IMO, allowing some AF pilots to avoid the T-38 was a big mistake in the big scheme. I know that train left the station a long time ago and it was probably unavoidable given the limited T-38 airframes and lack of a replacement.

However, that aircraft used to be the great equalizer. You had to master it to get your wings and if you did, you proved yourself worthy of wearing them - no matter which aircraft you ended up flying.

No amount of exposure to a crew environment in a T-1 can outweigh the benefits of learning to fly and think at 300+ knots by yourself. Pity.

 

Shack.....

 

That your 50th reunion, Huggy?

 

While I agree with most of what you said, I don't buy your last statement. We've had numerous T-38 trained folks come to the KC-10 over the past few years. Some are outstanding pilots, some you question how they graduated. Some have great attitudes, some are bitter that they didn't get the fighter they think they deserved. Some are great working with a crew, some not so much.

In short, there hasn't been any measurable difference between a T-1 and T-38 grad showing up in the -10.

 

One of these days, you'll encounter someone who wouldn't have wings if they had to fly the -38 to earn them. That will most likely put the guys you mentioned in your post in a more accurate perspective.

 

They just dropped two on the 38 gang last assignment night with no follow-on. They also got a few fighters, an E-8, a C-17 and KC-135 out of the 38 Bubbas. I will also tell you that my last flight number 1/2 wanted T-1's. One was a prior nav, but the other one didn't want to go through the haze to possibly get hosed at the backside. They would rather do good in T-1's and get what they wanted. Additionally, I have seen some MC-12's dropped with a follow on.

 

I agree. When I was working in the training shop in KC-135's I could not tell the advantages of training and getting a T-38 dude vs a T-1 dude mission ready. While T-1 guys are sometimes the back end of the power curve, they at least understand told, mission prep and crew concept and fat kid style formation. The squadron environment is much more like AMC in T-1s than in the T-38/6 Sqs. But there are also some smart T-1 guys that come to tankers. It was in my top third based off location and guard options I was looking at the time. Though it was not my original plan I must say (we got 1 38 in our flight and 3 total). Some of the 38 dudes were sharp but the attitude of some of them had to be readjusted. But there will be douces in every airframe. IMHO, there could be some advantages to keeping kids in T-6s longer before shipping them off to either 38's or tones.

 

Ah this again.

I disagree but of course it's unprovable. I will add this, I was a Tweet FAIP in late 90s, when the Tone track was still relatively new. One of our DOs pulled the washout numbers back to the beginning of split tracks. The washout rate for T1s was exactly the same as the washout rate from the 38--to within a tenth of a percent or so.

FWIW my 38 IP buds often complained it was too hard to kick people out of 38s, a fact they felt was reflected in the numbers of 38 grads who subsequently washed out of IFF/FTU.

I have no idea what the numbers are now.

 

I have never flown the T-1 but would think the T-38 would require better stick and rudder skills then the business jet.

the fact that the easier plane to fly had the same wash out rate as a more difficult aircraft does not mean the end pilot is the same. It means the bottom students of both programs where eliminated.

 

What are the common causes for wash outs in the T-1 track?

USMCFLYR