I was a crew chief on the T-33 from 1956 til 1960. We put the ladder on the left side of the aircraft to access the cockpit. When I watch the video`s of the T-33 on you/tube and hear the engine sound when taxing out for take/off it sure brings back memories.
I was a crew chief on t-33s from 1962 to 1966. Sure brings back a lot of memories. I had a run-up and taxi license and had the opportunity to taxi T-33s out to the run-up area for various tests. I often thought about what it would be like to just taxi out to the runway and take off.
I also had a run up & taxi license. I had the same feeling when burning in the brakes. I would get it up to about 85-90 mph when doing this. I also flew in the T-Bird. I am sure that I could take it off, but landing it is another question !!
Michael Donovan below wrote the T33 burns 300 gallons per hour at cruise setting. That means 5 gallons per minute at $5 per gallon = $25 per minute in fuel alone.
He said it is going to a "good owner" - would have to be someone with a monster wallet! Even at "only" 300gph at cruise, at today's prices (what, 6 bucks a gallon?) that's $1,800 per hour for fuel ONLY. Maintenance would be a massive amount of money. Having worked these jets, avionics wise; instrument system wise, RADAR wise, etc (not this one) they ALWAYS come back with write-ups. Maintenance intensive is an understatement. But, if you have the money, you can have the fun.
50cal? Ever flown in a T-Bird? Definitely NOT a lemon! I fly Cessnas, etc., too. And the fun meter is pegged in a T-33. Id' say the ratio goes about like this: Fun / gph (T-33) > fun / gph (C-172)
@50caliberFistFK Jets aren't particularly efficient to start with, and the T-33 uses one of the first generation of jet engines, so it's particularly bad. For several years after the U.S. got its early jet fighters (the T-33 is just a two-seat version of the F-80 fighter), it continued to keep piston-engined fighters in service, since the early jets were such fuel hogs that they had terrible range and endurance.
Why would we ever want to know the tail number? I can answer that. It would allow us to check our logbooks to see if, in a previous lifetime, real or imagined, we may have flown it. In the RCAF of the sixties, for example. And in this case, no, I didn't.
WTF? This doof sounds like a cop all drunk on his authority. He's not explaining anything; he's issuing a series of commands. At the risk of being shot in the back, I clicked out early. Way early...
Worked as a Maintainer back in 1997 to 2003 with 414Sqn right before they retired the T-33.......One of the best times of my life!
An absolutely beautiful aircraft!
I was a crew chief on the T-33 from 1956 til 1960. We put the ladder on the left side of the aircraft to access the cockpit. When I watch the video`s of the T-33 on you/tube and hear the engine sound when taxing out for take/off it sure brings back memories.
I was a crew chief on t-33s from 1962 to 1966. Sure brings back a lot of memories. I had a run-up and taxi license and had the opportunity to taxi T-33s out to the run-up area for various tests. I often thought about what it would be like to just taxi out to the runway and take off.
I also had a run up & taxi license. I had the same feeling when burning in the brakes. I would get it up to about 85-90 mph when doing this. I also flew in the T-Bird. I am sure that I could take it off, but landing it is another question !!
Michael Donovan below wrote the T33 burns 300 gallons per hour at cruise setting. That means 5 gallons per minute at $5 per gallon = $25 per minute in fuel alone.
Lost my dad in a T-33 accident in Okinawa in 1959.Never found my dad or the plane.
@50caliberFistFK I flew them in Canada in 1953. A t33 uses 300 gallons of kerosene per hour on average
He said it is going to a "good owner" - would have to be someone with a monster wallet! Even at "only" 300gph at cruise, at today's prices (what, 6 bucks a gallon?) that's $1,800 per hour for fuel ONLY. Maintenance would be a massive amount of money. Having worked these jets, avionics wise; instrument system wise, RADAR wise, etc (not this one) they ALWAYS come back with write-ups. Maintenance intensive is an understatement. But, if you have the money, you can have the fun.
50cal? Ever flown in a T-Bird? Definitely NOT a lemon! I fly Cessnas, etc., too. And the fun meter is pegged in a T-33. Id' say the ratio goes about like this:
Fun / gph (T-33) > fun / gph (C-172)
68 FIS SQ Itazuke Japan T Bird Crew Chief 405 1956-1960.
@50caliberFistFK Jets aren't particularly efficient to start with, and the T-33 uses one of the first generation of jet engines, so it's particularly bad. For several years after the U.S. got its early jet fighters (the T-33 is just a two-seat version of the F-80 fighter), it continued to keep piston-engined fighters in service, since the early jets were such fuel hogs that they had terrible range and endurance.
Why would we ever want to know the tail number?
to see if "we" flew it.
Pilot of F-4E ?
The tail number gives the date the contract was let for that block of air craft.
"moving accrost"
Why would we ever want to know the tail number? I can answer that. It would allow us to check our logbooks to see if, in a previous lifetime, real or imagined, we may have flown it. In the RCAF of the sixties, for example. And in this case, no, I didn't.
Pésimo el camarógrafo, no se alcanza a percibir los instrumentos de la cabina.
WTF? This doof sounds like a cop all drunk on his authority. He's not explaining anything; he's issuing a series of commands. At the risk of being shot in the back, I clicked out early. Way early...