T-38 landings

[Guest x-wing]

why is the t-38 so hard to land? I heard thats the reason most students drop out of 38s.

[Toro]

It's because the wings are so small which causes the stall speed to be relatively higher than other aircraft, which causes it to land fast (if I remember correctly, it's 130 knots plus your fuel weight for a normal landing). Basically, there's a small region for error - too slow and you'll stall, too fast and you'll land long.

While most guys have trouble getting landings down, I don't know of anybody who washed out of T-38s because of landings (in UPT or three years as an instructor).

[Guest superdiva98]

Hey Toro, nice to see you over here from Studentpilot.net. Anywho, your right, 130 plus gas or as most IP's teach, 160 plus gas over 1000lbs for normal or 175 plus gas over 1000lbs. Regardless, landings take about 3-5 front seat rides to get down to a safe landing. You are constantly trying to perfect it but thats just flying. I have yet to hear of anybody washing out of 38's for landings. IF you have problems you just keep practicing.

[Guest x-wing]

whats the wash out rate of t-38? Whats the most common reason for wash out? Those landings sound pretty tricky.

[Flaco]

I just had my initial solo in the 38 yesterday. It's a tricky airplane to land, for the reasons that Toro said. The numbers that Toro gave were for touchdown speed. I'm not sure about the numbers that Fluff gave, unless he's flying the 38 C model and it has different speeds.

In the A model, full-flap and 60 degree flap final approach speed (or bug speed) is 155 plus 1 knot for every hundred pounds above 1000. Below 1000 pounds total fuel, approach speed is 155. Final turns are flown at 20 knots above bug speed. Touchdown speed is computed at 25 knots below final approach speed.

No flap finals are flown at 170 plus one knot for every hundred pounds above 1000. Again, with fuel below 1000, 170 is used. Final turns are 20 knots above that.

Here at Sheppard, the T-38 washout rate is relatively low. I don't have statistics to back it up, but if I had to guess I would say that on average each class of 25-30 coming into 38s (STS) would lose 1-2 studs by graduation.

Flaco

[Guest C5Heavy]

Talked to a T-38 IP from Laughlin ( I was at an Air show in MA), he said the T-38 had the highest touchdown speed in it's category close to 145knots (depends on the weight). Approach is at 150-160. I heard from a guy here that the L-39 is much more controllable.

Just my 10 cents on that.

[Toro]

whats the wash out rate of t-38? Whats the most common reason for wash out?

The wash out rate for the T-38 was extremely low when I was in AETC - we had one guy wash out of my UPT class for not being able to fly formation, and that was the only one I heard of while I was going through at Laughlin. From 1997 - 2001, only one guy washed out at Columbus. He had trouble during the contact phase and flying in general, but in the end it was his formation checkride that did him in. I've seen plenty of guys go to elimination checks, but they all pulled through. In general, the reasons for failed checkrides resulting in Prog Checks or ECs were landings (in contact) rejoins or tactical formation (in formation), and navigation/timing procedures (low level).

[Guest nuclearj]

When everyone talks about "washing out" does that mean what I think it means. Does that mean that their pilot career is all but down the tubes in the AF?

[C17Driver]

Yep, that's what it means. You wash out of Pilot Training and you're done with flying for the AF, at least from the front seat.

(Of course you'll hear about random deals where individuals that washed out years ago get back in again for whatever reason; such as waivers and something like that, but I wouldn't count on it)

[Guest nuclearj]

c17-thanks for the info. That's kinda scary for someone like myself. I'm a spring board hopeful for a pilot slot ADAF. However I do have great career in the civilian world and a wife a kid to think about. What is the total washout rate in UPT, does anyone have stats....

[Guest Hoser]

nuclearj,

I seem to remember that the washout rate was around 20%. For my UPT class, we started with 28 dudes and 22 graduated. Of the 6 that did not graduate, only 4 were wash outs, the other 2 SIE'd (one from T-1's and one from T-44's.

Good luck at UPT.

Hoser

[Buddy Spike]

Originally posted by C5Heavy:

I heard from a guy here that the L-39 is much more controllable.

Just my 10 cents on that.

I don't know if you're talking about me (here being this board), but from talking to IPs at the Belle Chasse airshow and comparing notes, I'd imagine the L-39 is a good bit more controllable.

However, you have to compare apples to apples. The L-39 is more comparable to the T-37 than the T-38. It's a single turbofan jet: Vso: 89kts, Clean: 100kts, approach speed is 110kts. Cruise is just over 300kts. It flies like a Cessna (I went from 172s/152s directly into the L-39 and had no problem landing it my first time).

[Hacker]

Originally posted by Sierra Hotel:

The L-39 is more comparable to the T-37 than the T-38.

Curt Brown, former fighter pilot, astronaut, and L-39 air race pilot, said precisely the same thing when I asked him what it was like to fly and race -- that the Albatros was a baby step between the Tweet and T-38.

[HU&W]

On 11/26/2003 at 10:29 PM, Toro said:

It's because the wings are so small which causes the stall speed to be relatively higher than other aircraft, which causes it to land fast (if I remember correctly, it's 130 knots plus your fuel weight for a normal landing). Basically, there's a small region for error - too slow and you'll stall, too fast and you'll land long.

Wasn't it designed that way on purpose?  Specifically to ensure student readiness for challenging follow-on aircraft like the F-104?  I wonder if in the rush to fill the 5th gen prep requirement on the T-X, if we'll lose something of airmanship in learning to handle the -38.

[FourFans]

Holy thread revival batman!

Losing airmanship has been a going trend.  It leaves more to be learned on aircraft specific handling later on, but the brain bites opened up for learning systems management (FMS, HUD flying, systems, etc) earlier in on makes it an even tradeoff.  Most modern aircraft have built in redundancies and safety features that make advanced stick and rudder airmanship less of a requirement.  For better or worse, modern jets won't kill you as readily as the F-104, so do we really need a trainer that mimics that lethality?

I'm on both sides of the fence having seen what happened in the C-130 community when we went away from the T-44/C-12 training pipeline...which was overall a negligible impact on the community as a whole.  I'd prefer stick and rudder skills, but the mission also needs a more broadly trained pilot now.

[LookieRookie]

5 hours ago, FourFans130 said:

Holy thread revival batman!

Losing airmanship has been a going trend.

 

I'd prefer stick and rudder skills, but the mission also needs a more broadly trained pilot now.

True, you need someone else to fly while you get ATIS

Edited June 6, 2017 by LookieRookie

[HossHarris]

1 hour ago, LookieRookie said:

True, you need someone else to fly while you get ATIS

 Bravo ..... from waaaay back!

[matmacwc]

10 hours ago, HU&W said:

Wasn't it designed that way on purpose?  Specifically to ensure student readiness for challenging follow-on aircraft like the F-104?  I wonder if in the rush to fill the 5th gen prep requirement on the T-X, if we'll lose something of airmanship in learning to handle the -38.

The -38 needs to go, the follow on aircraft, save the F-15, are nothing like it.

[FourFans]

True, you need someone else to fly while you get ATIS

...and someone to wake me up if the plane catches fire...


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network Forums

[Danger41]

1 hour ago, matmacwc said:

The -38 needs to go, the follow on aircraft, save the F-15, are nothing like it.

Out of curiousity, how is the Viper/Hog/Raptor/35 that different? Handling characteristics? I agree that an Eagle does fly like a bigger and much more powerful/forgiving 38.

[matmacwc]

The side stick changes everything, as well as digital flight controls.  If the F-16 is buffeting (like the T-38) its probably time to do a controllability check and/or eject, it doesn't even compare.

[Bobsan]

The T-X should definitely have a side stick and altitude hold right?

[Vito]

I remember hearing about how tricky the 38 was to land. One day I parked my car near the runway and noticed that it came in nose high and if you didn't do anything you'd hit hard but no flare was really needed to change the deck angle.  On my first landing all I did was take it down to about ten feet, slowly pull power and flare slightly...easy.  

[xcraftllc]

6 hours ago, matmacwc said:

The -38 needs to go, the follow on aircraft, save the F-15, are nothing like it.

And they're already considering phasing out the F-15C anyway.

Edited June 6, 2017 by xcraftllc
specify C model

[dream big]

37 minutes ago, Vito said:

I remember hearing about how tricky the 38 was to land. One day I parked my car near the runway and noticed that it came in nose high and if you didn't do anything you'd hit hard but no flare was really needed to change the deck angle.  On my first landing all I did was take it down to about ten feet, slowly pull power and flare slightly...easy.  

My 2nd or 3rd landing in the thing: came in several knots hot over the threshold in gusty winds, pulled power, the gear slammed on the pavement right at touchdown speed...my IP says: "well that's one way to kill energy...". Several years later, doing assaults in the 130 and little has changed.