Does anyone do a 1/72 T-38 to go with my SR-71?

[Harry_the_Spider]

Thinking that my SR-71 may get lonely.

 

Would want one in the appropriate scheme, USAF not NASA.

[Giorgio N]

A 1/72 T-38 is a very hard to find beast !

The only real T-38 in this scale was the kit from Sword, one of their early short-run kits. This was available in several variants, of which the easier to find was the C. I'd have to check my references to see if any C was used in conjuction with the SR-71 fleet but IIRC they were all As.

Avoid the Hasegawa kit, it was just an F-5B with some modifications suggested in the instructions, a proper T-38 is quite a different aircraft. Same for the PM kit, that is also pretty bad in general.

Years ago there was an article on how to convert an F-5B into a T-38, starting from the very good Esci kit. It's not the simplest of jobs but can be done if you are so inclined.

 

If you don't mind changing scale, Wolfapack from Korean issued a series of very nice T-38 in 1/48. If you want to stick to 1/72 then you have a choice between searching for the Sword kit or converting an F-5B. Hopefully one day someone will issue a proper 1/72 kit of this aircraft

[Harry_the_Spider]

Thanks again Giorgio!

[John R]

Chris Tyler (CTmodeller) produced one using the Hasegawa F5B kit

 

[Giorgio N]

12 minutes ago, John R said:

Chris Tyler (CTmodeller) produced one using the Hasegawa F5B kit

 

 

I'd like to see a WIP of those kits to see what other changes were introduced to the kit, however in general modifying the intakes and the wing leading edges is not enough to convert the Hasegawa kit into a proper T-38. Among the main differences is the lower fuselage that in the F-5B is deeper than the T-38s in the wheel wells and airbrakes area and this leads to quite a different shape. The upper front fuselage profile is also different. An F-5B can be quickly made into a T-38 look-alike but to get to a proper T-38 there's quite some work to be done

[gingerbob]

4 hours ago, Giorgio N said:

The upper front fuselage profile is also different.

 

How so?  Not that I doubt you, it just doesn't ring the "yes, I know that" bell.

[Dave Swindell]

Nobody mentioned that Starfix did one? 

https://www.scalemates.com/kits/starfix-709-06-northrop-t-38-talon--195449

[Trenton guy]

I see what they called it but that’s not a T-38. It’s a F-5B. The intakes give it away.

[e8n2]

3 hours ago, Trenton guy said:

I see what they called it but that’s not a T-38. It’s a F-5B. The intakes give it away.

It also looks to be a copy of the Hasegawa kit.

Later,

Dave

[Hook]

6 hours ago, Trenton guy said:

The intakes give it away.

As well as the LEX's.

 

Cheers,

 

Andre

[Thomas Bell]

The color scheme you want for the Beale AFB T-38s is overall gloss black with insignia red markings. Hope this helps.

[CT7567]

11 hours ago, Thomas Bell said:

The color scheme you want for the Beale AFB T-38s is overall gloss black with insignia red markings. Hope this helps.

 

Actually for the "high visibility" era markings of his Blackbird the T-38s would still be in the classic white scheme:

http://www.habu.org/sr-71/17974.html

 

Wolfpak (RIP) did a 9th SRW Talon from the correct era on sheet 72-064, still available from Fantasy Printshop:

https://www.fantasyprintshop.co.uk/product/wolfpak-72-064-stars-in-their-courses/

 

If you prefer the ACC-era red-on-black scheme, those were done by TwoBobs - OOP for some time, but possibly available on the secondary market:

https://www.scalemates.com/kits/twobobs-aviation-graphics-72-053-t-38a--208738

 

 

 

[e8n2]

14 hours ago, Thomas Bell said:

The color scheme you want for the Beale AFB T-38s is overall gloss black with insignia red markings. Hope this helps.

Like CT7567 said.  All black for T-38s with tail codes came in after dumba$$ McPeak, who wouldn't know history if it slapped him up one side and down the other saying "I'm history you idiot, learn from me!", decided to change everything and SAC went away and most of the SAC assets, like the SR-71 were moved over to ACC (really TAC with just a new name) in `92.  I hate how I can still remember that individual's name. 

Later,

Dave

[Giorgio N]

On 9/23/2022 at 3:14 PM, gingerbob said:

 

How so?  Not that I doubt you, it just doesn't ring the "yes, I know that" bell.

 

I remember when I considered a conversion of an F-5B how I noticed that both this and the T-38 have a "triangular" shaped fairing ahead of the windscreen but these differed in shape.

I would have to go over the pictures again to verify this and properly check how different they are. Or I could compare the Wolfpack Talon with the Esci F-5B since both are pretty good shapewise

[Thomas Bell]

9 hours ago, e8n2 said:

Like CT7567 said.  All black for T-38s with tail codes came in after dumba$$ McPeak, who wouldn't know history if it slapped him up one side and down the other saying "I'm history you idiot, learn from me!", decided to change everything and SAC went away and most of the SAC assets, like the SR-71 were moved over to ACC (really TAC with just a new name) in `92.  I hate how I can still remember that individual's name. 

Later,

Dave

I recall at the time the SR-71 was first shut down, it was revealed that Gen. McPeak had been rejected by the SR-71 program and this was his revenge. 

[e8n2]

13 hours ago, Thomas Bell said:

I recall at the time the SR-71 was first shut down, it was revealed that Gen. McPeak had been rejected by the SR-71 program and this was his revenge. 

I doubt if that was it.  We had to watch a tape of him explaining why he was doing what he was doing.  He ain't no student of history.  He said that fighters were flying strategic missions in Vietnam and that was part of the reason why he wanted to consolidate SAC and TAC.  I guess he never heard about P-51s and P-47 flying strategic missions escorting B-17s and B-24s over Europe or B-29s in the Pacific, or just flying strategic missions themselves (P-38s and P-47s) in the Pacific during WW II.  He also didn't take notice of SAC having a number of Fighter Groups assigned up until the mid 50s, or how TAC had bombers (B-57s) and tankers (KB-50s) of their own up until the mid 60s.  No, no use looking at history when you want to make a name for yourself as changing things in the Air Force.  At least they could have come up with all new command patches.  No, that would make too much sense.  So no more SAC patches, but TAC and MAC patches abound but with new names.  The idiot also didn't figure out for a year or so that there was a reason that SAC was the single source manager for tanker aircraft.  When things got really screwed up with scheduling tankers to fly all their required missions he decided to move all but a handful of tankers to AMC (the old MAC) to fix the problem.  So now except for the few tankers still held by ACC, AMC is the source manager for tankers.

Later,

Dave

 

If McPeak had been turned down for the SR-71 program, it shows he was not one of the best pilots around at the time.  It may also explain more than just monetary concerns for ending the program.  It would also show how petty and vindictive the schmuck was.

[Pantherhawk27263]

On 9/27/2022 at 12:32 AM, e8n2 said:

Like CT7567 said.  All black for T-38s with tail codes came in after dumba$$ McPeak, who wouldn't know history if it slapped him up one side and down the other saying "I'm history you idiot, learn from me!", decided to change everything and SAC went away and most of the SAC assets, like the SR-71 were moved over to ACC (really TAC with just a new name) in `92.  I hate how I can still remember that individual's name. 

Later,

Dave

Merrill McPeak.

[e8n2]

13 hours ago, Pantherhawk27263 said:

Merrill McPeak.

Just remembering McPeak was bad enough.

Later,

Dave