Columbus T-38 down

[AZwildcat]

And their product does a fine job.
But I NEVER had qualms about riding on the very capable Northrop seat for ~4000 hours. It has done... and will continue to do... a fine job. 

4000 hrs, the hard way! Back when flying was dangerous and sex was safe!

No hate on the Northrop seat, it is what it is and it’s worked as advertised for many many years, but...the MB is more capable and has saved lives where the old seat wouldn’t. There’s a reason AETC upgraded, and for the cost of some budget dust it’d be nice to see the A models get the same treatment.

[HuggyU2]

2 hours ago, AZwildcat said:

There’s a reason AETC upgraded, and for the cost of some budget dust it’d be nice to see the A models get the same treatment.

 

1.  I don't know the real reason they went with the MB seat, but as with any multi-million dollar contract, there were certainly more than a couple of reasons.  Personally, I don't believe it was money well spent.  And if the people involved in "upgrading" to the C-model were involved... well, that's a whole different story.  There was a much better cockpit offered and they went with the lowest bidder... which ended up costing the most and being less capable.  But I digress...

2.  I've never heard the official cost for the seat upgrade, but simple math means it was big.  When the first jets were going to get upgraded at DLF, MB looked at the parts of the system that the AF was responsible for (IIRC, it was the rails) and wouldn't touch it until the corrosion situation was improved.  I cannot verify this, but DLF folks told me there was at least 1 MB person at DLF doing very little for over a year while the problem was addressed. 

3.  Had the AF saved the money for the C-model, PMP mod, and ejection seat... and had a comprehensive plan earlier on for acquiring the T-X, the money and horsepower spent on those individual projects would have gone a long way in getting the T-X procured by now.  Yes, I'm sure those with PEM/staff experience will state "that's not how it works"... but maybe it should.  Piecemealing improvements to the T-38 during that ~10 year window cost a ton of money, and I don't believe it was money well spent.  

4.  I did not realize that there were successful ejections on the MB seat that would have been fatal on the Northrop seat.  Glad to hear that.  But how many were there?  Divide the cost of the program by that number and ask yourself if that was worth the expense.  I'm not a believer in "if one life was saved, it was worth it".  It's a silly justification, and we cannot afford it.  

5.  You state the MB seat upgrade saved a person/people... but I believe there is one person that died in an MB seat that would have survived had the Northrop seat been the seat he was flying on.  

6.  As a side note, the T-38 I'm flying now has the original seat.  A few of the owners (of private T-38's and F-5's) have asked about going to an MB seat.  I believe the huge cost to do so erased that idea,  and I'm pretty sure all of them will stick with the old seat... even the ones that could afford it.  Going to a cold seat isn't an option like it is on an L-39 and other jet warbirds:  I'm happy to fly an L-39 with cold seats (and I do)... but not a T-38 or F-5.  

 

Edited May 26, 2018 by HuggyU2

[icohftb]

I was under the understanding that all the mb ejections had been successful until the laughlin incident... and that one was not due to the seat. See safety report.

[hindsight2020]

@HuggyU2 I'm glad you are happy with the Northrop seat, I've flown the A, the C legacy and the C PMP all with the old seat, then I flew the T-6 on a MB seat and now the C PMP with the MB seat. My family and I much prefer the latter. The recent DLF fatality doesn't go against the seat, and like it was hinted at, you need to go read the safety outbrief in order to find out the reason why. That fatality occurred in my host squadron and was a co-worker, so hits close to home. I've flown the tail in question as well.

I understand you don't feel the expense is worth it. I agree with you in the aggregate point regarding the procurement of the T-X could have been afforded easily by not wasting it patching the T-38. You're 100% right: the piece meal procurement of life extensions programs on the T-38 has been wasteful.  But you're also old enough to recognize the jobs program nature to our rent-seeking DOD contractor funnel business (ie the DOD), so that falls under the wish on one hand shit on the other axiom. So as far as Congress is concerned, said waste is the goal and thus a political success.

On a personal level, I disagree with you on the merits of improvement of the MB seat versus the old one. Btw I also flew that old seat in the BUFF (same seat, different firing handles), and several components of that and the 38 seat alike were on the fly to fail component list. So please excuse if I part company with you and find peace of mind in doing this job while strapping to the MB seat, just as I did in the T-6. RCP Visibility is horrid now during no-flaps, but I'm quite content with that opportunity cost.

Let's not create false dichotomies here. The procurement wastefulness argument (and you're 100% correct, the RNAV implementation on the -38  for instance is embarrassing and a human factors nightmare I'm surprised hasn't killed anyone yet) can be had without having to shit on the objective improvements made on personnel recovery (for once, the meat in the seat is valued above zero) via this particular seat upgrade. 

[BashiChuni]

Seat: good

plane: old

leadership: failure

[matmacwc]

23 hours ago, HuggyU2 said:

 I cannot verify this, but DLF folks told me there was at least 1 MB person at DLF doing very little for over a year while the problem was addressed. 

 

I can, I was there during this time, totally verified.  Mr. Martin visited Laughlin at flew in a T-38C with his new seat, he HATED the leg and ankle straps, said he would get rid of them in future seats.  He was old as balls and I was surprised he was allowed to fly.

[FishBowl]

53 minutes ago, matmacwc said:

I can, I was there during this time, totally verified.  Mr. Martin visited Laughlin at flew in a T-38C with his new seat, he HATED the leg and ankle straps, said he would get rid of them in future seats.  He was old as balls and I was surprised he was allowed to fly.

Leg straps were garbage. At least the T-6 doesn’t have them. 

[icohftb]

Yep hated the leg straps at first. They really were the limfac to the 4 min grounds ops! 🙂

[HuggyU2]

Hindsight,

Good perspective and excellent post.  I'm glad you like the seat.  It's a done deal, so anything I write is meaningless.  

As it is, I wrote entirely too much, and drew attention away from my point:  the new seat was very expensive.  And arguably for only a slightly better capability.  I think  it is an abysmal integration into the T-38, and not done well at all... much of that based on the options of other IP's I know that have flown both the A and C.  Some of them have told me that would prefer to be riding on the Northrop seat.  They don't like the seating position (more vertical and forward, I'm told), the lack of storage, visibility, etc... 

Did we meet at Stuck's memorial in Los Angeles?  I knew him when he was still in college, and spoke to him about a week before the mishap.  I'm familiar with the mishap and firmly believe he would be alive today had it been the Northrop seat he was flying in. 

In the case of Mark Graziano, a U-2 bud who died in 2009 in a T-38A with the Northrop seat... he might be alive had they had a sequenced seat that would have allowed the guy in the rear cockpit to punch them both out.  

For me, there's nothing I like about the T-38C, and if given the choice, I'd take the A-model every time.  

[BashiChuni]

Huggy,

the new seat is sequenced... what am I missing?

id take the new one all day (I’ve flown both). 

No more trying to “beat the seat” which I always thought was super sketch. 

But you did feel 100% more badass stepping with a parachute on your back. 

I’ll take the C’s better performance lower to the ground, avionics over the A. 

Edited May 28, 2018 by BashiChuni

[icohftb]

Huggy you'd rather fly with the parachute in the A model? Definitely not for IFF if you care about your back. Ill take the 38C's 0-0 seat any day.

[raimius]

On 5/26/2018 at 2:37 PM, HuggyU2 said:

 I'm not a believer in "if one life was saved, it was worth it".  It's a silly justification, and we cannot afford it.  

Interesting view.
For an USAF pilot, the straight replacement cost of training is in the multi-million dollar range, even disregarding the morality of trying to protect our people when the tech is readily available. I'm going to disagree with you on this one.

[matmacwc]

2 hours ago, BashiChuni said:

Huggy,

the new seat is sequenced... what am I missing?

id take the new one all day (I’ve flown both). 

 

I'd take the new one as well, flew both.  Sequenced?  As in Huggy's Friday night "going out" shirt?  No, its either seat can punch out both seats

[di1630]

For me, there's nothing I like about the T-38C, and if given the choice, I'd take the A-model every time.  

Huggy what’s your reasoning? I thought the t-38c had terrific avionics for 2003.

One thing I never understood is why any t-38 got anti skid. I watched them test it in 2007 so I know it was being looked at.

[WheelzUp]

7 hours ago, di1630 said:

Huggy what’s your reasoning? I thought the t-38c had terrific avionics for 2003.

One thing I never understood is why any t-38 got anti skid. I watched them test it in 2007 so I know it was being looked at.

C model T-38 got heavier, and the CG shifted forward due to all the equipment added to the nose.  From a handling perspective, this reduced instantaneous and sustained turn rate and overall nose authority.  While the PMP engines improved the TOLD a bit, they also increased form drag, fuel consumption, and noise.  Today the jet is even more fuel constrained than before, can’t fly nearly as high, and has far more garbage in the cockpit to keep you heads down rather than appropriately focused on the art of aviating.  I’m with Huggy.  From a purist’s perspective, it’s the “A”.

Edited May 28, 2018 by WheelzUp

[BroncoEN]

1 hour ago, WheelzUp said:

C model T-38 got heavier, and the CG shifted forward due to all the equipment added to the nose.  From a handling perspective, this reduced instantaneous and sustained turn rate and overall nose authority.  While the PMP engines improved the TOLD a bit, they also increased form drag, fuel consumption, and noise.  Today the jet is even more fuel constrained than before, can’t fly nearly as high, and has far more garbage in the cockpit to keep you heads down rather than appropriately focused on the art of aviating.  I’m with Huggy.  From a purist’s perspective, it’s the “A”.

Maybe I’m not a purist... but i thought the C model trained just fine. Unsure why a trainer needs the aforementioned, its not exactly going to combat. If PMP/C-model increased safety and reliability, worth it... because that’s all that matters for initial training. 

[di1630]

Maybe I’m not a purist... but i thought the C model trained just fine. Unsure why a trainer needs the aforementioned, its not exactly going to combat. If PMP/C-model increased safety and reliability, worth it... because that’s all that matters for initial training. 

Agree, it’s a trainer, not much care about sustained turn rate. Rvsm rules took away a lot of high alt options anyhow. I felt much better stretching fuel with decent avionics that had divert bases/profiles at the push of a button.

As for pmp...I flew c models without it and with it, no huge problem either way.

And for student training, the tones and cues were a huge step up.

Being a purist is great. Hell, I dropped bdu-33’s from at-38’s using Stby pipper, cool to say I did...zero relevance in 2018.

[Majestik Møøse]

A-model vs C-model is a false choice. The correct answer is the A-model with an extra radio and ForeFlight!

 But seriously, a little TOLD help would be nice.

[HuggyU2]

17 hours ago, di1630 said:

I thought the t-38c had terrific avionics for 2003.

I was way under impressed... however, it was only 2 sorties (one front, one backseat), and a few sims here and there at Randolph.  

As for my sequenced/sequined shirt, chicks dig it.  

Edited May 28, 2018 by HuggyU2

[Standby]

Not sure why this even a debate...new seat, two radios, GPS/INS and a glass cockpit sounds like a way better platform than a black jet with shiny ass tailpipes. 

[icohftb]

Not a single IP in my old sq would have wanted the 38A over the C. Except for BDUs. And the resettable G-meter rather than the plane narcing you out!

[AZwildcat]

Realistically, this jet is going to be flying well past 2030, both As and Cs, especially as the T-X continues to slide to the right.

Rumor is ACC is starting to move on upgrading the A models to the MB.  I hope it happens for all the aforementioned reasons.  The other issue is the avionics though....it's the oldest cockpit in the AF and I would argue it no longer meets acceptable standards to safely operate in the NAS, and certainly not without and iPad.  ACC is upgrading the A model IFF to comply with the 2020 FAA ADS-B out mandate (spoiler alert: they won't meet it), however the IFF is a self contained unit that will know it's own GPS position for ADS-B out, but will not tell you the pilot where you are nor will it integrate with anything else.  No plans for upgraded avionics.  Dual UHF is a joke and frankly embarrassing. 

I'd like to see a paired down version of what NASA has done as an avionics upgrade for the A.  Keep it simple, AHARS only, single MFD, simple GPS, output position data to ForeFlight on the iPad, place to mount Stratus 2S, VHF radio, speed brake light, some kind of digital track logging for ADAIR (probably can use fore flight/stratus for that).

 Anyone flown a NASA T-38?

  

[HuggyU2]

5 hours ago, Standby said:

...sounds like a way better platform than a black jet with shiny ass tailpipes. 

"Sounds like" is one thing.  

Have you flown either so that you can give us your personal experience... especially in the "black jet with shiny ass tailpipes"?  

41 minutes ago, AZwildcat said:

 Anyone flown a NASA T-38?  

Duster has probably 1000 hours in the T-38N.  If you want to speak to him about it, let me know and I'll get you in touch with him. 

[Standby]

9 hours ago, HuggyU2 said:

"Sounds like" is one thing.  

Have you flown either so that you can give us your personal experience... especially in the "black jet with shiny ass tailpipes"?

I am not sure if you mean “flown either black jet” or either T-38...no to the former, yes to the latter. I stated things the way I did because I find it amusing whenever A models show up on the ramp, they look brand new. In my head I conjure up a scenario where people who would be fixing things that are C-specific now spend their days on the line with a wash bucket and wax rag keeping em shiny.

This wasn’t a knock on the people who use the A model, but when you compare A to C for UPT (THE primary function for the trainer) there is no question which is undeniably better for the intended use. 

Edited May 29, 2018 by Standby
Fvcking autocorrect