T-6A Texan II vs. P-51A

[eagl]

Interesting stuff I've noticed in my transition course from the T-37 to the T-6A Texan II...  The plane is basically a lightweight P-51 with a touch more drag and a fat wing.

Power - 1100hp flat rated to 16,000 ft
Weight - 4900lb empty, 6500lb max takeoff
Endurance - approx 4 hrs with reserves
Service ceiling - 31,000 ft (limited by cockpit environment I think)
G limits - -3.5 to +7.0 symmetrical, -1.0 to +4.7 assymetrical
Max speed - 316 kts indicated or .67 mach, whichever comes first
Corner speed at sea level - approx 260 KIAS (at typical mission fuel load remaining)
Time to climb, sea level to 29,000 ft - 12 min
Max range at 31,000 ft and 250 kts TAS - approx 870 miles (with 20 min at 10,000 ft reserve)

On paper, it's a bit like the very early P-51 but with a fat wing.  Neat, and it's our primary trainer.

For what it's worth, there are 4 things I don't like about the plane.

1.  Single engine (it being a prop isn't as bad IMHO as it only having one engine).
2.  Tandem seating instead of side by side.
3.  Aircraft systems are overly complex for primary training and a student will not be able to fully internalize the systems by the time they graduate.
4.  Technical orders and other publications are still in poor shape after several years of operational use, partly from poor pubs writing and partly from the fact that the plane is complex enough that they keep discovering "new" things from a primary trainer that we expect a student to be able to solo in about a month of training.

I'm hoping that our spec ops folks will buy a weaponized version...  Uprate the engine, add some armor, make the wing skins a bit thicker, and add some pylons and this sucker is ready for some low intensity conflict whoop-azz.

[avionix]

Always wanted to go up in the new Texan II.  Looks like a sweet ride.

[eagl]

Always wanted to go up in the new Texan II.  Looks like a sweet ride.

It's supposedly a nice flying plane (my first flight isn't for another week) but it's still not a fighter...  Even a T-38 is much more fun.  It'll make most untrained people puke, but it's a lot closer to a real fighter than the T-6 (or T-37).

I think I'll enjoy flying it but my initial reaction as a primary flying instructor is mixed.  The flying characteristics and basic "ops normal" simplicity are nice, but the underlying systems and emergency procedures are a lot worse than the T-37.  Plus I won't be able to see my student's hands so it's going to be harder to tell when he's about to try to kill me or wreck the plane and even harder to stop him from carrying out his murderous plans.

[Russian]

Are you FAIP in Sheppard/Lackland?

It would be interesting if I stumble into you during my UPT...

T minus 24 days until OTS.

 

[eagl]

I'm not a FAIP, but I am an instructor pilot at Sheppard.

If you end up there, drop me a note.

[Furball]

Sounds like a fun plane.  Looks like the Tuc the RAF use. 

Just out of interest Eagl, what do you make of this guy claiming to be a Blackhawk pilot: http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,243930.msg2984960.html ?

Always unsure about internet claims, usually i find that officers can spell.

[Toad]

Are you FAIP in Sheppard/Lackland?

It would be interesting if I stumble into you during my UPT...

T minus 24 days until OTS.

 

You never did answer in that other thread on Georgia.

What are you going to do if you get a fighter and you are ordered to attack Russian aircraft or forces that are <cough>peacekeeping</cough> their way through Georgia or Poland?

[moot]

^ That's important, IMO.  No reason to dodge the truth.

[cpxxx]

I'm hoping that our spec ops folks will buy a weaponized version...  Uprate the engine, add some armor, make the wing skins a bit thicker, and add some pylons and this sucker is ready for some low intensity conflict whoop-azz.

As I'm sure you're aware the T6 is a derivation of the PC-9. The Irish Air Corps (IAC) use PC-9M for primary training. But it's also our most capable combat aircraft fitted with pylons for use in CAS (lite ).  Actually it's our only 'combat' aircraft.

Are USAF trainees screened before meeting the T6?  The IAC put their cadets straight into the PC-9 which always seems to me to be a huge step for an ab-initio student and a scary idea for the Instructor. They do start them off with quite a few hours in the simulator though.

I love the idea of learning to fly in an aircraft close to the performance of a WW2 fighter. You compare it to the P51 but surely it would have a comparable performance to some of the early war fighters. Early Spitfires perhaps or the P40?

For the IAC cadets though, at the end of training. There is a big let down. Unless they are streamed to helis. Their first assignment is usually flying a Cessna 172, actually a Reims Rocket just a bigger engined 172. No F16s to step up to. 

[firbal]

I remember back in the 70's, Irish Air Corp flew Vampires. Use to see them from time to time landing out side of Dublin.

[Russian]

I'm not a FAIP, but I am an instructor pilot at Sheppard.

If you end up there, drop me a note.

Will do.

You never did answer in that other thread on Georgia.

What are you going to do if you get a fighter and you are ordered to attack Russian aircraft or forces that are <cough>peacekeeping</cough> their way through Georgia or Poland?

I didn't see that/those questions since I left after "Internet tough guy" (tm) kept pushing me. I do not reply to insults or attacks.
To answer your own question - refer to "The Airman's Creed", "The Code of Conduct" and "The Oat of Office".

As I'm sure you're aware the T6 is a derivation of the PC-9. The Irish Air Corps (IAC) use PC-9M for primary training. But it's also our most capable combat aircraft fitted with pylons for use in CAS (lite ).  Actually it's our only 'combat' aircraft.

Are USAF trainees screened before meeting the T6?  The IAC put their cadets straight into the PC-9 which always seems to me to be a huge step for an ab-initio student and a scary idea for the Instructor. They do start them off with quite a few hours in the simulator though.

I love the idea of learning to fly in an aircraft close to the performance of a WW2 fighter. You compare it to the P51 but surely it would have a comparable performance to some of the early war fighters. Early Spitfires perhaps or the P40?

For the IAC cadets though, at the end of training. There is a big let down. Unless they are streamed to helis. Their first assignment is usually flying a Cessna 172, actually a Reims Rocket just a bigger engined 172. No F16s to step up to. 

   Regardless if incoming trainees hold PPL, they are required to complete IFS (Initial Flight School) which utilizes DA-20 (http://www.dossifs.com/aircraft.html)

[Maverick]

WW2 fighter pilots were not required to train with a plane equivalent in performance to a mid war fighter. It seems the folks in charge lost sight of the fact that the idea is to train pilots not wash folks out. Even if the new T6 has a nice zoomie feel to it I think they should have stuck with a non complex bird for basic flight training and stair stepped the curriculum to more complex airframes.

[cpxxx]

Thanks Russian, I thought there must be some sort of screening. The poor Air Corps cadets are dropped right in it. Might explain why the last wings ceremony only had two participants. 

Firball, indeed they did fly Vampires back in the 70's. It was the nearest they ever got to a jet fighter. I remember seeing them as a kid growing up not too far from the base.

[2bighorn]

Sounds like a fun plane.  Looks like the Tuc the RAF use. 

Just out of interest Eagl, what do you make of this guy claiming to be a Blackhawk pilot: http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,243930.msg2984960.html ?

Always unsure about internet claims, usually i find that officers can spell.

Just a squeaker, ignore him

[eagl]

You never did answer in that other thread on Georgia.

What are you going to do if you get a fighter and you are ordered to attack Russian aircraft or forces that are <cough>peacekeeping</cough> their way through Georgia or Poland?

I didn't see the question, sorry.

In all situations I will comply with the rules of engagement laid out in the ATO/SPINS and ROE briefing, and as ordered by my chain of command and applicable operational control authorities.  My personal judgement comes into play primarily when interpreting the ROE in unusual circumstances and if I feel I have been given an illegal order.  If the ROE is clear and my orders are legal, my focus is on aggressively carrying out those orders.  Sucks to be the guy on the receiving end.

Generating orders and ROE based on NATO commitments, treaty obligations, and NCA directives is not my job.