Milviz Updates 24 Oct 2010, T-38 Unveiling!

The NASA planes are actually substantially different in the VC's... so.. as much as I would like to say yes to that, those will have to be done on the outside.

It will indeed be payware. Pricing is not available at this time. Release date: unknown.
 
krazycolin said:
The landing light is correct. We have two (not one but TWO) actual T-38 pilots and both agree that it is correct.

NEXT!!!!
Click to expand...

I wasn't trying to have a dig, it just didn't look right. Funnily enough I have a half built FSX T-38C minus VC, but I will be unable to ever finish it. No point now, seems everyone is going for the same projects! :jump:

Still, yours looks good. Should be a hit. My FSX modelling days are about over now for a variety of reasons.

Kudos to you for getting enough references for the landing light.
 
Again....

The T-38 looks smashing! The good thing about the Talon is that there are limited external models required to capture all variants. The only external stores I am aware of are the travel pod for the T-38. And the NASA -A models were stock up until the mid-80s (before the intro of WX radar, and new avionics).

Also, a well done paint kit would allow the community to do a ridiculously huge number of repaints (NASA schemes 1965-1988, as well as 9th SRW schemes are those I would want to do).

Looking forward to it!!!!

Kent
 
ColoKent said:
The T-38 looks smashing! The good thing about the Talon is that there are limited external models required to capture all variants. The only external stores I am aware of are the travel pod for the T-38. And the NASA -A models were stock up until the mid-80s (before the intro of WX radar, and new avionics).

Also, a well done paint kit would allow the community to do a ridiculously huge number of repaints (NASA schemes 1965-1988, as well as 9th SRW schemes are those I would want to do).

Looking forward to it!!!!

Kent
Click to expand...

Is that the 9th SRW scheme which is white with a yellow diagonal band? Or the all black with red stencils. Hopefully both!
 
ColoKent said:
The T-38 looks smashing! The good thing about the Talon is that there are limited external models required to capture all variants. The only external stores I am aware of are the travel pod for the T-38. And the NASA -A models were stock up until the mid-80s (before the intro of WX radar, and new avionics).

Also, a well done paint kit would allow the community to do a ridiculously huge number of repaints (NASA schemes 1965-1988, as well as 9th SRW schemes are those I would want to do).

Looking forward to it!!!!

Kent
Click to expand...

I think the T-38's at the Fighter Lead In course at Holloman AFB had a centerline gun pod.
 
We will be including a very well done white paint kit so people do not have to worry about deleting stuff from one of our paints before starting on their own. You will simply be able to remove the layers of panel lines, rivets, etc. and get to work on the base. I hope to see a lot of repaints for this one myself (the NASA one would be really cool). As far as weapons go I am unaware of the the T-38 having any (I think that was the purpose of the F-5), but we are concentrating all our efforts in that department on the F-15E. Which has a ton of weapons.
 
I always thought they were just trainer (sorry if I came off like I was pointing fingers and smacking down a request).. I meant it as just a general statement. I do not know a lot about the USAF fighters other than the big ones. I always kind of looked down on trainers to be honest (and I get annoyed whenever the Navy T-45's come buzzing around my base making all the racket).. During the research phase on this I learned a lot about it. Plus I saw one live in person at an airshow last weekend flying around and stuff. They are pretty impresive and capable little birds. I wondered why they never put weapons on them to use as small interceptors, but you saying they at least mounted cannons on them means it had the potential. I think it would have made a good "fuel efficient" fighter to intercept GA birds and such instead of scrambling the more expensive F-15's/F-22's over minor stuff.
 
The AT-38 is, again, not the same as the T-38. Not very different but different enough!

The T-38A has no weapons and no weapons capabilities. It was used merely as a trainer for maneouvering etc etc. We will have the travel pod.... (with panties in!)

The T-38C however, has a HUD and an MFD. In the MFD and HUD are CCIP and CCRP systems. they are VERY BASIC compared to a "real" weapons system but there ya go. We will be TRYING to implement all of those systems.

There ya go!
 
krazycolin said:
The AT-38 is, again, not the same as the T-38. Not very different but different enough!

The T-38A has no weapons and no weapons capabilities. It was used merely as a trainer for maneouvering etc etc. We will have the travel pod.... (with panties in!)

The T-38C however, has a HUD and an MFD. In the MFD and HUD are CCIP and CCRP systems. they are VERY BASIC compared to a "real" weapons system but there ya go. We will be TRYING to implement all of those systems.

There ya go!
Click to expand...

No worries, I'm good with just a flying T-38 and not a shooting T-38. When your T-38 "guys" get to testing it, can you make sure they do a formation phase? I think since it's used for so much form work, it should be tested in that regime. Let me guess, your T-38 specialists are JMIG and Ken Stallings?
 
Roadburner440 said:
I wondered why they never put weapons on them to use as small interceptors, but you saying they at least mounted cannons on them means it had the potential. I think it would have made a good "fuel efficient" fighter to intercept GA birds and such instead of scrambling the more expensive F-15's/F-22's over minor stuff.
Click to expand...

Actually they did. It's called the F-5E and F-5F, although I've got it sort of backwards. It was the F-5A/B, then the T-38, Then F-5E/F IIRC. The ultimate development being the F-20, which was originally called the F-5G. But your idea, simple and low cost, is the reason these birds were built. That's also why the T-38 replaced the F-4 for the Thunderbirds during the energy crunch in the 70's.
 
Never knew the F-20 was a related development. Does look similar though. I can only imagine about the F-4 though. I saw one for the first time in my life this weekend at the airshow here. I have never heard such a loud aircraft, and it sure can move air. Certaintly interesting information on the F-5/T-38/F-20 though.
 
I would be more than happy to beta test the T-38 in formation flight when it gets to that point. Formation aerobatics in FSX is my specialty, and nothing bothers me more than an aircraft that is supposed to be great in formation... but isn't in the sim.

Cheers,

Chris Eells
 
I dont need no Stinking Weapons

I see the Nasa T-38`s everyday, Nasa Has a Hub here in El paso Tx, And The Super Guppy is Stationed out here aswell, But the T-38`s are Great Little birds!!!, you can Go out by the Airport and Watch them Doing Afterburner Take offs at Night!!! What a Sweet Sight!!!! Not Sure I would Want a T-38 with Weapons on it Anyway, I can Always fly the F-5 for that, the 38 is meant to be a clean Sleek rocket, IMHO.... :salute::salute::salute:
 
I don't mean to quible, but I believe the NASA T-38's are all F-5B's that were just redesignated as T-38N's.

I personally like the clean look of the T-38. I just mentioned the AT-38's only because it was remarked that the 38 was never weaponized.
 
NASAs T-38s are 'real' T-38s (just check the air intakes)
In 2000 they started upgrading them to N standard (e.g. the new MB seats)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top