37 and we were trying to figure out the future Tanker Transport Training System program., so we couldn't be bothered with getting a two seat training version of the F-20. Well the new Boeing T-X that got selected as the T-38 replacement seems to be close to that. The T-X has a lower top speed than the T-38, but otherwise seems to be in the ballpark of what you suggest. One interesting training change is you have a loss of asymmetrical thrust or single engine operation training in a twin. A USAF reserve pilot told me how in T-38 UPT the change from symmetrical to assymetrical was sometimes surprisingly subtle. It then was an annoyance of trying to maintain formation fight without immediately realizing one engine was at reduced thrust. Of course today the world revolves again around the single engine fighter attack aircraft, so why bother with twin training.
Ted Freeman (bird strike), Charles Basset/Elliot See (bad weather circle-to-land), and Clifton Williams (a failure in aileron axis). One was inevitable or just bad luck, (Freeman), one caused by pilot error (Basset/See) and one caused by an aircraft malfunction. So only 3 accidents and just one caused by the airplane (better said, cause a failure in maintenance procedure, not the aircraft handling or performance).
My grandfather was the head of design for this aircraft. He was honored at a dinner of Air Force personnel. They said the T38 was the 100 year fighter jet.
Oh he was was he. Well it is not such a great aircraft from a maintenance point of view. From an ATC maintenance officer perspective:
1. The removeable boatail was a terrible design. Here take off the back of the aircraft to get the engines out. What? I have to potentially mess up my flight controls to do engine work? The logisticians at HQ nevver understood that the field needed at least quadruple the number of engine/boatail dollies as originally projected to carry out maintenance.
The aircraft should have been designed so you could remove the engines without dismantling part of the flight control system and the fuselage.
2. Honeycomb aircraft parts are a maintenance nightmare. Should have used conventional ribs, stringers, and thicker skins in many honeycomb aeas. Yes, weight increase, but huge maintenance savings.
3. Notice how the F-5 ended up with some real tires and brakes instead of the skinny rapid wearing T-38 equipment. Conflicts between maintenance and operations about tires were constant. We needed something that lasted a lot longer.
4. The Talon's rapidly growing wing problems were mainly due to the unanticipated switch to more low level flght training. Nothing the designers could have predicted. We were going to be Mach 3.0 at 60,000 feet in a B-70 and then suddenly we were Mach 0.5 at 600 feet in a B-52. Aircraft got beaten up in new low altitude operations in ways the designers and engineers were never told to design for.
5. The SAS(Stability Augmentation System) was frequently broken and unusable to the pilots. Pain in the neck costly system.
6. Afterburner no light at 50,000 or whatever altitude above 40,000 feet it was. Lots of Functional Check Flights(FCFs) ended up with that write up. Pull the boatail, pull the engine, etcetera. See this is where the take the back end of the aircraft off to do engine maintenance cost us as far as maintenance hours.
The student pilots loved it as it was way cooler than the Mighty Tweet T-37. The ability to fly high above lots of weather was another favored characteristic.
One of the best sights was a dawn takeoff with the afterburners emitting those blue flames. We had blue flames while many other jets only emitted boring orange afterburner flames.
Fastest parts getter we had. Have the depot or another ATC base pack up a part that could fit in the travel pod and a nice cross country round trip would have it to us really quickly. Same day in many cases. Overnight in others.
We had a wartime mission. After the USA was bombed we were to go flying and do damage assesments. People thought we were lying when we told them that. Chemical warfare suits, etcetera, we did it.
why call it a "fighter jet", as it looks like the ONLY US aircraft incapable of mounting bombs and missile racks, GOOD on YOU, finally one which is SAFE to be bellow!!, at least you can't get shitted on by this bird 🙂
I still can't believe the USAF let us solo in the T-38 with around 100 hours of total time and maybe 10 in type.
I'm glad I got to fly it.
Thanks for your service to our great nation.
Certainly the most fun jet to fly!
1,400 hrs in T-38. That’s 1,200 sorties.
Class 87-03 Williams AFB.
Last assignment was
T-38 PIT IP Randolph.
Great jet to fly. And yes. I remember the day I solo’d it first time and solo cross country.
Salute to you all.
“Ox”. Texas
I have a pair of these in 1/48 scale ( Trumpeter Series) one is complete, painted it the gloss black sceme, while im in the process of building the second one in the traditional white trainer version. When I was stationed at G.F.N.D. in the 80s we had at least one of them at our base. Im assuming to train the buff and K.C.-135 Pilots. Anyway I've always liked this airplane along with the F-4 Phantom II and F-15E.
I Flew Talon at Laughlin AFB ,Del Rio,Tx class of 7610 . I was only 22 years old . I can't believe they trusted me fly solo cross country in this white rocket . I loved every bit of challenge. If you could fly this ,You can flying everything They told me . Wow .
They were right Mike, when I went to the F-4 it was an easy plane to land.
They say its flying characteristics were perfect for transitioning to the F-4. I was fortunate enough to be dual-qualed in this and the KC-135 near the end of the Cold War. Good times.
I was at Laughlin class of 67-C at 23 years old. Oh, what a time that was. Beautiful!
Spectacular. Thank you
Cool plane! ✈️👍
Great aircraft and fun to fly. Logged about 900 hours as an IP.
Did you ever see an other worldly aircraft.
@@stephenrichardson6890 No
We always liked to get the pod which was not usually available. You could carry a lot of Coors back to home base. Otherwise it was a twelve pack in the seat box that I think could be empty if not over water. Memory is fading.
the t38 / f5 imo has never been bettered. performance, simple operation, affordable, numerous and durable!
Flew it at Randolph AFB. Can't understand why the AF didn't just build more with modern avionics.
LJ
Northrop was way ahead of it's time with that robotic voice.
Great design and plane.
Made in the 1950s, and STILL the USAF Jet Trainer in 2024! Rick Flair could say it no better: WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
it was not excellent visibility from the rear cockpit. The interesting thing about being an IP in the rear seat is you learn what you can see and worry about what you cannot see.
IHAD MY PTU T38IN WEBB BIGSPRING IN1975 was good time.
KUWAIT.
Where can I purchase one / plus center line ext . fuel tank ?
Why is that guy wearing his parachute during preflight?? Also, I do not ever remember asking my wingman to check my hydraulic fluid level in flight. Two knee slippers in the first 5 minutes.
0:12 video begins with the T-48 ... Forty Eight... ooops ( 1959-2019 = 60 years T-38 )
Imagine the T-38 powered by a single GE J85-21 (3500/5000 pound thrust) engine like that used in the F-5E instead of the two GE J85-5 engines. While the total military and afterburner thrust would be reduced somewhat, the reduction would be offset by the weight saved by the elimination of one of the engines and associated mounting hardware. The resulting aircraft would be more affordable, lighter, and more economical to operate and maintain and would be an excellent replacement for the aging T-38 fleet. Imagine the F-5A powered by a single GE J85-21 engine, the nose section shortened by about three feet and with a multimode air to air/air to ground radar, HOTAS flight controls, glass instrument panel, GPS and inertial navigation radios, and a heads up display.
Sounds similiar to something else . What was it called? Oh, yeah the F-20 Tigershark. Sorry, but at the time the USAF was screwing up the T-46 program intended to replace the T-37 and we were trying to figure out the future Tanker Transport Training System program., so we couldn't be bothered with getting a two seat training version of the F-20.
Well the new Boeing T-X that got selected as the T-38 replacement seems to be close to that. The T-X has a lower top speed than the T-38, but otherwise seems to be in the ballpark of what you suggest.
One interesting training change is you have a loss of asymmetrical thrust or single engine operation training in a twin. A USAF reserve pilot told me how in T-38 UPT the change from symmetrical to assymetrical was sometimes surprisingly subtle. It then was an annoyance of trying to maintain formation fight without immediately realizing one engine was at reduced thrust. Of course today the world revolves again around the single engine fighter attack aircraft, so why bother with twin training.
Enter the T-7A red tail. Just what u asked for.
@@markg7963 "T-7A Red Hawk". Red Tails were P-51s and P-40s flown by The Tuskegee Airmen.
It would then be sub-sonic and as fuel efficient as an F-4.
Mortuus Rationem Sorry, I missed on the name, you are correct.
4:27 Gus Grissom?
Jim McDivitt.
why did the pilot give that guy the finger at 1:15 ?
The pilot was giving the visual signal for engine start.
Use if T-38 might be extended till 2040.
#AstronautKiller
Ted Freeman (bird strike), Charles Basset/Elliot See (bad weather circle-to-land), and Clifton Williams (a failure in aileron axis). One was inevitable or just bad luck, (Freeman), one caused by pilot error (Basset/See) and one caused by an aircraft malfunction. So only 3 accidents and just one caused by the airplane (better said, cause a failure in maintenance procedure, not the aircraft handling or performance).
Mig-25.best aircraft.
For target practice 😂😂😂