I was a Navy maintenance tech on the T-2C Buckeye. Airframe's, hydraulics tech. 1977-1980. Back seat qualified. Received my private license at Corpus Christi through Beeville Municipal airport. Traron 26 NAS Chase. 20hrs back seat time as an enlisted AMH3, plane captain and CDI. Awesome flying machine. I have old 8mm film from back then transferred to DVD.
My experience many years ago. Poor quality of the film as it was in storage 30 years. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-Yr8p8HyMIzc.htmlsi=MqvELLL0fj9Ht_77
Rolling Stones does this song. The T-2, always a favorite. Love to get a ride in one sometime. And I do believe it takes more than a lottery win to keep this in the air, at today's prices.
"If I ever win big in the lottery I'll find a T-2 for myself." Aesthetically, I get where you're coming from, but these T-2 airframes are BEAT. The newest ones rolled off the line during the Vietnam War, and the "firstest" ones date to the *late 50s*... not to mention they're used for *carrier landings*. =:O Same for the uber-sexy T-38 used in the same role by The USAF (except for the carrier traps, obvs.) Peeps talk about gov't waste, but both services squeezed *every last penny* out of these long-serving models. Yeah, they've been refurb'd and re-winged and re-engined, but still... you'd be way farther ahead getting a low-mileage (German) Alpha Jet, or for even lower operating costs (and greater sexiness + American engine) the Italian MB-339 is hard to beat... can't believe the MB-339 never got a proper NAME... I'm leaning towards Gazelle... or Minx. :D
I have a T-2B with less than half its fatigue life used up - a VERY long way from "beat"! Great aircraft. I've flown Hunters, MiG 15, L-29 and L-39 and the T-2 impresses by having such fine controls, such a roomy cockpit and just so much grunt low down (6000 lbs thrust against typical weight of 10 000 lbs) that it is better than all but the Hunter, and it has the advantage of two engine reliability...
