It’s basically a two-seat F-5B or F-5F without the guns. (The F-5 came first.) So being a trainer makes little difference. Weapons are illegal, so I couldn’t have them anyway. Besides, who is there to shoot at? Aerial refuelling requires a tanker and crew, which I don’t think exist in the civilian world. The USAF would not allow me to fill up at one of their tankers, so in-flight refuelling is not a factor. G-limit is not a factor, since there’s no need to pull that many. Range could be more desirable, but you can go a long way in an hour in a T-38.
The Talon is dead-sexy. It’s one of the prettiest airplanes out there. It’s been used as a chase plane for NASA, and for astronaut proficiency training and travel. It’s used by the USAF Test Pilot School. It harkens back to the '60s when pilots trained to fly Century fighters and TPS graduates looked toward the X-planes, which is an era in aviation that fascinates me. Did I mention it’s pretty?
I have no need for a type rating of any kind, so I haven’t looked into it. AIUI though, you need at least 1,000 hours before insurance companies will look at you. There may be some FAA requirements for applying for a type rating too. You would know better than I.
Were I going to buy a military jet (e.g., real or replica ME-262, T-38, or L-39) with no aviation experience, I would probably go about it this way:
[ul][li]Ab initio training in a Cessna 172 Skyhawk or Piper PA-28-160 Cherokee. Earn Private Pilot Certificate.[/li][li]Use the same or similar aircraft for my Instrument certificate. (Jets do best at altitude, and you need the Instrument rating to fly that high.)[/li][li]Fly a Beechcraft T-34 Mentor for the high-performance/complex sign-off. In addition to the >200 hp engine, controllable prop, and retractable undercarriage, the T-34 also introduces tandem seating and a canopy similar to what is on the jet.[/li][li]Maybe get some more training in a North American T-28 Trojan, which has higher performance than the Mentor.[/ul][/li]From there, it’s time to get into jets. AFAIK, you need a type rating to fly any jet. Personally I think I’d like to get a type rating in a Lockheed T-33 and then progress to the T-38. OTOH, the T-38 is a trainer; so even though it is a bit of a step up from a Trojan, we could cut to the chase. Same goes for an L-39 or T-37 or other two-seat jet. I’d definitely want two-seater time before I tried to fly a single-seat fighter jet.
The beauty of my plan is that if I’m rich enough to own and fly an ex-military fighter/trainer jet, I’d be rich enough to keep all of the other planes I used to become proficient.
I grew up near a retired Navy CPO, and was fortunate to meet and befriend him and his son, a kid my age.
He had a P-51 he got from Bob Hoover, a Stearman, and an Messerschmitt ME-108.
Through his contacts, he got me rides on everything the TN Air Guard had. Priceless for a teen working on his pilot’s license.
After ground-looping the Stearman with his son, I wasn’t allowed to touch the other planes…
There are several warbirds I’d choose over the 262, but that’s just me.
I just happen to be more of a “black hat” than a “white hat”. Ya know I always rooted for the Empire, played the Axis in Risk etc. I guess I just liked the uniforms and the 262 just looks evil, I want mine painted like a night fighter. Too bad the guys running the show had all the wrong ideas though, they did have the cool looking stuff. BF-109= scary, Supermarine Spitfire=beautiful, Tiger II ominous, Sherman kinda cute, P51D=sleek and sexy, ME-262=evil.
I’ve long posted my desire for a 262 here, but if I can’t have one, I think I’d like a Mosquito. That said, the idea of retiring to a Consolidated Catalina and touring the world has considerable appeal.
Hoo boy the old PBY Catalina does have some real appeal. Not very fast but you could outfit it with a couple of bunks and a galley and darn near live in one and you can land just about anywhere. There is one for sale in Puerto Rico, in terrible shape IIRC for about $20k. JLA linked to it a few weeks ago. Perfect for the Zombiepacolypse.
Pretty much. Non-pilots don’t think about it, but in a standardtricycle-gear airplane, the plane lands “flat” like your car. You’re sitting level on 3 tires, and can see over the dash.
With a rear-wheel type aircraft - taildragger - you see that the pilot (in the rear seat) has limited forward vision.
Planes don’t have steering wheels. Well, the little ones don’t.
The brake pedal for each wheel is the top of the rudder pedal, kind of like the lock on your golf-cart brake pedal.
While moving slowly, you gently press the right brake, and you turn right. Left for left, obviously.
When taking off or landing, we’re moving much faster, so we control our direction with the rudder. Same pedals, remember.
To taxi, or “drive your plane over there”, the Trike has an advantage; he can see where he’s going. The taildragger has to turn left, then right, then left and so on, making “S” turns and looking around the side of the plane to make sure the coast is clear.
Sooo, when you’re landing - or taxiing too fast and hit the brake or the rudder too hard, the back will “loop” around, sometimes scraping the wingtip on the ground, as in my case.
Don’t get me wrong. I still love me some taildraggers, and I’ve got more than enough room in the back yard for one of these guys. Check out the Maule at 1:52.
Can’t do that shit in your Cirrus or 182!
Bad form, that. It stresses the nosegear more than necessary, and forces you to land at a higher speed than necessary, meaning longer rollout and heavier brake wear. A nosegear airplane should be landed in a flare, mains first, preferably with the wings stalling just as they touch, with the nose then lowered slowly. And in most of them, you can’t see over the nose while flared, so you use your peripheral vision instead. But that’s no worse than landing a taildragger in the three-point attitude.
The heel brakes on a Cub annoy the crap out of me. Good thing they aren’t made that way anymore.
More to the point, the nosewheel arrangement is dynamically stable, because the CG is ahead of the mains. it “wants” to keep going straight ahead. A taildragger “wants” to flip around because its CG is behind the mains, so you have to keep it under positive control at all times. Really, the only reason to have a taildragger (unless you just like the challenge of doing something hard and risky unnecessarily, as some pilots do) is that it can pull the tailwheel out of a divot on an unpaved runway, while a nosewheel will just get stuck deeper.
Just thought I’d throw this in because I stumbled across the video. A De Havilland Caribou (twin props, tricycle gear cargo plane)“landing” on only it’s nose wheel. In fact it never really lands, it just pushes the nose wheel down onto the ground and flies that way a bit, the noses up and away.
My dream plane is affordable - I want a Aero Coup. The little bugger with the funky tail. Problem is my health and the physical and all to go for a license.
My fallback when I’m disgustingly wealthy is a Great Lakes style pleasure steamer. Nothing huge - maybe 60 feet to maybe 100. But totally decked out 1890-1920 Vanderbilt style.
