Dumb question on the Lockheed T-33

[marine air]

Last year I heard that Chris Rounds bought the Former Eaa's , former Jim Robinson T-33 that had been sitting outside at Oshkosh for 10 years, installed a tailpipe and got a ferry permit and flew it home. He paid $25,000 for the bird. Last year I also met and talked to Col. Robert K. Hahn a mustang ace with 1500 hrs. in the P-51 including Korea. Favorite airplane? His 2500 hours in the T-Bird. Come to think of it, everyone I've ever met that flew the T-Bird in the military or civilian owned/and or got an LOA, puts it as their favorite aircraft.
Like bad DNA, the T-33 airframes carry a death sentence. No one can afford their 400 to 600gph. fuel burn. That's why you can pick one up for $100 grand licensed and flying. (1/3 of an L-39). Chris Rounds said if you "baby it" you can get the fuel burn down to 200gph. Does that mean going up to altitude, reducing the power to flight idle and gliding back to the airport?
My question; Can't anyone figure out a way to get rid of that allison J-33 obselete engine and fit something else in the fuselage to maintain performance and reduce fuel consumption by 1/2 to 2/3rd's ???

[bdk]

Been done, didn't sell!

http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/b ... kyfox.html

http://www.highgallery.com/military-air ... kyfox.html

Costs
The operating and support costs of the Skyfox were less than that of the T-33 and could compete with the costs of the Hawk and the Alpha Jet. Structeral improvements, avionics upgrades, electrical rewiring, airframe and systems refurbishment, and powerplant modifications resulted in low cost, low maintenance hours and low spare parts consumption.
The two TFE371-3A turbofans that powered the Skyfox together weighted 17 per cent less than the single J33-A-35 turbojet of the T-33, while producing 60 per cent more thrust and consuming 45 per cent less fuel. The TFE371-3A turbofan had a ten-fold increase in time between overhauls (TBO) compared with the J33-A-35 turbojet. The result was a greatly improved maneuverability, range, endurance, payload and the added overwater and hostile terrain safety of the twin powerplant configuration.

http://registry.faa.gov/aircraftinquiry/NNumSQL.asp?NNumbertxt=221SF

[vanguard]

Sure someone could. To do it properly you would need a engineer or two. For installation and areo effects of the intake. Then a complete flight test would have to be done. All very time consuming and expensive. So the person would spend a few million dollars to save money. In reality a person with that kind of money will just spend it on the gas and proven engine installation. Now your thinking he could get his investment back by selling the mod to others. That would bring with it huge liability. And a lawsuit for certain. Of course you could always do the "HEY WILBUR HAND ME THAT JET ENGINE" routine . But that is also sure to have problems. I dont know about anyone else but the last thing I ever want to read is another civilian jet thru the mall parking lot story. On the surface replacing the engine sounds like a good idea but its more complex than it sounds.

[RyanShort1]

As far as the been there done that pictures... That's one ugly bird. The T-33 is a pretty plane, but that is a monster.

Ryan

[marine air]

Whoa, Vanguard Whoa !!! That is the exact opposite of what I meant. Great photos and I'm familiar with the bird with the dual turbfans, etc. that was going to capture the counterinsugency market, just like the PA-48 Enforcer in the 1980's.
Remember the Temco TT-1 Pinto jet? Didn't some guys figure out how to replace its original 1,000 lbst engine with a learjet engine and fit it inside the fuselage? After all we're talking center of thrust would be about the same, and if anything a newer engine design would have to be lighter than that 1940's technology J-33 beast. Fuel- I bet most if not all of it is carried in the wings and tip tanks on the T-bird. Weight and balance? Remember the T-bird could carry 50 calibers in the nose so my guess is a CG shift could be accomodated easily.
Cost? A smoking hot aircraft and under the price of an L-39. Surplus sabreliner or Lear Jet engine or something along those lines. Heck they made the single engine T-2A Buckeye into a twin engine B and C model.
Look at all the engine changes in some of the unlimited racers. My thought is that the T-33 would still be an experimental aircraft, yes you are right it would cost millions to certify it in another category.

[wendovertom]

Not being a T-33 pilot myself all I can say is from the perspective of an observer. There is a gentleman with 2 canadair T-33s in Wendover. He swears by them and does not really have a lot of high regard for the American Allison engine - mostly a power issue I believe. Anyway, his argument - a bit tongue in cheek - is that when you buy an ex military jet you are only paying the price of admission - drinks and food are always more money

That skyfox N number is still registered to a Colorado company - wonder if it still gets out at all??

Tom P.

[O.P.]

That is one nice lookin ride!

Colorado eeehhhh?

I'm going to head out that way for a visit when a bud gets back from the stans, any idea what airport it might be at?


Orvis

[wendovertom]

registery says "Flight Test Research Inc" in Englewood Co.

Tom P.

[tom d. friedman]

pretty cool hybrid!! but to me the essence of owning a warbird is owning the original thing from a to z. no mods (other than maybe safety or govt regs etc) i'd want the real thing. fuel prices will continue to be an issue regardless if you are a warbirder, general aviation pilot, boater, what ever!! bottom line is we are all consumers, & fuel prices affect us all regardless of our income brackets. a looming question for the warbird community..... the day will eventually come when petroleum is rendered obsolete. then what??? tons of museums will start popping up with countless permanently grounded birds?? it will happen, maybe not in our generation, but frightening none the less!!

[bdk]

Sounds to me like we need to start running these things on french fry oil (Biodiesel)! Plenty of that about as the nation gets fatter.

[RickH]

I talked to former Temco Pinto test pilot once. He told me that they tried to talk the old man ( his terminology ) at Temco into putting a CJ610 into it. He wouldn't here of it because it was supposed to be a trainer and the jets of the day were ground hogs. Much like the A model T-28s, same idea. He said they knew that airframe would come alive with a decent engine.

Mike Dillon did it with his, and made the wings wet for more capacity.

Last edited by RickH on Sun Mar 19, 2006 10:41 am, edited 1 time in total.

[Roger Cain]

Here's some short info on a Temco Pinto out here with replaced engines.
This link will only be good for a month or two. If you have trouble reading it, you need your picture browser set to 100% view. http://www.norcalaahs.org/hmbpinto.jpg