Welcome to Flightinfo.com
- Register now and join the discussion
- Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
- Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
- Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
- Share the passion for aviation
- Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun
B-1b
- Thread starter psysicx
- Start date
- Watchers 6
Welcome to Flightinfo.com
- Register now and join the discussion
- Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
- Invite your friends
- Share the passion of aviation
- Friendliest aviation community on the web
Im not a military pilot nor do i have much imput but it pretty much depends on the person. Someone like me would be happy flying a C-5....give me a B-1B and id be like a pig in $h!t. A guy like huggy that is use to flying a T-38 would probably have a problem with it.....who knows. Imagine flying a plane like the B-1B and thats about the same reaction everyone is going to have. Deployments and amount of flight time im not sure about.
Groundpounder
Well-known member
- Joined
- Oct 19, 2003
- Posts
- 704
VVJM265
Well-known member
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2005
- Posts
- 497
spanky2
For God, Family, Country
- Joined
- Feb 7, 2003
- Posts
- 271
Pounder,
Military pilots get payed by rank and time in service. What type of plane you fly and how much you flight it has no effect on pay. There are / used to be bonuses for longer commitments, etc. QOL does vary. Fighters are deployed a bunch. Bombers, too. Cargo guys are gone all of the time. Trainer guys hardly ever go anywhere.
Military pilots get payed by rank and time in service. What type of plane you fly and how much you flight it has no effect on pay. There are / used to be bonuses for longer commitments, etc. QOL does vary. Fighters are deployed a bunch. Bombers, too. Cargo guys are gone all of the time. Trainer guys hardly ever go anywhere.
psysicx said:
Woulda coulda shoulda... know one DESERVES anything. Needs of the service come first, and everyone knows it when you sign up. Ya it sucks to not get your first choice, but you're getting paid to fly and blow sh!t up. For every guy bitching about what he "should have gotten" there's 10,000 guys out there that would give their left nut to have their flight training paid for, and the chance to fly ANYTHING.
talondriver
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 3, 2002
- Posts
- 330
psysicx said:
I enjoyed my beloved "Bongo 52" back in the day
. I was a prior BUFF nav so I'm kinda bias as far as bombers go.SUPT is totally different now. In the fighter track, a lot of students are trained towards flying single seat aircraft. So, when a guy/gal gets a BUFF or a BOne, of course they're going to be bummed. The students that get bombers out of the T-38 track deserve them. There's actually some wheeling and dealing going on between the SUPT bases to procure a bomber if we think a student might end up as a pile of goo in the desert because they didn't belong in a single seat aircraft.
Last edited:
You know, I wanted "my fighter" too, but didn't get it. Guess what: I got over it and love what I did get to do. Plus, I've got a lot of friends that flew fighters and found out it wasn't what they necessarily wanted to do after all. Everyone's different. With what I know now, I'm much happier in the career track I'm in than I would be had I gotten "my fighter" (although I'd still kill to go fly the A-10 for 3 years).
Think about this: you're at an airshow, and some kid wants you to tell him about being a military pilot. You say, "I hate having to go fly this very cool airplane. It's not what I wanted after graduation." You think anyone's going to have sympathy for you?
As for who gets fighters and who doesn't: I spent 7 years in AETC (the training command). Deciding who gets fighters because they are number 1 in their class is much like deciding who should be a law firm partner based on their freshman gradepoint average. Some pilots don't improve that much after UPT, some take another year or two and become incredible. I saw that back when "heavy guys" could come back and fly the T-38. They may have been middle of the road as UPT students, but many of them matured and became top-notch pilots and instructors. And I saw the opposite with some fighter pilots.
Don't get me wrong: we sent a lot of top-notch guys to their dream assignment, and many have done real well. But the ones that were not top graduates wouldn't have necessarily ended up as a pile of goo in the desert.
So, what's the bottom line? Military flight training is a great deal. Consider it as such, and be thankful you've got wings on your chest. They're invaluable.
Think about this: you're at an airshow, and some kid wants you to tell him about being a military pilot. You say, "I hate having to go fly this very cool airplane. It's not what I wanted after graduation." You think anyone's going to have sympathy for you?
As for who gets fighters and who doesn't: I spent 7 years in AETC (the training command). Deciding who gets fighters because they are number 1 in their class is much like deciding who should be a law firm partner based on their freshman gradepoint average. Some pilots don't improve that much after UPT, some take another year or two and become incredible. I saw that back when "heavy guys" could come back and fly the T-38. They may have been middle of the road as UPT students, but many of them matured and became top-notch pilots and instructors. And I saw the opposite with some fighter pilots.
Don't get me wrong: we sent a lot of top-notch guys to their dream assignment, and many have done real well. But the ones that were not top graduates wouldn't have necessarily ended up as a pile of goo in the desert.
So, what's the bottom line? Military flight training is a great deal. Consider it as such, and be thankful you've got wings on your chest. They're invaluable.
Groundpounder
Well-known member
- Joined
- Oct 19, 2003
- Posts
- 704
hindsight2020
Yeah Buddy
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2004
- Posts
- 235
Needs of the Force, bottom line.
I'm glad a senior guy said this, I think that provides INCREDIBLE perspective to the argument. I'll hold on to that one until I can spout it myself
Question to steer back this thread a little bit...Do the B-X(x) folks get recurrent training on the -38 or is it a scenario where the next time they'll ever see -38 time is if they go IP with AETC?
Huggyu2 said:
I'm glad a senior guy said this, I think that provides INCREDIBLE perspective to the argument. I'll hold on to that one until I can spout it myself
Question to steer back this thread a little bit...Do the B-X(x) folks get recurrent training on the -38 or is it a scenario where the next time they'll ever see -38 time is if they go IP with AETC?
Psysicx,
Minimal restrictions. We've got a mature group of aviators (well, sort of) here, and they use the T-38 to augment their lack of U-2 flying in the CONUS. We fly the T-38 pretty much "by the book" as far as the Training Command would be concerned. Most local sorties entail the following: instrument approach training, IMC and VMC unusual attitudes, stalls/slow flight, aerobatics, emergency patterns/landings (no flap and single engine), plus strange field procedures (we've got a number of towered airports that we can do approaches at nearby).
We've got other programs too, like formation flying, but you've got the idea.
When we go cross-country or out-and-back, we need towered airports, with 8000' of runway, and gov't fuel contract if it's a civilian field. However, due to T-38 performance data, in summer, we often need more than 8000' to be on the safe side.
The old "ACE" program (Accelerated Copilot Enrichment) that used the T-37 and T-38 for tanker, recce, and bomber copilots, went away around 1995. Now, Air Combat Command has 41 T-38A's that are used for the "Companion Trainer Program" (CTP). Beale has 13 that they use for the U-2 program; Whiteman has 14 for B-2 support (very similar to the U-2 CTP system); and Holloman has 14 they use for F-117 support: there are no 2-seat F-117's, so the Stealth IP's use the T-38 to chase the new -117 pilots.
From what I've seen, Gen Loh (or was it Ralston?) made a big mistake taking away the ACE program. It paid huge dividends for minimal cost, IMHO. But, Loh/Ralston were fighter pilots and probably "didn't get it" when they cancelled the ACE program for the drivers of crew aircraft.
Minimal restrictions. We've got a mature group of aviators (well, sort of) here, and they use the T-38 to augment their lack of U-2 flying in the CONUS. We fly the T-38 pretty much "by the book" as far as the Training Command would be concerned. Most local sorties entail the following: instrument approach training, IMC and VMC unusual attitudes, stalls/slow flight, aerobatics, emergency patterns/landings (no flap and single engine), plus strange field procedures (we've got a number of towered airports that we can do approaches at nearby).
We've got other programs too, like formation flying, but you've got the idea.
When we go cross-country or out-and-back, we need towered airports, with 8000' of runway, and gov't fuel contract if it's a civilian field. However, due to T-38 performance data, in summer, we often need more than 8000' to be on the safe side.
The old "ACE" program (Accelerated Copilot Enrichment) that used the T-37 and T-38 for tanker, recce, and bomber copilots, went away around 1995. Now, Air Combat Command has 41 T-38A's that are used for the "Companion Trainer Program" (CTP). Beale has 13 that they use for the U-2 program; Whiteman has 14 for B-2 support (very similar to the U-2 CTP system); and Holloman has 14 they use for F-117 support: there are no 2-seat F-117's, so the Stealth IP's use the T-38 to chase the new -117 pilots.
From what I've seen, Gen Loh (or was it Ralston?) made a big mistake taking away the ACE program. It paid huge dividends for minimal cost, IMHO. But, Loh/Ralston were fighter pilots and probably "didn't get it" when they cancelled the ACE program for the drivers of crew aircraft.
Last edited:
hindsight2020
Yeah Buddy
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2004
- Posts
- 235
Share this page
Latest resources
-
-
-
-
-
AC 90-89C - Amateur-Built Aircraft and Ultralight Flight Testing HandbookAmateur-Built Aircraft and Ultralight Flight Testing Handbook
- Neal
- Updated:
