posted 04-22-2007 07:28 PM               

That would seem unlikely, since the original models were used for decades and the official Air Force website says it is still "used in a variety of roles because of its design, economy of operations, ease of maintenance, high performance and exceptional safety record." But you probably know why I'm asking: the deaths of Freeman in 1964, See and Bassett in 1966, and Williams in 1967.

posted 04-22-2007 08:15 PM               

Yes, there were indeed a spate of bad accidents early on, but one would have to say that Ted Freeman's T-38 was just in the wrong piece of airspace at the wrong time, colliding with a flock of snow geese. A combination of atrocious weather conditions and poor judgment by the pilot resulted in the loss of See and Bassett - nothing to do with the aircraft - and the likely cause of CC's death has been attributed to a foreign object, carried on board, that had fallen loose and jammed the aileron control system in the lower part of the (unoccupied) rear cockpit.

posted 04-23-2007 07:10 PM               

They used to leave the North American Downey plant, race down Imperial Blvd. (there was no 105 Freeway then) to Los Angeles International where the T-38s were parked at NAA's site there, prep and jump into their T-38s and race to Houston and Ellington field taking chances along the way - even betting if they had the fuel to get all the way without refueling! Cunningham's book mentioned these, others have not!

posted 04-23-2007 08:43 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by ColinBurgess:
Ted Freeman's T-38 was just in the wrong piece of airspace at the wrong time, colliding with a flock of snow geese...

---

posted 04-23-2007 10:35 PM               

1. The T-38 is known for its very high roll rate capability. It can achieve 720 degrees of roll per second. That's 2 revolutions around its longitudinal axis in one second!

2. The T-38 has a supersonic wing design with very little compromise for its low speed performance. In fact, without extending the flaps, it cannot be flown under 280 knots and it actually has a special waiver from the FAA which normally requires all aircraft operating below 10,000 feet to maintain 250 knots or less.

Your speed is now down to 155 knots plus 1 knot for every 100 pounds of fuel remaining - about 160 to 165 knots (184 to 190 mph). Flare for landing and gently plant the main gear wheels on the concrete and then extend the speed brake. Now the problem is that you are still traveling almost 200 mph. Bleed off speed with your nose in the air, which is a high drag profile. As your speed drops below 100 knots, lower your nose to the runway before you lose all of your lift. You do not have anti-skid brakes, so brake gently and gingerly. You are still traveling fast enough to blow a tire instantly should the wheel lock up. Turn off the runway and pop open the canopy - with the engine at idle, there is almost no air conditioning output and the hot Houston sun will heat the cockpit to well over a hundred degrees in no time at all.

posted 04-24-2007 08:58 AM               

As mentioned, there is little room for error, especially in the approach and landing phase of flight.

Because of the very short wing, approach and landing speeds were higher than they are for most aircraft and the stall margin was less. The final turn to landing was actually flown in a stall buffet -- at a fairly high angle of attack that is very unusual for that phase of flight. I don't know of any other aircraft that required this.

posted 04-24-2007 06:57 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by 767FO:
...the T-38 was a sheer pleasure to fly and probably most pilot's favorite aircraft.

---

I can remember more than once having to bail out of the RSU box (runway supervisory unit, which controls student traffic to a particular runway at a pilot training base) when a T-38 started saber-dancing toward the box on final approach.

posted 02-02-2011 09:40 PM               

• 1964 Oct 31: bird strike - fatal: astronaut Theodore Freeman
  
• 1966 Feb 28: struck building in fog - fatal: astronauts Elliott See, Charles Bassett
  
• 1966 Jul 18: engine failure, aborted takeoff, gear collapse - no injuries: astronauts Edward H. White, Russell Schweickart
  
• 1967 Oct 05: aileron jam - fatal: astronaut Clifton "C.C." Williams
  
• 1972 Jan 20: instrument approach in fog, crashed - fatal: NASA pilot Stewart M. Present and NASA pilot Mark C. Heath.
  
• 1972 May 10: electrical failure, out of fuel, ejected - no injuries: astronaut Charles "Pete" Conrad
  
• 1974 Feb 06: low visibility, landing mishap, gear collapse - no injuries: astronaut Dr. Karl G. Henize
  
• 1982 Dec 01: heavy rain, ran off runway, gear collapse - no injuries : astronaut Thomas K. Mattingly
  
• 1984 Apr 05: bird strike, engine flameout, aborted takeoff - no injuries: astronaut James van Hoften
  
• 1987 Feb 24: engine failure, fire, emergency landing - no injuries : astronaut Brewster Shaw and NASA pilot Robert Rivers.

posted 02-02-2011 11:51 PM               

When it comes to the early accident rate for T-38s in NASA hands, just consider how different things might have been if they had followed Pete Conrad's recommendation and gone with F-4s instead. If you think the T-38 is tough to fly, try a Phantom!

posted 02-03-2011 12:15 PM               

Who better to ask?

Lew was also the chief test and first flight pilot of the N-156F - that became the F-5.

posted 02-03-2011 09:36 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by ColinBurgess:
A combination of atrocious weather conditions and poor judgment by the pilot resulted in the loss of See and Bassett - nothing to do with the aircraft

---

As I read through your fine book Fallen Astronauts, I was struck by the fact that prior to departure, there were no instrument approach plates (a diagram of procedures, altitudes, and missed approach instructions) available to the crew. In an act of improvisation, the two crews drew one by hand on sheet of notepaper.

This single, perhaps incomplete, diagram was carried in the cockpit of Stafford and Cernan's jet, so See and Bassett's (in the lead aircraft) only means of shooting the approach would be to take some sort of guidance from Stafford.

Even the hand-drawn approach chart was said to be lacking the missed approach procedure, so it would seem to me that See might have had every intention of "getting in on the first try" since the option of going around would most certainly have resulted in some confusion over the correct flight path to follow.

Couple this with the deteriorating weather and even a momentary loss of visual contact with Stafford's aircraft, and the pilot may have thought his only option was to make a play for a circling approach, keeping the runway in sight.

Now the actual performance of the maneuver itself could obviously be called into question, but without the extensive data recorder and even ground camera coverage we have today, it is difficult to envision how the weather (low visibility and icing conditions) affected his desire to stay in tight to the runway.

Either way, it seems to me that the string of events which led to the accident began before the flight ever left the ground.

posted 03-24-2012 12:08 PM               

The list includes the following incidents -

1. 4 Sept 1970 - Maj. James Martin Taylor killed. Says he was a former MOL astronaut (?).
   
2. 11 Dec 1970 - two astronauts (unnamed) involved in an incident involving canopy problems.
   
3. 20 Jan 1972 - both pilots killed during a flight test of the Shuttle landing system.
   
4. 10 May 1972 - Conrad ejected when he ran out of fuel.
   
5. 6 Feb 1974 - incident involving Karl Henize.
   
6. 19 March 1982 - Gordon Fullerton's plane struck by lightning.

posted 03-24-2012 05:27 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by lewarren:
How to land a T-38 (paraphrased):

Your speed is now down to 155 knots plus 1 knot for every 100 pounds of fuel remaining - about 160 to 165 knots (184 to 190 mph).

---

Your speed is now down to 155 knots plus 1 knot for every 100 pounds of fuel remaining over 1,000 lbs.

posted 03-30-2012 01:28 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by p51:
Does anyone know if astronauts ever got any regular time in the F-16s and F-18s that NASA has?

---

NASA's T-38 fleet is based at Ellington and typically have "900" numbers. Of course, the same thing applies to the 747s that act as SCAs even though they are based at Dryden, but I believe they are registered to Ellington's fleet since they are used in a support capacity directly with the space program. There was even once a T-38 with NASA 911 on it before the second 747 was bought for SCA use.

While some members of the astronaut corps probably could technically fly the Hornets and Vipers, the test birds at Dryden/Edwards are usually some pretty oddball birds, depending on when they were made and how they might have been modified for specific missions. Plus, some of those planes might not be certified for normal flight operations. You don't use a test bird for zipping around from city to city.

The cost of normal flight operations of those planes would also likely be higher since there isn't the same parts inventory as there is for the Ellington T-38 fleet (which operate on an almost daily basis in peak times and have plenty of spares). Plus, just because an astronaut might have flight experience in a Hornet or Viper, they still have to get re-certified to fly said type if they have been out of the cockpit of those types for awhile.

NASA's also been pretty particular about which astronauts can fly the T-38s in the shuttle era. Shuttle pilots fly from the front seat and so can mission specialists who are pilots in the military. Everyone else flies back seat. If somebody was a pilot in the military but became a civilian before joining NASA, they still fly back seat even though they might have flown T-38s as part of their military training (Tom Jones was one example since he trained on T-38s and flew B-52s in SAC before joining the CIA prior to his astronaut selection).

Only other aircraft types I am familiar with that astronauts have flown are the STA Gulfstreams and new shuttle pilots used to fighters also got stick time in a KC-135 to get used to flying something the size of a large transport. I assume the C-9 took over that role (in addition to Vomit Comet) once the KC-135s were retired.

posted 06-13-2022 04:43 PM               

One site shows there were two T-38s designated as 907, stating the original one crashed on January 5, 1973. However, I can find no reference to that crash, even on this site with a list of incidents I never knew happened. The serial numbers for NASA 907(1) and NASA 907(2) were 65-10327 and 61-0912, respectively.

I found a photo of 65-10327 taken in 1991 showing this aircraft had been transferred to the US Navy Test Pilot School. If it ever crashed it was obviously not destroyed beyond repair. Does 65-10327 still exist, and if so, where is it?