Grumble

The use them for low level as mentioned above, but my understanding is that at one point (and may still be the case) they had an F-16 radar in it they used for radar nav and a-a intercepts.

SabreDriver

The T-1 was used just for airways nav training, in the intermediate phase, as were the T-39G's. The T-39N could be used for airways nav or low level, Radar Nav, or air-air Radar intercepts, as the N model has the APG-66 in the Nose. T-1's are not used up in the advanced phase, just the T-39. T-1 can't support the payload in the nose, nor should it.

I loved flying the Sabreliner, it was one of my all time favorites, until I got a type in the 747, they behave very similarly in many phases of flight, and share some flight instruments, it was an easy transition.

My thoughts and prayers go out to those left behind by the VT-86 crew, they are going through unspeakable challenges and have many questions.

XHooker

I don't remember that happening and I don't think it had anything to do with the return of the T-39. The T-39 replaced the T-47 around the same time the T-2 replaced the A-4 in the early 90s. I'm pretty sure it was all driven by contracts. The pilots of the radar trainers (T-39/T-47) were civilians, most, if not all of whom were prior military. There was a T-39 mid air on an air-air hop over the Gulf a few years ago where both crews were lost.

USMCFLYR

A few of my former squadronmates have gone on to fly for them (the contractors) over the years. It was a very coveted job as it was high paying, in Pensacola, and kept a hand in training a new generations of naval aviators (now combined). Most of the guys I knoew were former Squadron or Group Commanding Officers - a REAL boy's club. I recently played golf with one (when he was on a x/c out to San Diego) who was a former CAG.

I remember the switched from T-39s, to T-47s, and back to T-39s. I asked why they would go back to the T-39s and I was told at the time that it all had to do with the T-39 contractors outbidding the T-47s - maintenance costs, operating costs, capabilities, etc....which is why that statement from the Wiki about almost all of them being lost in a fire was news to me - if it had anything to do with it.

I remember that mid-air between the two. Terrible. The NSC mishap investigator who helped me when I was on my first mishap board had worked the most recent CFIT too. I have no idea what happened this time - but my contact's quote was "I hope it wasn't another CFIT. We can't handle another one of those"

Has anyone run across any further news articles that might shed more light on what happened?

USMCFLYR

USN(Ret)

My recollection is that the Citation airframes weren't holding up to the wear and tear of the mission, and were mothballed in a civilian hangar in Topeka KS. At that time, the switch was made back to the T-39. Sometime after that the hangar fire occurred, destroying the T-47's.

USMCFLYR

Well that certainly sounds plausible, especially if this big hangar fire happened in a civilian hangar in Topeka. KS and not at NAS Pensacola.
Thanks for the information.
Fast forward to the present - anybody know how the T-1 Jayhawks are holding up to the rigors of the mission?

USMCFLYR

UAL T38 Phlyer

The mill says for pilot training, the T-1s are holding out ok to so-so...never intended for multiple touch and goes, low-levels (flown at 300 kts, I believe), and lots of time other than business-jet straight and level.

The Air Force is shopping heavily for a replacement for the T-38. At a recent symposium at Randolph, both the Lockheed/Korean T-50, and Aeromacchi MB-339 were featured players. http://www.lockheedmartin.com/products/t50/index.html Aermacchi MB-339 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Air Force knows there is no way they will get Congress to buy 600 replacements for the T-38 in these budget-strapped times, especially when overall fighter cockpits are dwindling (and psuedo-fighter flying is the rationale for a pointy-fast trainer in the first place).

Rumor: To get their new trainer, they will go back to the old way of training: the same for everyone. Everyone starts in the T-6, then everyone goes to the pointy-jet. Best guys in the class get fighters; everyone else gets what is left. They did it this way for at least 35 years.

This would allow them to say "We don't need the T-1 anymore, which is now 20 years old and worn out. Let us buy the new trainers, which will save fuel, lower maintenance costs, eliminate dual logistical chains, and reduce the total number of airframes on each ramp."

Frankly, I think it will work, and from my viewpoint, training was better when everyone went through the same program.

Grumble

UAL,

Any thought by the USAF to pick up the T-45? The program is already in full swing, and the infastructure is in place. Plus it's American made, and the USAF could reintroduce a/g employtment to the advanced phase, albeit with blue death. Rumor when I was flying it as a student was that it would handle rockets too.

UAL T38 Phlyer

Grumble:

I wasn't at the symposium, but from what I heard, the T-45 was not featured.

A couple of IPs from Columbus flew a few hops at Meridian about two years ago. It surprised me when neither one liked it much.

Biggest complaint was cockpit size...one guy was tall (lineman-ish), the other guy a runt like me. Both said it was small. They had to use Navy masks and helmets (different connection). Both said the masks were uncomfortable and the radios awful. I know that when I hear T-45s on the radio, they always sound distorted. I assumed it was just a reception problem in the T-38. Apparently not so---they said it sounded as bad inside the T-45 as it did when listening in the T-38.

Finally, I don't think the top AF brass wants the T-45. It has added weight to make it suitable for carrier ops, and is subsonic (I think). I'd bet they still want a transonic to sonic capable airplane, even if supersonic flight is no longer part of the syllabus....

Grumble

Yeah, the radio's in the thing suck something aweful. It is supersonic, on paper. I've heard of guys busting the number in a dive. As far as the cockpit size, did either of them ever fly the F-16?

The weight def sucks some capabilities for it. I had hear it was about 3K more than the BAE hawk it was based on, which gas was sacrificed for. However 3K #'s total fuel is still more than enough for everything but a long x-c. Plus it helped to ingrain the fuel management mindset before getting to the F-18. I'd imagine the F-16 guys would appreciate that. Boeing can make some minor changes to accomodate AF style flight gear. Just seems like a better idea than trying to bring in a whole new, and foreign, platform. Although it's above my paygrade and not even in my service.

They could also replace the T-38 with a watered down F-16B. I know the Navy looked at the idea when initially looking at the T-45 (with the F-18), however I think the fuel costs over time (5X as much) were the prohibitive factor.