Temco T-35 Buckaroo ...

[Mark Allen M]

In the early 1950s, the USAF was in need of a new primary training aircraft to replace older models that had seen service during World War II. The rise of jet-powered aircraft and the increased complexity of military aviation necessitated the development of new trainers that could prepare pilots for the rapidly evolving nature of air combat.

Enter the Temco Aircraft Corporation, a Dallas-based aerospace manufacturer that set its sights on building an aircraft that would be both cost-effective and reliable. The Temco T-35 Buckaroo was designed as a simple, low-cost, light primary trainer for military use.

The goal was to create an affordable and efficient aircraft that would provide basic flight instruction to cadets before they progressed to more advanced trainers. The Buckaroo was powered by a 225-horsepower Continental O-470-3 engine, which gave it modest performance and handling characteristics suitable for novice pilots.

At the heart of the T-35's design was the idea of affordability. With military budgets tightening in the post-World War II era, there was significant pressure to produce aircraft that could meet the USAF's needs without breaking the bank. Temco marketed the Buckaroo as a no-frills solution that would be easy to manufacture, maintain, and operate.

The T-35 was somewhat mediocre – but it had its perks
From a performance perspective, the Temco T-35 Buckaroo was serviceable but largely unremarkable. Its key characteristics are:

Maximum speed: 165 mph (266 km/h)
Range: 650 miles (1,046 km)
Service ceiling: 20,000 feet (6,096 meters)

Although the aircraft was more than capable of fulfilling its role as a primary trainer, its simple design – which prioritized cost-effectiveness over advanced capabilities – meant that it lacked many of the features found in more sophisticated trainers of the era.

Nonetheless, one of the key selling points of the T-35 was its ease of maintenance. Temco emphasized that the aircraft could be easily serviced by ground crews, thanks to its straightforward design and readily available parts. This was intended to reduce the overall cost of ownership and operation for the military, making it an attractive option for cash-strapped post-war budgets.

Despite its low-cost appeal and functional design, the Temco T-35 Buckaroo failed to secure widespread adoption by the USAF. There are several key reasons why this aircraft never reached its full potential.

Firstly, the T-35 was up against stiff competition in the form of other primary trainers that offered better performance, durability, and versatility. One of its major competitors was the Beechcraft T-34 Mentor, which eventually became the USAF's go-to primary trainer. The T-34 had better flight characteristics, a more robust airframe, and a superior overall design, making it the clear favorite over the Buckaroo.

Additionally, by the 1950s, military aviation was evolving rapidly, and the USAF's needs were changing. The advent of jet-powered aircraft and the increasing complexity of combat operations meant that more advanced trainers were required. The T-35, with its basic design and lack of modern features, simply couldn't keep up with the demands of a modernizing air force.

There was, however, one last hope for the Buckaroo in finding success: the general aviation market. Many military aircraft that fail to secure large military contracts eventually take off as general aviation aircraft.

Unfortunately, the T-35 Buckaroo never made this transition. Its niche role as a military trainer and its relatively modest performance meant that it had limited appeal to civilian pilots. This commercial failure further sealed the Buckaroo’s fate.

The story of the Temco T-35 Buckaroo is one of missed opportunities. With its low-cost design and functional performance, it had the potential to fill a key role in the USAF's training pipeline. However, competition from superior aircraft, changing military needs, and a failure to transition to the civilian market ultimately doomed the Buckaroo to obscurity.
Source: https://simpleflying.com/temco-t-35-buckaroo-downfall/

[Mark Allen M]

[quemerford]

Another 100% perfect post Mark: many thanks for keeping us sane in 2025

[Stoney]

Saudi Arabian AF had some and one was shipped back to the USA in about 1974 or 5 by a TWA pilot. Don't know where it is now.

[JohnB]

I believe eventually a few were returned from Saudi Arabia and are welcomed and supported by the Globe Swift club.
There are five on the FAA register including one owned by the Swift Museum in Tennessee.

Nice to see new photos of the type, we usually see the same shots in all the books.

A couple of design notes...
Notice the vertical stabilizer looks like the T-6s and is very different that the one on the Swift. Probably better for aerobatics.
Also, I wonder how much the tail wheel configuration played in its rejection by the USAF?
Remember, the then new T-28 also had nose gear, as of course, did the T-33.

Since the early '50s most USAF types have been tricycle gear. Aside from WWII types still in service (most notably the C-47 and T-6...plus ANG F-51s) the only exceptions were liaison types including the O-1, U-6 and U-10 and the still in production OA-1K "Skyraider II".
And of course the USAF received ex-USN A-1 Skyraiders for use in Vietnam.

This contrast, the UK built and fielded tailwheel designs such as the Handle Page Hastings and AVRO Shackleton (of which only the Mk. 3 had a noseegear) throughout the 50s.

If you think that's retro, how about the Blackburn Beverly...their equivalent of the C-124...it had fixed gear.

Last edited by JohnB on Tue Dec 02, 2025 4:56 pm, edited 3 times in total.

[Matt Gunsch]

One is in the process of being restored and is almost ready to fly.
https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100063944353183

[Noha307]

I'm quite curious what the bump in front of the canopy is. Given that it seems to be the same aircraft in the rocket launch pictures, some sort of sight perhaps? Or maybe a gun camera?

[Cvairwerks]

I would suspect that it's a flight test camera. The pod doesn't appear on any other a/c in the photos, other than on the two that are obviously flight test aircraft.