Max climbing takeoff, T-38

[davparlr]

This is an impressive takeoff, used for show. Takeoff, hold altitude to not remember speed, and hold attitude going up, and performed vertical recovery at 10k. Real time to time max is to accelerate to climb speed and hold. The T-38 first flew in 1959 and will continue to train pilots till 2040.



YouTube - NASA T-38 Talon Start Taxi And GREAT Takeoff HD

[Torch]

Thats a sweet looking bird....

[The Basket]

The civil reg is a novel thing on a fast jet.

Hope these are not the same ones the Apollo astronauts used for transport and training!

[Matt308]

Likely so. US is looking to replace them in the next 10yrs. If they are still used in 2040, I would be REAL suprised. They are underpowered and analog. Not exactly a real world trainer for our modern platforms.

[davparlr]

The civil reg is a novel thing on a fast jet.

Hope these are not the same ones the Apollo astronauts used for transport and training!

NASA jet is not military.

Yes they are but I don’t understand the reason for your concern. I'll bet they love flying that bird.

Likely so. US is looking to replace them in next 10yrs. If they are still used in 2040, I would be REAL suprised.

I was incorrect in saying they will be used as a trainer until 2040, although I would not be surprised if they were.

They are underpowered and analog. Not exactly a real world trainer for our modern platforms.

Well, it does not have one-to-one thrust as the latest fighters, but seldom has trainers met the performance of contemporary fighters, in fact the T-38 was probably the only one designed as a trainer that did perform as well as most contemporary fighters at the time. You can pretty well bet that new AF trainers will not either. In the new T-38C they have incorporated a glass cockpit with HUD and increased engine takeoff thrust with an inlet redesign and engine upgrade. This is the configuration that will go to 2020. From personal experience, I do not understand the reason to upgrade thrust, maybe that more thrust is always better. The original plane is quite a “white rocket”, and was only 1 sec slower to 10k in a record setting run than the F-4 did in a record setting run slightly later. The F-4 was never known as an underpowered aircraft.

The T-38 is a delight to fly and to watch. When they do retire her, there will be a long line of buyers waiting to scarf up any with time left on the airframe. I suspect they will not retire her until she just falls apart.

[Matt308]

I was incorrect in saying they will be used as a trainer until 2040, although I would not be surprised if they were..

I don't think they will likely be around as a US govt front line trainer for USAF. Your quote below is absolutely accurate though in my opinion.

Well, it does not have one-to-one thrust as the latest fighters, but seldom has trainers met the performance of contemporary fighters, in fact the T-38 was probably the only one designed as a trainer that did perform as well as most contemporary fighters at the time. You can pretty well bet that new AF trainers will not either. .

I never said anything about 1-to-1 thrust, but rather it is underpowered to replicate modern fighter sustained turns and dash speed necessary for modern operational concepts training.

From personal experience, I do not understand the reason to upgrade thrust, maybe that more thrust is always better.
The T-38 is a delight to fly and to watch. .

No arguments. She is a beauty.

When they do retire her, there will be a long line of buyers waiting to scarf up any with time left on the airframe. I suspect they will not retire her until she just falls apart.

I suspect that is a fact. And the same reason that NASA still flies her. Likely you will find many private firms offering second-tier jet training with upgraded digital avionics and open architecture to capture those niche markets for F-16, Mirage, MiG and perhaps Indian/Chinese airframe customers. Most like those firms that are fielding A-4s in training/adversarial roles. Like those today who offer training/adversarial roles via the A-4.

[davparlr]

I don't think they will likely be around as a US govt front line trainer for USAF. Your quote below is absolutely accurate though in my opinion.

Probably not but I would not be surprised to see base flight with a bunch just to keep the Generals on flight pay with a private little hot rod.

I never said anything about 1-to-1 thrust, but rather it is underpowered to replicate modern fighter sustained turns and dash speed necessary for modern operational concepts training.

Long time ago, in a land far away, when I was in training all pilots were trained to fly all AF aircraft so everybody got to fly the T-38. Undergraduate Pilot Training (UPT) did not provide tactical training. T-38 training was basically two ship and four ship, high speed acro, and high wing load, fast patterns and landings, and instruments. Tactical training was supplied post graduation at the receiving command organizations. The AF now breaks it down into fighters and multi-engines but I would be surprised if they did any combat training at UPT, as you suggest.

[The Basket]

Trainers don't have the performance of their fighter counterparts. T-6 Texan was not a Mustang. Cost would be higher if pilots were trained like for like.

Yes NASA is civilian.

There is a forum on the internet I recall which had all the reg of the Talons NASA had during the 1960s. So can see if this one is included.

[krieghund]

The T-38C fills a training role that no other purpose built trainer can fill - the supersonic syllabus for transition to fast jets.
The Bahrain AF changed their minds on retiring the F-5F because the Hawk could not provide the required training to transition to the F-16.
Here is an article from the AFA on the current USAF T-38 training with the new Glass cockpit..also some pictures of before and after.
Also there is a shot of the NASA T-38N sim with their current cockpit.

[Matt308]

And notice how dated that looks compared to F-35, Rafale, Eurofighter, Gripen and Pak FA.

[FLYBOYJ]

Trainers don't have the performance of their fighter counterparts. T-6 Texan was not a Mustang. Cost would be higher if pilots were trained like for like.

Yes NASA is civilian.

There is a forum on the internet I recall which had all the reg of the Talons NASA had during the 1960s. So can see if this one is included.

There are also several civilian ones being operated out of Van Nuys airport in Southern California.

Thornton Aircraft Company

[krieghund]

And notice how dated that looks compared to F-35, Rafale, Eurofighter, Gripen and Pak FA.

Agreed However there isn't any other solution in the offing for the USA other than to buy foreign or use a two-seat version of the fighter its self but that is cost prohibitive.

The only mach+ trainers that come to mind are the KAI T50, Aeromacchi M346 and the Chinese L-15 Falcon.

Question is to upgrade an existing design or design anew.

[Matt308]

The DoD has issued RFPs for a trainer. Most of the insider info I have read is that it likely will a new design.

[davparlr]

And notice how dated that looks compared to F-35, Rafale, Eurofighter, Gripen and Pak FA.

Actually, I don't see much difference. Take out functionality of the weapons system, defensive management system and offensive sensor systems, which a trainer will not have, and you would get what he T-38C has. What is important is being familiar with the data driven display logic and paging system of a glass cockpit and flying a high performance aircraft at the same time. Simulators can handle most of these task but it is not the same a doing it while learning to fly at the same time. I remember that one of the most difficult tasks I had to learn was to talk on the radio at the same time I was executing a high altitude penetration. I don't see any problems with the avionics in the T-38C for teaching latest operational logic.

I would guess that Northrop should dust off plans for the F-20B (two-seater F-20?) and that plane could more than handle all the needs of the latest fighters. Most of the syllabus could be done without the afterburner, including takeoff. G limits would need to be programmed in as I have a friend who lost her husband in an F-20 when he passed out pulling too many gs.

[davparlr]

There are also several civilian ones being operated out of Van Nuys airport in Southern California.

Thornton Aircraft Company

I knew of one flying. I saw that Thorton had another at its site, and two F-5s. I can understand the F-5s but where did they get the T-38? I wonder how much they sale for.