T-2s

[Catmando]

Some quick and sharp eyes noted the "single engine" on A4s (and also my vintage) T2-A, I see. And as A4s said, the gun pattern was awesome in it.

I also once had the pleasure of flying a YT-2B – it was a basic T-2A airframe fitted with T2-B engines but had T2-2C wings. But it flew just like a B (never did fly a C ). Did lots of spin tests in it.

Great airplane, but I never liked it for one reason: It had absolutely the hardest ejection seat I have ever sat on. (Of course I was a lot skinnier then, with minimal backside padding. )

 

[codtanker]

I still remember Bunk having my better half betting the XO and an IP they couldn't snort that tequilla through their noses during the CQ party. Don't forget the dog chains through the nose also.

Those were the days. Sitting in the SNA's ready room and telling the P-3 IPs to kiss our ass because they couldn't touch us since we weren't in their program during the turnover days.

A few years back VT-86 nearly had a E-2 and P-3 bubba flying for them after two were selected by the old TAR system. Both had been IPs in Meridian for more then two years but when the skipper in Pcola heard it didn't last long. They nearly slipped through the crack.

Master, I would say that we not only had our own squadron but nearly two airports to ourselves. Yea, sure we shared with the Blues for a month or two a year and also the NFO program but when your the only single anchor program around you feel loved. Not only that we were really the only ones using Choctaw at the time and it sure had some fun course rules for getting in and out of.

 

[A4sForever]

Note the North American P-51 tail profile on the Buckeye ... some classics just don't go out of style ....

 

[bunk22]

I still remember Bunk having my better half betting the XO and an IP they couldn't snort that tequilla through their noses during the CQ party. Don't forget the dog chains through the nose also.

Those were the days. Sitting in the SNA's ready room and telling the P-3 IPs to kiss our ass because they couldn't touch us since we weren't in their program during the turnover days.

A few years back VT-86 nearly had a E-2 and P-3 bubba flying for them after two were selected by the old TAR system. Both had been IPs in Meridian for more then two years but when the skipper in Pcola heard it didn't last long. They nearly slipped through the crack.

Master, I would say that we not only had our own squadron but nearly two airports to ourselves. Yea, sure we shared with the Blues for a month or two a year and also the NFO program but when your the only single anchor program around you feel loved. Not only that we were really the only ones using Choctaw at the time and it sure had some fun course rules for getting in and out of.

I would have died if I had snorted tillkillya through my nose. Yeah, it was good times at VT-4 having the only pilot program in town. BTW, how many hours did you get flying the T-2C in Merdian?

 

[BeanFighter]

Some quick and sharp eyes noted the "single engine" on A4s (and also my vintage) T2-A, I see. And as A4s said, the gun pattern was awesome in it.

I also once had the pleasure of flying a YT-2B – it was a basic T-2A airframe fitted with T2-B engines but had T2-2C wings. But it flew just like a B (never did fly a C ). Did lots of spin tests in it.

Great airplane, but I never liked it for one reason: It had absolutely the hardest ejection seat I have ever sat on. (Of course I was a lot skinnier then, with minimal backside padding. )

Hard seat yea, but a good kick in the ass when needed!

 

[Catmando]

Hard seat yea, but a good kick in the ass when needed!

Unfortunately not always quite good enough when needed. And not nearly as good as the Martin Baker ejection seats of that era.

Aside from being far more comfortable, MB seats had the tremendous advantage of being "zero/zero" seats. They also enjoyed far greater reliability. And some even embedded their seat cushions with controllable cooling airflow. Aaahhh.

I understand the later models of the LS-1 ejection seat in the T-2 rectified some of their earlier design flaws, much improved their reliability, and introduced a modified the seat pan (hopefully, it included some cushioning, maybe?).

 

[Pugs]

I understand the later models of the LS-1 ejection seat in the T-2 rectified some of their earlier design flaws, much improved their reliability, and introduced a modified the seat pan (hopefully, it included some cushioning, maybe?).

In 87 flew T-2B's in VT-10 and it was still a piece of fiberglass. Maybe the pilot C's got an upgrade.

 

[Intruder Driver]

In 87 flew T-2B's in VT-10 and it was still a piece of fiberglass. Maybe the pilot C's got an upgrade.

The seat pan was the same in the T2C. Comfort factor of negative 42.

 

[BeanFighter]

Unfortunately not always quite good enough when needed. And not nearly as good as the Martin Baker ejection seats of that era.

Aside from being far more comfortable, MB seats had the tremendous advantage of being "zero/zero" seats. They also enjoyed far greater reliability. And some even embedded their seat cushions with controllable cooling airflow. Aaahhh.

I understand the later models of the LS-1 ejection seat in the T-2 rectified some of their earlier design flaws, much improved their reliability, and introduced a modified the seat pan (hopefully, it included some cushioning, maybe?).

Worked well for me and the guy who hit me. I agree that the new seats are mo better on the back and the backside, comfort and confidence, groovy.

 

[HAL Pilot]

Worked well for me and the guy who hit me. I agree that the new seats are mo better on the back and the backside, comfort and confidence, groovy.

Better hope Mike Bennett doesn't see this.......he'll want all the gory details for his website.

My time in the T-2....I was way too busy being a clueless SNFO to even realize that the seat was hard....

 

[Huggy Bear]

I think students nowadays are really missing out. The T-2 was a great stepping stone between the T-34 and a more complex aircraft like the T-45C. Students still had to adjust from covering 2 miles a minute to 5 or 6 miles a minute, but it still steam gauges, a second engine to baby, and was more forgiving than a T-45 or A-4.

But, I will never miss having to trim that much. Any jet that requires that much trim (with each power change!) is too high maintanence.

 

[Flash]

I think students nowadays are really missing out. The T-2 was a great stepping stone between the T-34 and a more complex aircraft like the T-45C. Students still had to adjust from covering 2 miles a minute to 5 or 6 miles a minute, but it still steam gauges, a second engine to baby, and was more forgiving than a T-45 or A-4.

But, I will never miss having to trim that much. Any jet that requires that much trim (with each power change!) is too high maintanence.

I loved the simplicity of the T-2, it was a great trainer.

 

[A4sForever]

1. I think students nowadays are really missing out. The T-2 was a great stepping stone between the T-34 and a more complex aircraft

2. (The T-2) ... was more forgiving than (an) ... A-4. ....

1. Most definitely.

2. Most definitely not. We have a gentleman's disagreement ....

The all time best jet era airplane, any country, any service .... easy to learn on ... easy to maintain ... easy and responsive to fly .... you became one with "it" .... Heineman's Hot Rod ... the A-4 Skyhawk.

 

[Frumby]

I think students nowadays are really missing out. The T-2 was a great stepping stone between the T-34 and a more complex aircraft like the T-45C. Students still had to adjust from covering 2 miles a minute to 5 or 6 miles a minute, but it still steam gauges, a second engine to baby, and was more forgiving than a T-45 or A-4.

But, I will never miss having to trim that much. Any jet that requires that much trim (with each power change!) is too high maintanence.

If this were a Southern Baptist Revival Meeting, I'd be asking for someone to give me an "AMEN!!"

 

[Intruder Driver]

1. Most definitely.

2. Most definitely not. We have a gentleman's disagreement ....

The all time best jet era airplane, any country, any service .... easy to learn on ... easy to maintain ... easy and responsive to fly .... you became one with "it" .... Heineman's Hot Rod ... the A-4 Skyhawk.

I agree with A4s that you became one with the scooter. Even though some people complained about its power lag (spool up time) if you were working off a high fast on the ball, I found it easier than the T-2 in the pattern. Some experienced T2C pilots claimed they flew the ball with one throttle, because it was easy to overcompensate using both. I tried it a few times bouncing at the field, but didn't really notice any advantage. 'Walking the throttles' became the selection of choice for most pilots.

The only place the T2 seemed to have it over the scooter was in out of control flight. Neutralize and you were out of it. The T2 was also a little more stable in the roll axis, but just barely, but who in their right mind would trade that small item for the awesome roll rate and responsiveness of the A4.

It was always slightly disconcerting, but loads of fun, to do PMCF's in the A4 and get that bad boy into the very high mach numbers (0.96-0.97+) coming out of 36,000 feet and look in the rear view mirrors and see the vertical tail section noticeably moving and a blue hue forming around the control surfaces.