T-38s as Astronaut aircraft: how much longer in service?

The T-38's were selected for NASA astronaut pilot proficiency in the
early 1960s, two decades before NASA was flying a winged spacecraft.
Slayton and his astronauts agreed that the unforgiving nature of a
high-performance aircraft kept their judgement skills sharp, unlike
simulators which cannot kill you and which come with a "reset button."
Strict similarity to any actual spacecraft was not an important
criterion then, and may not be in the post-STS era, either. Although
there are rumors around JSC about eliminating at least a portion of the
T-38 fleet.

As I understand it, when the choice was being made as to which aircraft
to select to replace the T-33s on loan from the US Air Force, the Navy
pilots (led by Conrad) lobbied for the F-4 Phantom, and the USAF pilots
(led by Stafford) lobbied for the T-38.

John Charles
Houston, Texas

John Charles wrote:

Slayton and his astronauts agreed that the unforgiving nature of a
high-performance aircraft kept their judgement skills sharp, unlike
simulators which cannot kill you and which come with a "reset button."



A uniquely Darwinian approach to sorting out good astronauts from
complacent ones. :-)

Pat

Henry Spencer wrote:

In article ,
Pat Flannery wrote:


When you think about it, what Bell had to do was build a single seat
VTOL aircraft using jet thrust for lift, something that we had not had a
heck of a lot of luck with over the years, then stick rockets on it
besides, and have it ready to go in 14 months...



There was one further subtlety that the VTOL aircraft never had to contend
with: the need for the jet engine to be gimbaled and gyro-stabilized, so
that it stayed vertical as the vehicle maneuvered.

Against that, not having to fly fast or far or efficiently was a big
advantage.



You would think just the jet engine's inner workings rotating at that
high of RPM would create one hell of a gyro effect all on their own.
The LLTV didn't look like the safest thing in the world, put I'd hop on
board it any day over the Atar Volant French VTOL test vehicle:
http://www.chez.com/mirage3/atarvol.jpg
You can just picture that thing inverting and driving you straight into
the ground. :-)

Pat

In article ,
Pat Flannery wrote:
You would think just the jet engine's inner workings rotating at that
high of RPM would create one hell of a gyro effect all on their own.

Depends on the engine. Many modern ones have two nested rotors which
counter-rotate. (Some even have three.) Don't remember the details
of just what was on the LLRV/LLTV...
--
spsystems.net is temporarily off the air; | Henry Spencer
mail to henry at zoo.utoronto.ca instead. |

Henry Spencer wrote:

In article ,
Pat Flannery wrote:


You would think just the jet engine's inner workings rotating at that
high of RPM would create one hell of a gyro effect all on their own.



Depends on the engine. Many modern ones have two nested rotors which
counter-rotate. (Some even have three.) Don't remember the details
of just what was on the LLRV/LLTV...



I checked; they used a G.E. CF700-2V turbofan engine.
Here's a nice shot of one testing out its engines in 1964:
http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/Gallery/Pho...ll/ECN-448.jpg
The "pilot" appears wary of the process, given his mode of dress. :-)
Pulling a Rusty, here's a PDF of data on the device and its engines:
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/ca...2V%20engine%22

Pat

Henry Spencer wrote:

In article ,
Pat Flannery wrote:


You would think just the jet engine's inner workings rotating at that
high of RPM would create one hell of a gyro effect all on their own.



Depends on the engine. Many modern ones have two nested rotors which
counter-rotate. (Some even have three.) Don't remember the details
of just what was on the LLRV/LLTV...



I found a cutaway of the stock G.E. CF-700 engine
http://www.aircraftenginedesign.com/pictures/CF700.gif
The engine is basically a J-85 being used as a gas generator to turn a
free mounted fan mounted on the back end.
It's hard to tell from that image given its small size, but this image
of a cutaway J-85:
http://www.aircraftenginedesign.com/pictures/j85.gif
.....makes it looks like the rear fan does counter-rotate from the
direction of the main part of the engine, which would be ideal for use
in something like the LLRV due to torque mitigation.
It was originally developed to power the Sabreliner and Falcon business
jets.

Pat

On 20 Aug 2006 17:22:25 -0700, "John Charles"
wrote:

As I understand it, when the choice was being made as to which aircraft
to select to replace the T-33s on loan from the US Air Force, the Navy
pilots (led by Conrad) lobbied for the F-4 Phantom, and the USAF pilots
(led by Stafford) lobbied for the T-38.

....Heh, could you see a NASA Aaaarmy-type calling for Warthogs to be
made available for trainers? :-)

OM
--
]=====================================[
] OMBlog - http://www.io.com/~o_m/omworld [
] Let's face it: Sometimes you *need* [
] an obnoxious opinion in your day! [
]=====================================[

On Sun, 20 Aug 2006 18:33:52 -0400, Peter Stickney
wrote:

Pat, you've descended into Stuffie territory. His first appearance in this
group was on just that subject, voicing just that opinion.

....Oh God/Yahweh/Roddenberry, you're right. Which means either a)
Pat's channelling ~CT, or b) Pat has been ~CT all along.

We're doomed, kids.

OM
--
]=====================================[
] OMBlog - http://www.io.com/~o_m/omworld [
] Let's face it: Sometimes you *need* [
] an obnoxious opinion in your day! [
]=====================================[

Pat Flannery wrote:


Peter Stickney wrote:

Pat, you've descended into Stuffie territory. His first appearance in
this
group was on just that subject, voicing just that opinion.
(Are you sure you want to go down this road?)

Statistically, the STA's much more dangerous. Of the two that were
built,
one was lost, with all hands.


If every one of our Shuttle commanders has flown 1,000 test approaches
in them, they can't be all that dangerous, even with one being lost.
They do have limitations as far as passenger carriage, but the T-38 does
also. ;-)
Both of them will be moot once the Shuttle is retired, as "flying" the
CEV during reentry isn't going to be anything like flying a Shuttle,
STA, or T-38.
Save the taxpayers some money, and get the astronauts a nice Lear Jet or
Gulfstream to get around in.

Didn't they fly a whole crew into KSC together in a Gulfstream just
recently?

And, who'd fly the thing, the CDR & PLT? Or, would they actually hire
another pilot to fly the crew into KSC?

--

..

"Though I could not caution all, I yet may warn a few:
Don't lend your hand to raise no flag atop no ship of fools!"

--grateful dead.
__________________________________________________ _____________
Mike Flugennock, flugennock at sinkers dot org
"Mikey'zine": dubya dubya dubya dot sinkers dot org

Pat Flannery wrote:


John Charles wrote:

Slayton and his astronauts agreed that the unforgiving nature of a
high-performance aircraft kept their judgement skills sharp, unlike
simulators which cannot kill you and which come with a "reset button."



A uniquely Darwinian approach to sorting out good astronauts from
complacent ones. :-)

Interesting observation, but Iiiiidunno...perhaps just sorting out the
unlucky ones (Bassett/See).

--

..

"Though I could not caution all, I yet may warn a few:
Don't lend your hand to raise no flag atop no ship of fools!"

--grateful dead.
__________________________________________________ _____________
Mike Flugennock, flugennock at sinkers dot org
"Mikey'zine": dubya dubya dubya dot sinkers dot org