HuggyU2

Direct line distance... DLF- REI: 883 nm SPS-REI: 929 nm END-REI: 953 nm RND-REI: 1001 nm CBM-REI: 1429 nm

Thanks for the info, Bode. That's news to me. Can't fix the 700 mile distance issue, but we will have an AF-approved Air Boss in place (Ralph Royce), and if needed, I will create a TFR so the T-6 can land/depart. Don't laugh: we did that at the Lake Havasu Airshow for the T-6 that was a static there. Side note: Ralph teaches the Air Force course at the annual airshow convention with all of the military demo teams. Everyone at ACC/AETC Aerial Events knows who he is. This show is legit.

Hangar 24 AirFest is going to be a two-day event for 2018 (19-20 May). It's in Redlands, CA... Airport is KREI... runway is 4504' x 75'. https://www.airnav.com/airport/KREI Can a T-6 get a waiver to land there? They would really like one since military support is big deal with Hangar 24. This is will be a cool event. PM me if interested.

Day Man, You might be better off to call ACC Aerial Events, DSN 575.9274. They handle funeral flyovers, and can tell you the likelihood of it becoming a supported event. Finding someone to do a non-approved flyover in this day and age is simply not going to happen. They will lose their wings if they do it. And... yes, I know... it would be "legal". Your other option is to get the CAF folks at Mesa to get some original T-6's. Or the guy with the Spitfire. There are also some L-39 guys in Phoenix that might do it. Tons of warbirds in AZ.

I wouldn't be too quick to judge. I know some that have done this simply because the QOL for them was excellent, and that mattered way more than the pay.

If it's gone, it's gone. Starting a new, clean thread has a lot of advantages. And the info that has value will be back in no time.

You do realize the crash in CSprings took place before he was ever on the team... right?

I was the announcer for the Boise Airshow in October. I hadn't seen the 'birds in over 2 years. Both days, the shows were excellent, and the team was in tune. I don't know what their rules/limits/altitudes are, but it looked better than in previous years. "Ridiculously"? You've not seen The Patriots. For example, check out #2's low pass at the 39 second point. Pretty standard for him. And all the low maneuvering is without a HUD and flightpath marker. 2017_ICAS_App_PJT_Video.mp4

I had a legit reply, but ClearedHot beat me to it, and took all of the air out of my balloon. That said, my T-38 rear cockpit landing currency is good... rehacked 2 weeks ago. Put me in, coach!

Because the prosecution would have had to prove "criminal negligence", and "brandishing a weapon", which is in a rude, angry or threatening manner.

No clue on Mardon. Hopefully they are long gone. Absolutely terrible customer service when we dealt with them.

What would you use today instead? No agenda. Just curious.

Official word it is was NOT the crashes.

Correct. I'm purely an AETC instructor and Recce guy. When I was teaching UPT studs, we weren't teaching them to be "fighter pilots" in 4th and 5th generation fighters. We were giving them the foundation that would bring them success in their follow-on assignment... whether it was a 4+ gen fighter... or a B-1, B-52... or as a FAIP. Our goal was to get them to earn their wings. Not to be a dick, but it seems you don't have 7 years in AETC, 4000 hours in the T-38, a solid understanding of what the UPT syllabus is supposed to do, and how to execute it with a 22 year old with less than 100 hours of flying time when you get him. When teaching said 22 year old how to fly the T-38 in formation, we worked on basic station keeping, the rock-bottom-basics of maneuvering, and a myriad of other basic tasks that would have you rolling your eyes in boredom. But those building blocks are what the CAF has asked AETC to give them in the product that we graduate. Stanley understands that when he parks the throttle(s) in the northwest quadrant, the fuel flow goes up. When he becomes your FTU student or MQ wingman, you can emphasize just how much he actually loses in his afterburning fighter. In UPT, we are also unable to teach him about 20 mile tactical spread using a data link. Or anything that has to do with using a radar. YOU will have to do that. I'm busy teaching him how to put the thing-on-the-thing-on-the-thing; do a loop; master a 30 knot rejoin; have the SA to monitor his jet; and... yes... do Ops Checks. You see, those Ops Checks are a building block item, and the FTU will no doubt add more to that regimen of discipline. As BeerMan says, we don't use the afterburner much in UPT. And certainly not enough to make a difference in their follow-on FTU performance... no matter if it is a fighter, attack, or bomber platform. I have no idea how you derive that the fact we have an AB in the T-38 changes the quality of the UPT graduate. But let's say the T-50 gets selected as our follow-on trainer: do you think the UPT syllabus will have them tapping burner regularly because they need 17,000 lbs of thrust on a student sortie? One final point. The French fly the Rafale, the Brits fly the Typhoon, and the Canadians and Aussies fly the Hornet. None of them use an AB-equipped aircraft in their UPT syllabus. Somehow, they manage to make it work. I'm thinking that, if DoD gives us a great trainer with no AB, we will do just fine.

So you believe other Air Forces... and the US Navy... are inadequately trained in minding fuel consumption through disciplined ops checks, because they don't have an afterburning jet in their syllabus?

If you want a gold-plated trainer, then just say so. But do you need it to get your wings? Many ways to skin the cat. I don't know much about how the Israelis run their UPT syllabus... but maybe we should take a hard look at some of their methods and ideas.

Why insist on an afterburner? How about simply some performance metrics? I've got 13 hours in the Alpha Jet, and it out performs the T-38... with no burner.

After reading this, I had to go back and make sure this post wasn't in the "WTF" section of BO.net.

https://www.aopa.org/go-fly/aircraft-and-ownership/ads-b https://airfactsjournal.com/2013/01/ads-b-101-what-it-is-and-why-you-should-care/ https://www.faa.gov/nextgen/equipadsb/ins_and_outs/ https://www.faa.gov/nextgen/programs/adsb/faq/ http://txtav.com/en/journey/articles/articles/adsb-out-explained

For those commenting on a reduction in quality graduates, and "it will be paid in blood", I offer this... http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/11/24/us-troops-killed-in-plane-crashes-skyrockets-in-2017.html

Correct me if I'm wrong... but the Lightspeed Zulu's are not TSO Certified. The Bose A20's are. Nice, readable post, by the way.

The money spent on bringing in an interim trainer is money that should be spent on accelerating the Next Gen Trainer. It's basically what the C-model, PMP, and MB seat were for the T-38: a way to kick the can down the road instead of addressing the issue head on. Personal opinion only.

It would be a huge step back as an advanced trainer. And the slow spool from idle to mil (9"-12") will kill a lot of students. I suppose you could get Aero to build us a bunch... but I really don't know where you'd get the number of airframes we would need. I like flying it. And I know the Eastern Euros use it extensively. I just don't believe it's even close for what we expect.

As a current L-39 IP, I do not see this as a reasonable option. Too bad the AF wasted all that money on C-model, PMP mod, and Martin-Baker seats. How many hundreds of millions of $$$ was it? That would have been a great down payment on the T-38 replacement, and it would have been fielded by now.