The Lancaster is one of 430 built in Canada for the Royal Canadian Air Force, one of the two Lancasters still airworthy, part of the Canadian Warplane Heritage Museum collection in Hamilton, Ontario. The other is part of the RAF's Battle of Britain Memorial Flight in the UK.
@ryanlotgd
Ай бұрын
been lucky enough to see them both fly together and with the only air worthy vulcan
@georgeconway4360
13 күн бұрын
When on furlough from Seaboard I flew Super VC10s as a F/O for East African Airlines from 1971 to 1973 and again for a short time in 1975 on another furlough. As a Yank some of the senior Captains that had flown the Lancasters for Bomber Command, RAF.They would kid me about you Yanks with those bloody B-17s and B-24s and their puny bomb loads. The Lancaster could carry 16,000 lbs and some could carry 20,000 lbs. I have also read it was being considered to drop the atomic bomb before the B-29 was delivered. The one thing they never mentioned was the fact that the Lancaster was a SINGLE PILOT AIRPLANE. It had a crew of seven and the crew member in the right seat was the Flight Engineer. Both British and German bombers were all single pilot.
@pastorjerrykliner3162
Ай бұрын
Gosh, that's just like every T-38/F-5 model I ever built...You could look at the wing-join and see right through to the other side... All this time I thought I was just a poor model builder, now I find out I was just being accurate! 😁
@ronrogers
Ай бұрын
exactly!
@1chish
Ай бұрын
I suspect Americans don't really appreciate the importance of the Lancaster to the allied bombing campaigns of WWII. It could lift 2 1/2 times the bombload of a B-17 or B-24 and had longer range. It was the only bomber in WWII to lift the 22,000 Ib 'Grand Slam' earthquake bomb until the B-29 in post war specification. It was suitable for a variety of missions from heavy bombing to Pathfinder to sinking battleships to the bouncing bomb missions that destroyed dams. It was also a very affective maritime and air / sea rescue aircraft which led to the legendary Shackleton Maritime aircraft. When the atomic bombs were being developed their delivery was a real problem. The B-29s even in 'Silver' special build were having difficulty lifting off with the weights of either of the 2 bombs at Tinian. The fall back option was the later Lancaster although in practice the aircraft used would have been Lincoln B.Is or B.IIs. The B-29s were also experiencing bomb release issues and as the bomb bays had already been modified to match the 33 foot length of the Lancaster in fact the B-29s that delivered the atomic bombs and the backup aircraft were fitted with the later Lancaster bomb stowage and release systems. If you love the sound of a Mustang or Spitfire with one Merlin on full chat the Lancaster has four Merlins .. 👌
@ronrogers
Ай бұрын
WOW! Thanks for the history lesson and yes, I totally under appreciated the Lancaster! I saw the dam busters movie as a kid and have the book in my "to read" pile. My boss at Cessna Flight test flew the Lancaster in the Canadian Air Force but I had no idea it was so capable. Thanks for the information!
@1chish
Ай бұрын
@@ronrogers Most welcome sir. They were an incredible step forward when introduced. Its a shame there are only two flying examples at the moment but a third is heading to being airworthy in the UK. It is a running example but only around the airfield with paying passengers but it raises cash for the extensive airworthiness work. Worth a Google it is NX611 (Just Jane) and is based at the Lincolnshire Aviation Heritage Centre at East Kirby. There is a US link in that the airfield had four years of post-war use by the United States Air Force for Air Rescue squadrons.
@TheJustinJ
15 күн бұрын
Lancaster were never a backup aircraft for the Atom Bomb. Manhattan project was literally "Top Secret", the rest of the word found out about it when the black and white photograph of a mushroom over Nagasaki hit the front page. There was no involvement by Non-US manufacturers to retrofit their existing aircraft to carry it "just in case" Boeing couldn't figure out how to build a working bomber. Also, the Lanc couldn't even replace the B-17 and B-24s for daylight bombing anyway. It was far too lightly armed and constructed to defend itself in a formation, or survive dozens or even hundreds of rounds of 20mm of close proximity flak. Not that the B-17 was indestructible, but it was in another category of durability and survivability than the Lancaster. Performance and payload comes with structural, and armament compromises. Ditching half the crew and 13+ .50cals would have increased B-17 payload by at least a ton in its own right.
@davidgubert1883
Ай бұрын
I always worried when I parked in the IAC area. During the airshows it is packed with people there, many of whom are not aviation people, and could easily damage my aircraft.
@TheJustinJ
15 күн бұрын
I've never seen someone, nor heard of anyone, just walk up and vandalize a parked aircraft at an airshow. There's not much for a bystander to break on an aircraft unless trying to manhandle it and move it around.
@christopherblack3102
Ай бұрын
Ron, that antenna on the top of the nose of the T-38 is for the TCAS system I believe.
@ronrogers
Ай бұрын
Thanks for the clarification...that was added after my time so I was just guessing as you surmised!
@gtr1952
15 күн бұрын
Thank you! I really enjoyed that. I did get a leaky eye when I saw the Lancaster. I'm 72 and I've heard a lot of first hand stories. That is quite an airplane! I haven't seen a close up of the T38 replacement yet. That should be interesting. 8) --gary
@flymachine
19 күн бұрын
I hit like and got 747 - my day is going to go well today.
@SEOTeamBerlin
Ай бұрын
another nice Ron-video with lots of stuff to learn 👍🏽 - and I was surprised to see a KC-135 tanker/freighter in the background 😯
@ronrogers
Ай бұрын
Glad you enjoyed it
@jamesmurray3948
Ай бұрын
Hadn't heard it mentioned in a few T-38 youtubes but it had "proverse yaw" which is why you could be hamfisted on the stick and not depart as opposed to the F-4 and others. The wing down aileron went up much higher than the wing up aileron went down. I actually did sloppy hammerheads with what little rudder authority it had clean while pulsing the ailerons to give me help turning sideways. You had to pulse to get the yaw without getting any roll. Can't remember what airspeed I let it get to in the vertical before I put what little rudder I had in and pulsed the aileron.
@nickcivis
Ай бұрын
when I was 12 years old I visited my uncle in Ca., he worked for Northrop and he took me to a place where I was a able to sit in the cockpit of a T-38 Talon. I'm 76 yrs. old now, go figure.
@terrytomlinson8772
Ай бұрын
Multi-thouand, Five Year Navy Flight career, all kinds of weather, NO AUTOPILOT, we definitely understood scan and trim
@57Jimmy
Ай бұрын
“As a student, don’t put your checklist there!”…Hmm, is there something you’re not telling us?🤭 The T-38 is an absolutely beautiful aircraft!
@bobcfi1306
Ай бұрын
Your best OSH video
@ronrogers
Ай бұрын
Thanks!
@stephenbritton9297
Ай бұрын
Was that FlightChop's yellow Vans your walking around about a minute or so in?
@swiftadventurer
Ай бұрын
👍
@MetalTeamster
Ай бұрын
Did you ever fly any of the Boeing T-38s? I remember fueling one of them a couple times, around the same time Saudi Arabia had F 15s at Boeing field doing test work. The Boeing T 38 looked tired…… this was 2020…… nice vid Ron. Speaking of tail dragging heavyweights, is there a Shackleton there ?
@viscount757
Ай бұрын
T-38 was built by Northrop, not Boeing.
@ronrogers
Ай бұрын
I think he is referring to the T-38 that Boeing had as a chase aircraft and no, I never flew that one. One of the Boeing test pilots (who had been a Navy pilot) commented to me about how easy it was to run it out of gas! I said yup, very short legs, especially at high speed!
@MetalTeamster
Ай бұрын
@@ronrogers that is correct sir ...:-)
@MetalTeamster
Ай бұрын
@@viscount757 I was a Boeing fueler ...there were less than 20 of us in total when I was there.
@viscount757
Ай бұрын
@@ronrogers Thanks. I misinterpreted the Boeing T-38 reference.
@capital101
Ай бұрын
I went from being a T-38A crew chief to a KC-135A boom operator. Nice seeing both aircraft parked side by side like that.
@jamesmurray3948
Ай бұрын
I wonder how that rebuilt 579 T-38 flies. We had one T-38, triple nickle, 555, at PIT at Tyndall that you had to fly 10 knots faster and it flipped upside down in a full aft stick stall. Something to do with being one of the first built and not being a "jig" aircraft which I'm not sure what that means.
@DJ-zp2tr
Ай бұрын
I flew as a fighter lead-in IP at Holloman back in the 70's. We had to take new pilot graduates from UPT and teach them fighter tactics. But also new guys got transition flights to get used to the local 3300 ft altitude and the local procedures. Lots of butter bars and foreigh students. On a new transition ride, one Lt. right out of UPT couldn't flare the aircraft properly and kept bouncing. On one bounce, a mircroburst from the nearby mountains rocked us up on one wing at the top of his bounce, and of course idle power. He applied full left stick but left the power at idle. I knew this would kill us, so I just jammed the power to mil, and kept pressure on the stick to keep us from flipping inverted. We rode it down and brushed one wingtip, then immediately flipped left in a snap roll and hit the left wingtip, which kept us from flipping over. I still have that wingtip in my garage as a reminder how close I came to dying.
@ryanlotgd
Ай бұрын
grew up with 20miles of the home of the battle of britan memorial flight the lancaster and spitfires was something that would fly over least a few times a week during airshow season. star of the show back then was the raf tornadoes though as they used to come over the vilage at around 50ft off the top of the house sometimes when they banked out at the end of the village seamed like the wing was between the houses they was that low
@nathanandrews5869
Ай бұрын
Those are not the same brakes that you were flying. Although braking is not much improved they last much longer than the originals.
@Redbaron_sites
24 күн бұрын
Welcome to OshkoshThe NASCAR of aviation 😂!
@P-J-W-777
25 күн бұрын
It was easier plane to fly for the older generation because they were all stick.rudder pilots and didn’t rely on computers or fly-by-wire to correct their mistakes or tell them what they can or can’t do.
@jmead6121
26 күн бұрын
O No Forgot to Power back wow If yA get walk away great job !
@tropicthndr
Ай бұрын
I noticed in your vender tour, walking right by Gami booth, it would have been a really good opportunity to ask them what everyone thinks about 100UL now that After an extensive trial, the University of North Dakota's flight school has dropped Swift UL94 fuel and resumed use of 100LL. That has now proven that unleaded fuel used in aircraft engines ruins the valve seats.
@ronrogers
Ай бұрын
I tried that last year (no camera present) and was told to come to the presentation and all the information would be given then. Not sure this year would have been any better but yes, should have tried.
@jimallen8186
23 күн бұрын
“The T-38 was easy to fly” right up to the point of its susceptibility to Approach Turn Stalls and Stalling on Instrument Circle Approaches. Use the AOA folks.
@ronrogers
23 күн бұрын
True, but I would say the biggest factor( as one flight commander told us students) was that you couldn't fly a 300 Knot aircraft with a 30 knot brain.
@jimallen8186
23 күн бұрын
@@ronrogers compare rates T-45 & TA-4 vs T-38. (T-38 spanned both, so need to take both) what is different? It isn’t percentages of persons under training with and without fast thinking capacities. It is flying based on AOA vs training speeds.
@johndurant622
Ай бұрын
The brakes are fine on the 38…I don’t know any plane that’ll stop with the power up! I spent 7 years in the 38…half in the Safety office. I cannot think of a single brake failure incident. We did have a 37 melt the brakes on formation taxi…with the power up and using brakes to control speed. They had to retract the gear to avoid a parked B52
@jamesmurray3948
Ай бұрын
The brakes are fine. Bald tires are not but with aero braking and judicious brake application we never had problems. Except for a fellow IP who did everything right but the bald tire hydroplaned on a wet runway and blew. As a Safety Officer would you call that pilot error?
@georgeruiz1199
Ай бұрын
Nothing wrong with the brakes on the T38
@rogermatheny5512
Ай бұрын
Maybe it’s not difficult to fly--maybe it’s the thought process of the iPhone generation
@walthastingsRV-7A
25 күн бұрын
T-38 crash at 2024 Oshkosh? 🤔
@ronrogers
25 күн бұрын
No, I learned about a T-38 accident with an aircraft I had lost the canopy at 500 kts at the airshow from the Navy TPS pilots. I later realized that the title could be misleading. Not intended in any way as click bait!
@MonkPetite
15 күн бұрын
This air show has the most F’d atc organisation ever. It’s total ridiculous to in fly there. It must be changed to better. The cult on the ground crew is also a puffed up situation. A visit with your plane is no fun alt all. By the way I do have access all day a military version of t 38 and yes, they are awsome
@warped-sliderule
Ай бұрын
Navy flying the T-38, that just doesn't seem right -- says the Air Force guy. Let's see those Navy boys fly the BUFF!!!
@deichblatt
Ай бұрын
As far as the "Dumbed Down" inlet on the T-38, being the NASA engineer who designed it, I'll tell you it recovered between 15 and 20% static thrust lost to the original inlet. That increase in thrust significantly improves take-off performance of the aircraft and provides a larger margin of safety during single engine operations. The airplane in this configuration flies supersonic as well as it does in the original configuration. The requirement for a training airplane to go supersonic is not a particularly good thing. It serves no real purpose other than an Air Force ego item. The Navy has never had a supersonic trainer and they seem to turn out some very qualified Naval Aviators. The T-38 can only reach supersonic speed from and initial dive, it cannot accelerate to supersonic in level flight.
@ronrogers
Ай бұрын
My first time gong supersonic as a student is one of my most memorable rides during the entire program. May be that is an AF ego thing, but it was amazingly inspiring to me as a student. I had a number of supersonic chase missions out at Edwards and the T-38 was very useful (and economical) for the role. As far as the not so gracious comments concerning the inlet. That was based upon an SETP report I remember reading that talked about a transonic spike in the inlet that let to compressor instability and the comment I received from several test pilots that the felt the design was rushed and not well tested before going into production. Would appreciate your comments regarding that observation.
@deichblatt
29 күн бұрын
@@ronrogers In the original configuration, there was a 47% loss in static thrust of the engine caused by the narrow radius of the inlet lip. NASA-JSC operated the T-38 frequently out of EL Paso, TX, to support Shuttle Landing Training. El Paso has an altitude of 4000' and high temperatures and the T-38 could not take off with a full load of fuel because of the inherent loss of thrust at a high density altitude airport. Northrop and GE had submitted bids to improve take off performance for considerable amounts of money. We had a budget of 10% of those bids and did the work in house. We presented our proposals to the Air Force at Randolph and at the Test Pilot at School Edwards, and to Bill Dana at NASA-Dryden. The Air Force declined to participate in the project. We tested the airplane in a static test stand at NASA-JSC and Edwards with and without a large bell mouth, large radius fixture to determine the thrust loss. From there we tested the proposed new design in the static test stand and high speed take off tests (non flying). Following that, we scabbed prototype inlets onto the test aircraft and began test flying the airplane. We provided the hardware to prototype a Test Pilot School aircraft at the same time. I think two students used it as their project. I don't have their report and know the airplane was quickly returned to normal configuration. Northrop did a CFD analysis of the design and found there was no drag increase form the new design at cruise conditions. NASA flew the prototype for about a year and a half for testing, which included some long distance trips to California and back. There was no problem flying the airplane to supersonic, which, for NASA, is usually only done for post maintenance flight test. When the testing was finished, by NASA Air Force and Navy test pilots, and we had shown the airplane could take off at El Paso with a temperatures up to 103 with a full load of fuel (originally 89 degrees), the decision was made to go into production. The modification was made during replacement of the wing load carrying bulkheads. Later, it was adopted by the Air Force and Navy. I have a web site which has this same information, including photos documenting the project and other Air Force and Navy T-38s. However, when I put a link to it in the comments, my comments don't seem to get published. If you put your phone number here or some means, I will send you the link.
@ronrogers
29 күн бұрын
Thanks and it seems my disparaging comments may have been in error. I need to find the original report that had the negative comments. I downloaded the SETP report that I thought had the negative comments, but I couldn't find them. Will keep searching but if I am in error, and it is looking more likely, I will do a post correcting the "dumbed down inlet" comments. Thanks for providing this information. My contact info is ron777300@gmail.com and 815-342-0149.
@deichblatt
29 күн бұрын
@@ronrogers i"m sending you the page right now. Thanks for the interest and the conversation
@ronrogers
29 күн бұрын
Was the testing performed at Edwards? Are you a Dryden/Armstrong NASA engineer? Did Mark Stucky do the flight test?
@williamfelker6963
Ай бұрын
This You Won't Believe, Here Goes . 5th Dec.1955 I Walk In Northrop Aircraft Corp Hawthorne Ca A New Employee Eighteen (18) yr Old . Head Hunters Interview Me At My High School Jan/1955 About My Blue Print Mechanical Drawing Presentation. Assemble By Los Angeles School District. NOTE: No Defense Contractor (Government) At That Time Could Not Hire Anyone Under Twenty One(21) And A Degree (Engineering ). With Their Owen Money Northrop Developing A Secret Trainer Fighter Aircraft Light Weight T38,N156, F5, and Later On F20, SM-62 Snark Intercontinental Cruise Missile OH I Forgot The Pentagon Oked This Exercise In Need Priority Because My Ability To Solves Paradox Problems . I Also Work On F101 Voodoo, F102 Delta Dagger F104 Starfighter The T38 Was Design To Teach / Train Pilots To Fly By The Numbers For The New Hundred Series Aircraft. T38 Bill Oakley Ca.
@ronrogers
Ай бұрын
Very interesting! Thanks!
@markpoullos
14 күн бұрын
Time stamp 6:11, Cockpit tour , WHAT AIRPLANE IS IT??? I can safely assume it is not a J- 3. However it would be nice to at least get a shot of the outside or tell us what cockpit you are looking at.
@ronrogers
14 күн бұрын
Well, that was the cockpit of the T-38C I had just walked up to.
@markpoullos
14 күн бұрын
@@ronrogers Thank You, However in reviewing the video ,Time stamp 5:35. All I see is green Paint and a little fuselage. I have a difficult time discerning aircraft by their paint close ups. I do realize however you were just talking about a Blue/White T-38 so I suspected it was another T-38 on the flight line. Perhaps the "Walk up Video should have started 50 feet away and not 3 inches away. Otherwise great video. Thanks again.
@ronrogers
14 күн бұрын
Sorry about that! I now see how that could be confusing. I have a lot to learn about doing video,. but I think I am improving as time goes on.
@markpoullos
13 күн бұрын
@@ronrogers No problem , I am glad you took my critique in the manner it was intended, It is not easy to shoot and edit video. Most of the aircraft videos I have taken ended up looking like a scene from the Movie , Blair witch project. Another challenge is addressing your intended audience. In other words; are you speaking to seasoned airmen or neophytes. If you switch between the them. Putting a short disclaimer in the Intro will sometimes help. Best of luck to you.
Пікірлер: 76