MilViz T-38A Thread?

[Milviz 919]

I've asked Bob Scott to confirm this. If it's true, then we will, of course, fix it.

[bliksimpie 1]

The real T-38 should futhermore have a touchdown speed of around 140 knots or so, but the Milviz model is already stalling (wings beginning to rock side to side) at this speed at normal landing weights.

this video show this clearly, crossing thesshold at 160 landing at 140http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RYjBjT79hLo&feature=related

[bliksimpie 1]

OH NO..! intention is all but that. was posted to merely illustrate a landing that I cannot replicate. I land this plane but it is at much higher speed then in video, but then again it is surely my incompetance and just wil keep on trying to get it right.

[Milviz 919]

These two videos were made by Bernt who is the FDE person on our team. They clearly show the landing speed is not only correct but also no wing rock. This is a by the book landing and is as per the T.O. Bliksimpie, that video is of the T-38C. Different engines, different thrust to weight ratio and different avionics package so it's not going to fly the same.VC http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GqugRhymRHAEX http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_DYVqlytinUso, far, we've only had one return and I count that as a favorable.

[bliksimpie 1]

thank u at least now I know difference.!after looking at these it seem my problem is too steep decent.appreciate

[Milviz 919]

thank u at least now I know difference.!after looking at these it seem my problem is too steep decent.appreciate

The fact that it has a HUD is a dead giveaway. The T-38A has no electronic "gimmickry". The T-38C has LOTS. (including a GPS)

[Guest bstolle]

Check the position of the flight path vector in relationship to the AoA bracket in the HUD. The T-38C pilot in this video is constantly flying approx 10kts faster than the book value down to 90ft.On the 'A' this would mean that the AoA indexer would constantly display just the yellow 'low AoA' (or high speed) arrow and not even the green doughnut + the yellow arrow.If you are landing on a runway which exeeds the minimum required lenght by a fair amount, flying the approach 5-10kts faster makes a 'greaser' much easier :(

[Ken_Stallings 2]

thank u at least now I know difference.!after looking at these it seem my problem is too steep decent.appreciate

In an effort to help, I would really caution against deliberately trying to replicate Bernt's example. Bernt did not do that video to show the optimal landing method, but rather to see that a "by-the-book" landing could be done, even on a very "drug in approach.". There is a difference between what the book says and what is done in the real world. The brutal truth is that Northrop created a training jet that was a bit underpowered and this fact combined with the critical wing meant that trying to fly a shallow approach like in that video would get you killed one day! All you needed to do was lose an engine on short final and you'd be low and slow and without an out!The trick to landing the jet smoothly and safely on a consistent basis is to carry extra speed on final approach. Yes, this means you need more runway than the book specifies, but that is a healthy trade off to preserve your options if something bad happened at 100 feet or less! Again, based on feedback I got from a number of RW T-38 pilots, they liked to fly the jet with the yellow arrow on the AoA indexer until approaching displaced threshold and then try to tweak the speed until you crossed threshold perfectly on speed with the throttle just having reached idle and rounding out to a soft touchdown.I have done hundreds of landings in this virtual T-38 using the Latch-to-Treshold (LTT) throttle modulation method specified by the Air Force's test program to determine an optimal method to land consistently with the T-38. That study recommended a 2.5 degree glidepath even though most instrument approach procedures specify a 3 degree glidepath. This was recommended simply to try to achieve a less demanding timing on the flare than to go from the 600 to 700 FPM descent rate associated with a 3 degree glidepath descent to the softer 50 to 100 FPM (or better if you can do it) touchdown descent rate. But, this is not a traditional flare, where in ground effect you just keep pulling back on the stick just a few feet off the deck and grease it in. It requires more precision than that. The POH was written with that USAF landing procedure simply to give our customers the best possible method determined to land the T-38. I really cannot offer anything more helpful that what was written in the POH. I will offer this bit of real world feedback I received from a number of RW T-38 pilots. If you got slow on approach in this jet (as indicated by the AoA indexer showing the red arrow only) you were taught to immediately apply full burner and initiate a go around. That was how you flew this jet and stayed alive! The jet had to be flown with great precision and speed control was a huge part of that. It was a strong weedout jet but when you mastered how to fly it, the Air Force considered that you were a good enough pilot to quickly transition to any number of operational aircraft.Ken

[Milviz 919]

And we'll see if THAT'S true when the Eagle E comes out... :(

[audiohavoc 24]

I apologize for straying off topic, but a Milviz C-5 or C-17 would be awesome. The Virtavia and Area 51 versions of the C-17 do not interest me as I am a PMDG and A2A user, and those are two benchmark type manufacturers in my opinion. I am eagerly awaiting the Milviz F-15 C/E when that releases and will definitely be picking one of them up.

[Ken_Stallings 2]

I just thought of something else to help put this jet's speed on approach into context.NASA used the T-38 to train its astronauts to remain proficient landing the space shuttle! Yes, I understand NASA used the T-38 in this role long before the shuttle, but it still comes back to that amazingly fast approach speed being a dynamite trainer for landing the space shuttle!http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/shuttle/flyout/t38flyout.htmlThat link will give you some further insight. Again, the key to understanding the T-38 is to accept that it requires a faster pattern speed than basically anything else you have likely flown, in real world or in FSX!Ken

[Milviz 919]

I apologize for straying off topic, but a Milviz C-5 or C-17 would be awesome. The Virtavia and Area 51 versions of the C-17 do not interest me as I am a PMDG and A2A user, and those are two benchmark type manufacturers in my opinion. I am eagerly awaiting the Milviz F-15 C/E when that releases and will definitely be picking one of them up.

I appreciate the compliment and thank you for it. However, at this time, we have a full list of planes that we are doing and have got at least a year and maybe more of stuff ahead...

[Milviz 919]

For those of you concerned about MP... here ya go.Service pack will be released shortly.

[Milviz 919]

The T-38A Service Pack 1 is now out. You can get your copy from the location you purchased it from. Please remember, should you have any support issues, they will be dealt with in our closed forums only. Thanks and, have fun!

[CoolP 283]

Thanks for the update.I couldn't find a changelog though, but I'm downloading V2 now.