T-38 VC images, and other Milviz updates 7 Dec, 2010

[Roadburner440]

Good evening ladies and gents. Has been awhile since I have posted an official update here, but behind the scenes like always we have been pushing things forward pretty well. I will start off by saying the F-15E Alpha is progressing, and we are working on build V5 now. Still not quite ready for the limelight, but most likely in a build cycle or 2 we will start putting more and more out. The testers are definately eager to share this aircraft with everyone. On the T-38 front we have just recieved the VC back from painting (as a matter of fact I only saw it just a few minutes ago). I must say to me it looks very impressive, and by far our best VC yet. You all can be the judge of that for yourselves though as after all they are only renders. Bernt has been working very hard on the FDE, so once the model is finished with paint it will all be merged together and we will start Alpha testing that. With all of that in mind, and the end of the year around the corner we at Milviz want to wish everyone a Merry Christmas, and a happy New Year!! While I will be around of course I think this will be the last official Milviz post until after the start of 2011 (might be a suprise thrown in you never know, but looking at what we have going on right now I think we will be deep in development for a few weeks).

Before I get to the screens I would like to touch off on a personal point while I have everyones attention. Also as a fellow customer in our community I have not seen it touched on over here (maybe I missed it), but PMDG have released their paper manuals for the upcoming 737NGX. I am HIGHLY excited about this as I have their MD-11X, and look very forward to the NG release. Just wanted to let everyone here know in case you missed it! I know most of you might care less about tubeliners, but I am sure there are some like me who like to mix it up every once and awhile. So now without further delay here are the screens of the upcoming Milviz T-38A!

http://i519.photobucket.com/albums/u359/Roadburner426/T-38/t-381.jpg

http://i519.photobucket.com/albums/u359/Roadburner426/T-38/t-383.jpg

http://i519.photobucket.com/albums/u359/Roadburner426/T-38/t-382.jpg

http://i519.photobucket.com/albums/u359/Roadburner426/T-38/t-384.jpg

http://i519.photobucket.com/albums/u359/Roadburner426/T-38/t-385.jpg

http://i519.photobucket.com/albums/u359/Roadburner426/T-38/t-386.jpg

http://i519.photobucket.com/albums/u359/Roadburner426/T-38/t-387.jpg

http://i519.photobucket.com/albums/u359/Roadburner426/T-38/t-388.jpg

[Warrant]

SWEET!:salute::jump:

[Chunk]

Holy cow, that looks outstanding!

[Rattler]

You guys are doing it Big, I cant wait for this Bird, Aswell as the f-15`s in the Works!!!

Keep up the good Work gents!!

:salute::salute::salute:

[FlameOut]

Oh yea, baby!!!:jawdrop:

[MenendezDiego]

Hows she look in FSX?

[Sundog]

Looks simply amazing. Well done.:salute:

[krazycolin]

Uh just one point. these are NOT renders. This is exactly what the model looks like in max and, therefore, what it will look like in FSX. Poly count is well under 160K.

[Roadburner440]

Don't have the T-38 in FSX yet. We are still waiting to recieve the fuselage from paint. Bernt has been using a random aircraft to work on the FDE until the models were finished. Not to far behind this A model the C model should be coming back from paint as well.. F-15E is looking good though. Just trying to get all the systems working the way they should, and ironing out bugs. Still working on adding features to the F-15 so. The T-38A will be a smoother process due to its simplicity, and it doesn't have weapons.. The T-38C is going to be a bit more of a challenge as it has a glass cockpit with a HUD. Things are on the up and up though.

EDIT: My bad, thought they were renders. To me if it isn't in FSX it is a render. :icon_lol:

[JAllen]

Looks real enough to me. Speechless

[Scratch]

Looks alot like jmig's sim pit.

[Txmmy83]

awesome is my only comment on that VC:ernae:
will the T-38 be an Independant Milviz Product like the C310 and Published via Flight1?


Best Regards
Tom

[BOOM]

Thx for the early xmas gift!! That's about the most realistic pit I've seen!! Bravo!! I'm really enjoying your fine C310R Also!
Danke!!
Happy Holidays to you

[Roadburner440]

I am not going to go into details on where future products will be offered, but yes it is an independant Milviz product worked on by the very same team that did the 310 (plus some new members that have added a lot of new knowledge, and we are exploring a lot of new ideas for these products).. We will save that for a future update though, lol.

[strykerpsg]

As is typical for MILVIZ, outstanding work! I'm not sure I was really looking for a T-38, but after seeing this, may just have to occupy a position in my hangar. I have yet to be disappointed by MILVIZ. Thanks MILVIZ team.

Matt

[DaveKDEN]

Been many a year since I sat in a T-38 cockpit, but that's the most accurate FS rendition of the classic T-38A pit I've seen!

[MenendezDiego]

Don't have the T-38 in FSX yet. We are still waiting to recieve the fuselage from paint. Bernt has been using a random aircraft to work on the FDE until the models were finished. Not to far behind this A model the C model should be coming back from paint as well.. F-15E is looking good though. Just trying to get all the systems working the way they should, and ironing out bugs. Still working on adding features to the F-15 so. The T-38A will be a smoother process due to its simplicity, and it doesn't have weapons.. The T-38C is going to be a bit more of a challenge as it has a glass cockpit with a HUD. Things are on the up and up though.

EDIT: My bad, thought they were renders. To me if it isn't in FSX it is a render. :icon_lol:


Sounds good.

Speaking of HUD's...could you guys please not simply tweak the FSX Hornet Hud for your future releases (F-15C/E, T-38C)?

HUD's can make or break a model, we'd all really appreciate a smooth accurate collomated HUD.

Regards, Diego and thanks for the updates

[ColoKent]

On the T-38A, can we please have:

1. A version with a travel pod (naturally!)
2. A paint kit

I want to do ALL of the NASA schemes from delivery in 1965 to today!!!!

Kent

[Roadburner440]

You guys will like what you see.. These are not re-hashes what we did with FSD and the YF-23. The F-15's, and T-38's are getting their own custom HUD's and systems based on the true Tech Orders. In fact I have a folder full of T-38 HUD video's that Colin sent to me and the team just to get the look and feel of it right in the T-38C. So it will not be a shell running the Acceleration F-18 avionics. They will be stand alone products that have their own custom avionics sets.. Accleration will be required however on these models due to the anomolies that happened with the 310 and the landing/taxi lights. For some reason there is something different in the SDK between SP1/SP2 and Acceleration that cannot be explained through any amount of coding or documentation. I think everyone will like what they see though. We really are looking at quite a few new concepts as far as development/programming is concearned. The F-15E will best show case some of this stuff as the T-38 is a less complex bird.

To the best of our knowledge the T-38A's did not have weapons (therefore it would be impossible to put a pod on it without a bomb rack to attach it to). I may very well be wrong in that. We do know there were some T-38A's modified by NASA as you describe, but they were custom jobs that would have very little documentation available for us to replicate. Some sources I have seen pin that pod as some kind of weather radar. Here are photos of it calling it a baggage pod though.
http://www.aircraftresourcecenter.com/AWA2/1001-1100/walk1029-T-38-Kubes/14.shtm

http://s20.photobucket.com/albums/b229/DDonSS3/T-38%20NASA/?action=view&current=IMG025.jpg

[Roadburner440]

Just wanted to put up that I just went through the T.O. IT-38A-1 and nowhere in this pub does it reference the pod, or any type of station there to mount the stuff. Which leads me to believe my point above is correct, and these were one off NASA modifications. It would appear to me that NASA modified them with stations from a F-5 in order to perform experiments. Would be easier I think to just use a F-5, but that's the government for you. It looks to me as if this station is riveted into the airframe.. I just don't understand why some have it, and others dont. Our is going to be a clean model. So I apologize for the inconvenience on that. I don't even see any switches to release/jettison anything on that station.

http://rogerritter.com/images/aviation/Mi7T-38/File0025.jpg

[JAMIE]

Uh just one point. these are NOT renders. This is exactly what the model looks like in max and, therefore, what it will look like in FSX. Poly count is well under 160K.

OMG OMG

[krazycolin]

Sounds good.

Speaking of HUD's...could you guys please not simply tweak the FSX Hornet Hud for your future releases (F-15C/E, T-38C)?

HUD's can make or break a model, we'd all really appreciate a smooth accurate collomated HUD.

Regards, Diego and thanks for the updates

Go here:

http://www.youtube.com/user/milvizinc?feature=mhum

[ColoKent]

...it wasn't just NASA using the travel pod, but the whole Air Force-- every unit has pods. It is a common loadout on cross country flights.

Additionally, on a different topic, there were a limited number of USAF T-38Bs that did have provision for centerline SUU gun pods and practice bomb dispensers for use in FLIT-- Flighter Lead In-Training at Holloman AFB in the 60s-90s. But the travel pod was MUCH more common.

So, it's a bummer about only having a clean model.

K

[krazycolin]

It will have the pod. No worries.

[skyhawka4m]

25053

here we see the "common" USAF style baggage pod. Note the pylon style...

25054


25055

[skyhawka4m]

25056

25057

25058

[krazycolin]

The NASA guys have less clothes? They're smaller? They only have one pair of skivvies?

[Bone]

Having grown up on and around USAF bases, I can remember seeing T-38's with travel pods as far back as the 1970's. They had 'em, no doubt.

[strykerpsg]

The NASA guys have less clothes? They're smaller? They only have one pair of skivvies?
Nope, just wearing their Depends diapers. :icon_lol:

[deathfromafar]

Quite magnificent work there. :salute:

Looks so close to real it's incredible! A good high def T-Birds paint seems fitting as well.

[Roadburner440]

My apologies on the whole pod thing. I find it odd though they do not reference it in the original T.O. for the bird.. I know in our NATOPS it tells you everything that can be carried at any given station. It doesn't even list a ventral station for the T-38 in its book. So were they just unable to jettison it? Obviously it is probably only a couple hundred pounds, and probably has very little effect on anything critical. At least it will be included though.

[muletrain]

That looks quite authentic to me...even to the visible wear and tear and gauge placement.
Well done :salute:

[ColoKent]

....The small pod is the size used on the T-38As (Air Training Command and NASA). The Bigger pods are the jury-rigged ones seen on the AT-38B weapons trainer.

Overall, the small pod is the standard-- so can we please have the small one?

Thanks,

Kent

aka: "The travel pod connoisseur"

[bstolle]

Interestingly it looks like there aren't any performance data in any manual for any pod available...

[Barfly]

As I recall we had a few at Vance AFB - you couldn't often take one cross country as the "Wing- King" and others had priority to use it over a line guy. I'm sure it was the smaller type, cobbled together out of old cut up and rewelded napalm canisters. Kind of a tube with obviously welded on end caps. It could be attached to and removed from any T-38A by maintenance.

[Roadburner440]

My question though Barfly is this... So the pod is some kind of hobbled together canister from parts and what not, but is that a weapons station on the bottom of the T-38? Or is it some kind hobbled together station that you just attach this pod to and bolt/rivet to the bottom of the airframe somehow?

[jmig]

The T-38A "Travel Pod" had an integral pylon that bolted on to the belly of the bird. Every wing had them for cross-country overnight flights. They were standard equipment and not some kind of hobbled together canister. ;)

[Barfly]

You're right jmig, it wasn't hobbled, it was cobbled, lol jk. There must be some formation pictures somewhere of the bottom of the plane, maybe in an echelon turn, so you can see boltholes or whatever's down there.

[ColoKent]

...they were/are a standard, bolt on affair, designed specifically as a travel pod. In fact there are two latches, and it slides open like a drawer. See this links to Airliners.net:

http://www.airliners.net/photo/NASA/Northrop-T-38N-Talon/1336711/&sid=70df51dbe17e14d7be1b21a1f9d38055

And...

http://www.airliners.net/photo/NASA/Northrop-T-38N-Talon/0929662/&sid=70df51dbe17e14d7be1b21a1f9d38055

This is the standard AF/NASA pod for the T-38A. :jump:

Another quick question: On the main gear retract cycle, will the fuselage gear doors open during extension, then close (and stay closed) once the gear is down? Just wondered...

Kent

[krazycolin]

doors? what doors? KIDDING. yes. they will open and then close just like they do on the real thing. We did the F-5 for AS so we have done this "type" before.

no worries.

[ColoKent]

....this is going to be GOOD. Can't wait for some external shots when they are available...

Kent

[Rattler]

Here is a Pic of a T-38 from up the road at Holloman AFB NM


http://www.airliners.net/photo/USA---Air/Northrop-T-38A-Talon/1448564/&sid=03602061a0928a866f11a4751e1f32c8

[n4gix]

Here is an interesting discussion on the subject of "travel pods," which includes some very good closeups of one mounted on a T-38:
http://www.arcforums.com/forums/air/lofiversion/index.php?t174853.html

http://media.photobucket.com/image/MXU-648%20t-38/DDonSS3/T-38%20Talon/3816.jpg

If you type MXU-648 into your google.com search with the "Images" filter selected, you'll find a whole bunch of closeup photos as well...

This company apparently is now the prime manufacturer/supplier of the MXU travel pods:
https://www.cobham.com/media/75413/MXU_NGCP%20ADV10595.pdf

[Roadburner440]

I guess I will stop trying to wrap my head around this travel pod thing. I am just trying to figure out where/how this station comes from. Being weapons qualified on the SH-60B I know from my perspective what it takes to put weapons/stores on an aircraft. I have never seen an entire pylon that was removable like this which is I suppose what I am trying to understand. On the H-60 the pylon is a part of the airframe, and we just remove/install the BRU-14A bomb racks in order to be able to load stores and what not.. Not to mention we are able to jettison/drop/launch said stores which I thought was a requirement of any external object of an aircraft which is why I was combing the T.O. trying to figure out where the panel is that controls this station. I suppose I am just looking to far into it, as I am just trying to understand for my own knowledge. I really need to go to the fixed wing community and see how this stuff really works... I apologize in that process if I have offended anyone. Not questioning anyones experience with this bird. I am just naturally curious about ALL aircraft, and when I come to something I do not understand how/why it came to be on an airframe I just like to know how it works. Not being able to find it in documentation just makes it that much more mind boggling for me. :ernae:

[Lateral-G]

I guess I will stop trying to wrap my head around this travel pod thing. I am just trying to figure out where/how this station comes from. Being weapons qualified on the SH-60B I know from my perspective what it takes to put weapons/stores on an aircraft. I have never seen an entire pylon that was removable like this which is I suppose what I am trying to understand. On the H-60 the pylon is a part of the airframe, and we just remove/install the BRU-14A bomb racks in order to be able to load stores and what not.. Not to mention we are able to jettison/drop/launch said stores which I thought was a requirement of any external object of an aircraft which is why I was combing the T.O. trying to figure out where the panel is that controls this station. I suppose I am just looking to far into it, as I am just trying to understand for my own knowledge. I really need to go to the fixed wing community and see how this stuff really works... I apologize in that process if I have offended anyone. Not questioning anyones experience with this bird. I am just naturally curious about ALL aircraft, and when I come to something I do not understand how/why it came to be on an airframe I just like to know how it works. Not being able to find it in documentation just makes it that much more mind boggling for me. :ernae:

On fighter aircraft the pylons are separate from the airframe. There are hardpoints built into the fuselage or wing structure to which the pylons are bolted to. Then the stores/weapons/travel pods/fuel tanks are attached to the pylon. Depending on the mission those pylons will either be attached by the ground crew or left off. When you see an aircraft with no pylons or external stores it's referred to as being in the 'clean' condition.

On the T-38/F-5 there is a centerline station that has a dedicated pylon for it. You can affix various loads to that pylon (fuel tank, travel pod, bombs, etc.)

Typically you see travel pods when the aircraft is ferrying from point to point and it allows the crew to carry their luggage (or beer :kilroy: ).

-G-

[Roadburner440]

Beer? That's what the sonobuoy launcher tubes are for on the SH-60B (hard liquor). :engel016: No external pod required, lol.

[Barfly]

That MXU pod is exactly the one I remember as standard at UPT bases, it's not the slick one seen in NASA photos. BLU 27 cut up and rewelded. It literally does look like it was cobbled together by maybe a metal bender at depot level maintenance in the AF at some point. Not contract quality work, but functional.

[n4gix]

There is an interesting anecdote in the first link I posted. Apparently the travel pod was attached "backwards" for one flight, and the result was that the air pressure increased to the point that the pod blew open, scattering the poor pilots' undies all over the landscape... :)

[skyhawka4m]

25315

25316

25317

[skyhawka4m]

25318

How about a rocket pod/practise bomb dispencer?

25319

http://www.aviationspectator.com/files/images/T-38-Talon-trainer-068.jpg

[krazycolin]

We will do the portapoddy but nothing else

[Bone]

portapoddy

... LOL

[fliger747]

Definitly cutting edge!

As to the PMDG 737 Nexgen series, should be quite nice as well. I worked with them on the 747-400's. The FMC/autoflight system requirig the most work. The 737 will involve a similar amount of effort. The FMC systems are different in the 737 series. Got out of the small birds before the new series came along, so not much help!

However a quality 737-200 might be a great addon for someone. A less steep learning curve for a realistic implimentation.

T