Bush Flew Fighter Jets During Vietnam

On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 13:04:34 GMT,
(John S. Shinal) wrote:

(BUFDRVR) wrote:
I'm not sure who Chuckie is, but there are a few civilian owned T-38s.

Chuck Thornton owned one that was assembled from three wrecked
T-38 airframes purchased surplus. He allegedly really torqued some
people off over that since he had tried to buy one several times and
been rebuffed. It was painted like an Agressor from Nellis, in a
blue/white/gray scheme that would be hard to spot in the air.

Hard to imagine enough salvageable from three wrecks to put together a
flyable T-38. The magnesium under body and the honeycomb wing
structure would be hard to repair. The seats and the engines would be
the hardest parts to get.

As for the paint job, if his is the one that's been seen on several TV
commercials, it's done in gloss while the Aggressor T-38s were all
flat. The Nellis T-38 Aggressors came in all colors including the
basic white as well as blues, grays, browns and "lizard."

We got them all at Holloman while I was there. Over the NM desert, the
most effective was the brown.

In '83 we got the entire AT-38 fleet painted in a standard
blue-blue-gray gloss camo. That's still what is used by the 435th
doing the fighter lead-in portion of the SUPT syllabus.

The gossip is that MiG 17s are more of a fun flyer, with fewer
maintenance hours per flight hour, and an easy engine to deal with. I
think spins in the MiG 17 are unrecoverable, though.

Dunno. Never got a -17 flight, but it would be hard to pack more
performance into a little airplane than a T-38. Spins in a T-38 are
unrecoverable as well, but also virtually unattainable. The airplane
will spin, but it is a decidedly unnatural act and AFAIK only been
accomplished in very abusive flight testing at Edwards.



Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

Ed Rasimus wrote;

In '83 we got the entire AT-38 fleet painted in a standard
blue-blue-gray gloss camo.

Affectionately known as "Smurf Jets".

Spins in a T-38 are
unrecoverable as well, but also virtually unattainable.

Not sure if they did this while you were at UPT Ed, but early on in the T-38
syllabus they take you out and demo how resistant the T-38 is to spin. The
instructor flys because if they let a student try, you know they'de get it into
a spin


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

On 20 Jul 2004 02:31:02 GMT, (BUFDRVR) wrote:

Ed Rasimus wrote;

In '83 we got the entire AT-38 fleet painted in a standard
blue-blue-gray gloss camo.

Affectionately known as "Smurf Jets".

Spins in a T-38 are
unrecoverable as well, but also virtually unattainable.

Not sure if they did this while you were at UPT Ed, but early on in the T-38
syllabus they take you out and demo how resistant the T-38 is to spin. The
instructor flys because if they let a student try, you know they'de get it into
a spin

Trust me, they wouldn't be able to spin the T-38. In Lead-in we
regularly put the stick in every corner of the cockpit and abused the
airplane in ways that used to dazzle the FAIPs we had come through the
program with 1500-2000 hours already in the jet. No spins.

The procedure which MIGHT get a spin was full aft stick at max rate.
But, it had to be done after a nose down unload excursion at nearly
max rate as well. So, pump the nose down hard then quickly reverse and
bang the pole back into your lap. Most folks can't begin to get the
stick rate required and unless the bird is rigged poorly, even then
won't get a departure.

It used to be a common Aggressor trick with the Talon to "nose
pump"--get trapped in lag near to a gun shot, so pump the stick fore
and aft trying to get an couple of extra degrees of lead for a film
shot. Even then, no spins.

We taught rudder rolls, over/under, loaded/unloaded, with or without
full aileron deflection. No spins. We taught gun defense jinking as:
1.) check airspeed to be sure you're below corner velocity, 2.) now
plant the stick in random corners of the cockpit at full speed. 3.)
lather, rinse, repeat. No spins.

It just won't spin. Run it straight up to zero airspeed, put in full
rudder and max aileron--no spins. It simply swaps ends.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

Ed Rasimus wrote:

The procedure which MIGHT get a spin was full aft stick at max rate.
But, it had to be done after a nose down unload excursion at nearly
max rate as well. So, pump the nose down hard then quickly reverse and
bang the pole back into your lap.

This had to be done in an inverted position, as I remember it, in order
to get that last bit of pitch excursion -- from full nose up (inverted)
to max rate nose down in order to get the Talon to spin.

I never wanted to walk home, so I wouldn't know from personal experience.


Jack

(long Snip)

We taught rudder rolls, over/under, loaded/unloaded, with or without
full aileron deflection. No spins. We taught gun defense jinking as:
1.) check airspeed to be sure you're below corner velocity, 2.) now
plant the stick in random corners of the cockpit at full speed. 3.)
lather, rinse, repeat. No spins.

It just won't spin. Run it straight up to zero airspeed, put in full
rudder and max aileron--no spins. It simply swaps ends.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8


The T-38 dash one used to read "If the aircraft is allowed to enter a
stabilized spin loss of the aircraft and crew is probable."

If I remember correctly it took the Northrup test pilots several weeks
to learn how to make it spin. Fortunately their aircraft were equiped
with recovery chutes.

Howard Austin

--
--
Howard Austin
none

Ed Rasimus wrote:

Trust me, they wouldn't be able to spin the T-38.

I guess the IP demo was done so they could accurately perform the demo?

Got a book review brief on your book today Ed (yes,yes I'm going to get it!).
Only critique was that you used too much jargon. The review was done by a Comm
officer.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

On 21 Jul 2004 00:19:04 GMT, (BUFDRVR) wrote:

Ed Rasimus wrote:

Trust me, they wouldn't be able to spin the T-38.

I guess the IP demo was done so they could accurately perform the demo?

Got a book review brief on your book today Ed (yes,yes I'm going to get it!).
Only critique was that you used too much jargon. The review was done by a Comm
officer.


BUFDRVR

Dunno about your comm officer. The "jargon" is the language of the
business. IOW, I didn't popularize or "dumb-down" the language ala
"Top Gun". But, I spell out all acronyms and there is a
glossary--adequate so that even my wife could understand it and my
editor would accept it.

If you don't hurry, you'll be way behind when the new book comes out
in February.

I've been very fortunate to get cover blurbs for the new one from
Walter Boyne, Dan Ford, Tom Wilson, Mark Berent and Robin Olds. Makes
me blush--but I'll get over it.



Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

Ed Rasimus wrote:

If you don't hurry, you'll be way behind when the new book comes out
in February.


I actually grab the copy that the comm guy used and read up to page 20 while
half paying attention to the other book reviews. I was hooked by page 20 so I'm
resolved to buy it this weekend.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 10:01:07 -0600, Ed Rasimus
wrote:


Dunno. Never got a -17 flight, but it would be hard to pack more
performance into a little airplane than a T-38. Spins in a T-38 are
unrecoverable as well, but also virtually unattainable. The airplane
will spin, but it is a decidedly unnatural act and AFAIK only been
accomplished in very abusive flight testing at Edwards.

The F-5 model with the long pointy nose (the F, maybe) spun more
easily and was extremely hard to recover. It took jettisoning the
canopy to break the spin, in fact. The T-38 and the other F-5s
weren't nearly so difficult to recover, but they weren't really easy,
either. The gouge about "easy to spin, easy to recover; hard to spin,
hard to recover" has a certain amount of truth to it.

We, Dryden, were spinning (intentionally) a 3/8ths model of the F-15
when that F-5 got into trouble. Ken had given a briefing on spins,
including the vulnerability of long pointy noses, to a group that
included the AFFTC commander about two days before the F-5 spin. The
commander called our director and asked if anyone else had any
predictions he should know about.

Did you ever run into the inverted pitch hang up on the T-38? It's
well-known in the Flying Qualities community but I haven't heard that
many pilots talk about it. I think the F-5s had it, too.

Mary

--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer

Mary Shafer wrote:
The F-5 model with the long pointy nose (the F, maybe) spun more
easily and was extremely hard to recover. It took jettisoning the
canopy to break the spin, in fact. The T-38 and the other F-5s
weren't nearly so difficult to recover, but they weren't really easy,
either. The gouge about "easy to spin, easy to recover; hard to spin,
hard to recover" has a certain amount of truth to it.

The E's and F's we had at Top Gun in '81 had the shark nose mod
and leading edge extension. That they were spinnable was proven
(along with difficulty of recovery) when the skipper (MiG killer
Roy Cash) had to return one to the taxpayers.

We all talked about jettisoning the canopy and, in the case of the
2-seaters F's, directing the backseater to eject, in attempts to get
some nosedown pitch (the backseaters used to point out that
having the frontseater leave, instead, was more likely to work--
particularly since HE was the hamburger who had gotten you into
that fix anyway--given the realtive positions of the seats). Nobody
ever had to test the backseater idea, and I am skeptical about the
canopy idea. If you've got no airflow anyway, what good to throw
away the window? Then again, what do you have to lose?



Jeff