F-5
04-03-2011, 06:37 AM
#7
China Visa Applicant
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: Midfield downwind
Posts: 1,930
Is this one of the ex-Swiss airplanes that was 'converted' into a 2-seater?
Telltale signs it's an F-5 and not a '38:
- Long, flat platypus-like nose (the Talon is more rounded and shorter)
- Square intakes (T-38A and T-38PMP intakes re both rounded)
- Leading edge root extensions and slats (Talons have 'hard wings' and no LERX)
- Wing fences and wingtip rails (neither on the Talon)
- Big slats on the empennage for the bleed valves (the T-38 just has a small vent there)
- Tailhook (no hook on the '38)
Telltale signs it's an F-5 and not a '38:
- Long, flat platypus-like nose (the Talon is more rounded and shorter)
- Square intakes (T-38A and T-38PMP intakes re both rounded)
- Leading edge root extensions and slats (Talons have 'hard wings' and no LERX)
- Wing fences and wingtip rails (neither on the Talon)
- Big slats on the empennage for the bleed valves (the T-38 just has a small vent there)
- Tailhook (no hook on the '38)
04-03-2011, 10:36 AM
#8
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2009
Posts: 5,265
Is this one of the ex-Swiss airplanes that was 'converted' into a 2-seater?
Telltale signs it's an F-5 and not a '38:
- Long, flat platypus-like nose (the Talon is more rounded and shorter)
- Square intakes (T-38A and T-38PMP intakes re both rounded)
- Leading edge root extensions and slats (Talons have 'hard wings' and no LERX)
- Wing fences and wingtip rails (neither on the Talon)
- Big slats on the empennage for the bleed valves (the T-38 just has a small vent there)
- Tailhook (no hook on the '38)
Telltale signs it's an F-5 and not a '38:
- Long, flat platypus-like nose (the Talon is more rounded and shorter)
- Square intakes (T-38A and T-38PMP intakes re both rounded)
- Leading edge root extensions and slats (Talons have 'hard wings' and no LERX)
- Wing fences and wingtip rails (neither on the Talon)
- Big slats on the empennage for the bleed valves (the T-38 just has a small vent there)
- Tailhook (no hook on the '38)
Crew, no idea if the seats are the same as the Talon, but the F-5 seats do work as opchecked about 2 years ago.
04-03-2011, 11:04 AM
#9
Moderate Moderator
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: Curator at Static Display
Posts: 5,681
F-5 Differences; T-38 Seats
The 2-seat F-5s (B-model and F-model) came that way from the factory. They are NOT a conversion.
The Navy Aggressor jets were literally given to foreign countries in the late 80s/early 90s (Jordan, Bahrain, Morocco, etc). Roughly $50,000 each, as I recall.
They were replaced by F-16Ns. The Ns only lasted about 3-4 years, then were all retired: they had cracked wing-boxes. They were temporarily replaced with Hornets. These Hornets had a brown-camouflage paint scheme and red stars. The Hornets started getting cracked wings and tails, too.
Finally, the Navy went to the foreign countries and said "We'd like to buy the F-5s back." And they were offered F-5s at about $5-6 million each. Some did come from the Swiss.
F-5s have wider tires (about 5 or 6 inches wide versus about 3.5) than the T-38, as they are heavier (can carry a couple of bombs).
Same engine (J-85, but a different dash-number), that produces almost 50% more thrust.
Speed brake is two-piece, like the T-38, but does not have a gap in the middle.
The belly of the F-5 is a lot flatter than a T-38.
As to the "crappy" T-38 seat: I personally like the original seat. It has a good track record, in the envelope. That being said, I am dreading the day when they replace it with the Martin-Baker. Why?
1. Crappy viz in the rear cockpit will get worse. The new seat has a fixed backing-plate that goes higher than the current seat...and it is already difficult to see from the rear seat.
2. No seat-bucket. The current seat has a fiberglass box/bucket that you sit on (under the seat cushion). You store your clothes there for cross-country, or throw things under the seat, on the floor.
The new seat does not have this, and we are forbidden to put anything underneath. Solution? They want us to carry travel pods. Problem:
a. Only 6 jets on base (the newest ones; 1970-models) have the mounts for the pod. The fix is a Depot-level mod.
b. The pod is only good to 400 kts and 4 gs (3 assymetric).
c. The Pod cuts our already dismal range with the equally crappy PMP mod by another 5-10%.
d. It costs $2 million per jet in an age where guys are getting the boot from the military because there isn't enough money.
e. Not sure, but it may require explosive-cord on the canopy. Not a fan. Every accident report I've read with explosive cord, the pilots had face lacerations from shards of plexiglass. I've seen NASA jets wit the cord.
3. USAF students are given a book called "Road to Wings." It covers different T-38 accidents and their causes.
To my knowledge, not one of the fatalities would have been prevented with the new seat. (But at least it will cost a total of $700 million).
The Navy Aggressor jets were literally given to foreign countries in the late 80s/early 90s (Jordan, Bahrain, Morocco, etc). Roughly $50,000 each, as I recall.
They were replaced by F-16Ns. The Ns only lasted about 3-4 years, then were all retired: they had cracked wing-boxes. They were temporarily replaced with Hornets. These Hornets had a brown-camouflage paint scheme and red stars. The Hornets started getting cracked wings and tails, too.
Finally, the Navy went to the foreign countries and said "We'd like to buy the F-5s back." And they were offered F-5s at about $5-6 million each. Some did come from the Swiss.
F-5s have wider tires (about 5 or 6 inches wide versus about 3.5) than the T-38, as they are heavier (can carry a couple of bombs).
Same engine (J-85, but a different dash-number), that produces almost 50% more thrust.
Speed brake is two-piece, like the T-38, but does not have a gap in the middle.
The belly of the F-5 is a lot flatter than a T-38.
As to the "crappy" T-38 seat: I personally like the original seat. It has a good track record, in the envelope. That being said, I am dreading the day when they replace it with the Martin-Baker. Why?
1. Crappy viz in the rear cockpit will get worse. The new seat has a fixed backing-plate that goes higher than the current seat...and it is already difficult to see from the rear seat.
2. No seat-bucket. The current seat has a fiberglass box/bucket that you sit on (under the seat cushion). You store your clothes there for cross-country, or throw things under the seat, on the floor.
The new seat does not have this, and we are forbidden to put anything underneath. Solution? They want us to carry travel pods. Problem:
a. Only 6 jets on base (the newest ones; 1970-models) have the mounts for the pod. The fix is a Depot-level mod.
b. The pod is only good to 400 kts and 4 gs (3 assymetric).
c. The Pod cuts our already dismal range with the equally crappy PMP mod by another 5-10%.
d. It costs $2 million per jet in an age where guys are getting the boot from the military because there isn't enough money.
e. Not sure, but it may require explosive-cord on the canopy. Not a fan. Every accident report I've read with explosive cord, the pilots had face lacerations from shards of plexiglass. I've seen NASA jets wit the cord.
3. USAF students are given a book called "Road to Wings." It covers different T-38 accidents and their causes.
To my knowledge, not one of the fatalities would have been prevented with the new seat. (But at least it will cost a total of $700 million).
04-03-2011, 11:14 AM
#10
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2009
Posts: 5,265
We paid the Swiss something like $750K per copy is my understanding.
The F-16N was retired prematurely, a huge political move that requires a much bigger thread.
