Jump to content

avallillo

Members
  • Content Count

    13
  • Donations

    $0.00 
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

2 Neutral

Flight Sim Profile

  • Commercial Member
    No
  • Online Flight Organization Membership
    VATSIM
  • Virtual Airlines
    No

Recent Profile Visitors

443 profile views
  1. Thank you, w6kd, for your real world input and thank you for your service! I agree with you completely about the objectives and design of the T-38, although I suppose that we were fortunate in our year in the barrel, because the whole 53 or so weeks that I was in UPT at Craig, we had not a single fatal accident, nor even a major non fatal event. Part of the problems that cropped up in the 1980's may be due to the tinkering they did with what had been the T-41 program, as well as the ROTC FIP program, both of which I had gone through. I understand that for a time there was no preliminary screening at all, which may have led to a few weak students getting through the T-37 only to come to grief in the T-38. I do recall accidents in the T-38 at other bases and in other years than when I was at Craig, so there is certainly a lot of truth to what you say about its characteristics. I have discovered that if I bring the fuel down to around 1500 lb it will fly decently, although the simulation does not seem to like flying a very shallow glidepath like I remember we did in the real thing - it is always wanting to trend higher. And although it will fly at that lighter weight at speeds around 165 and green circle on the AOA, it does start buffeting more than I remember it did when the flare commences (I recall we did not do much of a flare, though, in the T-38 -- just a touch. On my initial solo, I had to go around on my own twice because I ballooned it a bit in the flare by pulling a tad too much, The T-38 solo is the only solo of my whole career that I specifically recall now; the rest are only logbook entries!) w6kd -- do you recall what fuel loads we carried on a normal training sortie (not a cross country)? I recall the thing had not too much total fuel capacity, only around an hour with a bit of reserve considering that we spent a good deal of time in burner on VFR training flights doing acro. It seems like 1500 lb total fuel on arrival back at the pattern may have been what we were landing with. I don't ever recall making a high gross weight landing, such as an immediate return after takeoff. But 45 or so years does dim the memories, even of a spectacular airplane like the White Rocket. In your era, did every student go through the 38, or had they already begun splitting the advanced phase into tracks, such as they have now? I will see if I can find some sort of proof of purchase and send it along so that I can take this over to the specialized forums. Again, I want to say what an overall great piece of work this is! It must be me, judging from the input from pilots who have flown it more recently than I have.
  2. It was indeed a handful back in the day, in the first dozen or so lessons, which is why in UPT the student started out his or her T-38 training on instruments in the back seat (at least when I went through). Landing an airplane that is going as fast as this one does would be a challenge even today, after flying over 20,000 hours in jet transports. That being said, however, I do not recall any mild buffeting on approach. We were aware of the "pebbles, rocks, and boulders" of the high angle of attack regime, but I have no recollection of being in that regime on a properly flown approach, even in the flare. Now it is true that we did not have AOA information, and all of our flying was done with reference to airspeed. Perhaps we were flying it faster than it is now being flown using AOA, I have no idea. On the other hand, if real contemporary T-38 pilots are augering into the ground, that should be a master caution light going off! Even allowing for possible unfamiliarity with PC based flight simulation with its utter lack of feedback cues other than visual, I would not expect a professional pilot current on a type to repeatedly crash an MSFS simulation, if it was accurate. Some years back, about halfway between today and when I graduated from UPT, I had the opportunity to "fly" the USAF Link Trainer for the T-38 - the same ones we flew in 1972. Although by no means as sophisticated as a modern Level D simulator, they were state-of-the-art in the day. The link did not misbehave on approach when I flew it (around 1995). jcorstens hits the nail on the head - if the real plane flew like this it would indeed be a student killer (and an IP killer as well!), and totally unsuitable as a trainer. The safety record of the Talon and the IP comments jcorstens quotes prove otherwise. Make no mistake - this is an outstanding piece of work, and the appearance and operation (with the sole exception of takeoff and landing) is superb. When that virtual cockpit pops up onscreen I feel like I have traveled back in time to 1972! Indeed, the T-38 is one of two airplanes (the other is the Boeing 727) that I really wish I could fly one more time before I put the "W" under the lubber line of life. If only............. Where are the support forums of which you speak? At Milviz' website I find only a general sort of forum with but a single page....
  3. I have had the T-38, both the original and now the advanced versions, for a few years now, and I have had the devil's own time flying both of them. Now if I had not flown the real thing for over 100 hours in UPT I would perhaps not be so nonplussed, but either this thing has some serious flight model issues or else (and this is always a possibility!) there is something wrong with my computer or my disk version FSX installation (I had the same problems with it in FSXSE back when I had it installed in both). Now I must confess up front that although I have time in the real airplane, it was all done back in 1972! So I may have forgotten a thing or two over the intervening 46 years! But in truth the T-38 is not an airplane that you forget. It flew beautifully. So does this one, above about 300 knots. But I always encounter horrendous stall buffet below around 175 knots, and it takes full burner to drag it to the flare. It also buffets at rotation at 150 knots or so. The real thing did not do this back then! If it had, the Air Force would have had a much bigger pilot shortage a lot sooner than they got one now, because all of us would have been killed trying to fly it! Kids with just 100 total hours, most of that in the T-37, were able to learn to fly this without much fuss. In my class (Craig, 72-08) we did not lose anybody in the T-38 phase, although that may have been a bit unusual. But the airplane did not buffet and fall out of the sky below 170 knots - I recall our final approach airspeed being somewhere in the vicinity of 150 knots and over the fence even slower than that. On my computer the airplane will not fly that slow at all! I have thus never really had the opportunity to fly this airplane much, since each flight begins and ends with death staring you in the face! I don't know if it is my computer, my FSX setup, or my stick. The computer is a middle of the road Dell XPS with an I-7-3770 at around 3.5ghz with 8 gig or RAM, and an NVidia GTX 1050Ti with 4 gigs or VRAM. The stick is the very nicd Thrustmaster HOTAS (not the one that looks like the real thing and costs as much, but rather the simpler one).. I should be able to fly this thing down final fully configured at less than MIL power at 150 knots with no buffet whatsoever, and make at least 30 degree banked turns in that configuration. Again, if memory serves. We did not have the AOA gauge back then and used the airspeed, but had no problems with that at all. I recall never experiencing any buffet in the real thing except for the lesson involving accelerated stalls, where we induced the buffet deliberately just to experience it. Ideas anyone? Does anyone else have this same problem?
×
×
  • Create New...