USAF Phantoms on deck?

The T-2A was a joy in formation. You couldn't maintain 250 in the breakup and would be in trail FOREVER to get back up to speed. There was an alternative accel check on the runway IIRC, something like 70% to Mil in 10 seconds if you couldn't make the idle-mil specified time. The A also had greater speedbrake extention than the B/C to allow the engine to operate at higher, more responsive, RPM.

The B's had J-60's, somewhat more robust than the C's J-85's at the expense of a slightly slower accel to military. VT-9 had 50/50 split of A's and B's and in the old serial form of jet flight training, you did all the early work at VT-7 in A's and then went to VT-9 for Form, Night Fams, and OCF. 1/2 the studs transitioned to the B to start, half just prior to OCF and their trip to Pensacola for guns and CQ in the T-2C at VT-4.

When new, the T-2B/C was a rocket with outstanding thrust to weight. Climb angles around 20 degrees nose up. The engines were so used up by the time I returned as an IP in 1986, they probably didn't have more than 60% of the original advertised thrust. The T-2 was not as rewarding to fly as the TA-4 advanced jet; but even so, it was an outstanding introduction to jet aviation and was ideal for the basic jet / intermediate strike mission.

R / John
"Mike Kanze" wrote in message . ..
OBTW, the T-2A (Had the misfortune to fly iy in basic jet all the way through forms) had a J-34. Idle to Military in 17 seconds. YTou could smoke a cigarette in that amount of time.

Before entering A-6 type training, I was stashed in VT-7 in the final days of the T-2A's existence there. On a hot summer day (plenty of those at NAS Meridian, MS) if the single engine in the A didn't spool up to its 3400 equivalent mousefart in 16 seconds, SOP was to turn around and taxi back to the ramp. Otherwise you'd go nowhere but into the swamp that surrounded three of the four sides of NMM.

By contrast, the T-2B & C were "two-holers," with the C (which replaced the A at VT-7) having a pair of J-85 GE4s. The T-2C was a great little bird that one could also battery-start if needed on a cross-country.

I never flew in the T-2B so can't comment on it.

--
Mike Kanze

"The Internet is like one of those garbage dumps outside of Bombay. There are people, most unfortunately, crawling all over it, and maybe they find a bit of aluminum, or perhaps something they can sell. But mainly it's garbage."

- Joseph Weizenbaum (1923 - 2008), MIT computer science professor and inventor of ELIZA

"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message ...
On Fri, 2 May 2008 15:59:27 -0500, "John Carrier"
wrote:

After the C, did USAF had bridle attach points? Were the landing gear identical in spec (IIRC, they were less robust on the E)? I think it's likely that the E had structure optimized for its mission and may no longer have been carrier suitable. USN J/S had fat tires too.

OBTW, the T-2A (Had the misfortune to fly iy in basic jet all the way through forms) had a J-34. Idle to Military in 17 seconds. YTou could smoke a cigarette in that amount of time. By comparison, I can remember a mishap board suggesting an F-4 ramp strike had as a contributing factor the "slower spool-up time" of the J79-10B (smokeless) versus the straight Dash-10. In my opinion, a J-79 had essentially instantaneous throttle response. But what do I know?

R / John

No bridle attachment points on C, D or E. As I recall (and I
occasionally...or maybe often...recall incorrectly), the E had fat
tires and the tell-tale wing bulge to house them. And, as far as I
know the C model had pretty much the same landing gear as the B.

I got to go for a ride in a J off of Forrestal in the Med and remember
being more impressed by the cat shot than the trap.

Sounds as though the T-2A had a similar situation to the T-37 with
it's J-69s--slow spool-up. But, of course like all AF aircraft the
Tweet was generously over-powered...

And, just like you, I share the opinion that the J-79, with or without
smoke, was virtually "power-on-demand". And gobs of it.

Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
www.thunderchief.org
www.thundertales.blogspot.com

Ed Rasimus wrote:
On Fri, 2 May 2008 15:59:27 -0500, "John Carrier"
wrote:

After the C, did USAF had bridle attach points? Were the landing gear identical in spec (IIRC, they were less robust on the E)? I think it's likely that the E had structure optimized for its mission and may no longer have been carrier suitable. USN J/S had fat tires too.

OBTW, the T-2A (Had the misfortune to fly iy in basic jet all the way through forms) had a J-34. Idle to Military in 17 seconds. YTou could smoke a cigarette in that amount of time. By comparison, I can remember a mishap board suggesting an F-4 ramp strike had as a contributing factor the "slower spool-up time" of the J79-10B (smokeless) versus the straight Dash-10. In my opinion, a J-79 had essentially instantaneous throttle response. But what do I know?

R / John

No bridle attachment points on C, D or E. As I recall (and I
occasionally...or maybe often...recall incorrectly), the E had fat
tires and the tell-tale wing bulge to house them. And, as far as I
know the C model had pretty much the same landing gear as the B.

I got to go for a ride in a J off of Forrestal in the Med and remember
being more impressed by the cat shot than the trap.

Sounds as though the T-2A had a similar situation to the T-37 with
it's J-69s--slow spool-up. But, of course like all AF aircraft the
Tweet was generously over-powered...

And, just like you, I share the opinion that the J-79, with or without
smoke, was virtually "power-on-demand". And gobs of it.

Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
www.thunderchief.org
www.thundertales.blogspot.com


I never had the pleasure of cats or traps, I always went by
helicopter and the boats tended to be a tad smaller like the USS
Okinawa. Even so it could be a bumpy ride in rough weather. There were a
couple of times I decided people who only experience land based roller
coasters were missing the real fun.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

SNIP alot

No bridle attachment points on C, D or E. As I recall (and I
occasionally...or maybe often...recall incorrectly), the E had fat
tires and the tell-tale wing bulge to house them. And, as far as I
know the C model had pretty much the same landing gear as the B.

Didn't know one way or the other about the bridle on the USAF versions.
Thanks.

I got to go for a ride in a J off of Forrestal in the Med and remember
being more impressed by the cat shot than the trap.

AKA an "E Ticket" ride

Sounds as though the T-2A had a similar situation to the T-37 with
it's J-69s--slow spool-up. But, of course like all AF aircraft the
Tweet was generously over-powered...

Methinks the F-22 might have "sufficient" thrust. Saw the demo and it was
impressive.

And, just like you, I share the opinion that the J-79, with or without
smoke, was virtually "power-on-demand". And gobs of it.

All things being relative. I envied the F-4 guys for their power (while
flying the Crusader) till I found there wasn't really THAT much more.
Biggest problem adapting to the beast was its tendancy to bleed energy, I'd
find that in a particular maneuver I was always be 50 knots shy of where I'd
be in the F-8 and of course there was all the buffet cues: Light buffet,
moderate buffet, heavy buffet, Jimmy Buffet.

R / John

On Sat, 3 May 2008 07:25:08 -0500, "John Carrier"
wrote:

All things being relative. I envied the F-4 guys for their power (while
flying the Crusader) till I found there wasn't really THAT much more.
Biggest problem adapting to the beast was its tendancy to bleed energy, I'd
find that in a particular maneuver I was always be 50 knots shy of where I'd
be in the F-8 and of course there was all the buffet cues: Light buffet,
moderate buffet, heavy buffet, Jimmy Buffet.

R / John


And down in the wardroom, All-You-Can-Eat Buffet.

Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
www.thunderchief.org
www.thundertales.blogspot.com