Warbird Information Exchange

Julie Clark is an airline pilot who flies a T-34 at lots of airshows in North America. She is sponsored by Mopar.

_________________
Olivier Lacombe -- Harvard Mk.4 C-GBQB

Probably not a picture she would have chosen, but I like it!
Julie is a great lady, and impressive pilot. You can read all about her here...
http://www.gold-cup.com/fanguide/julieclark/
Or buy her book...

Air combat has NOTHING to do with the wings coming off these T-34s. The wings are coming off because the airframes are failing under g loading, either fatigue related over time or as a result of the actual limits being exceeded. Even if you could prohibit "Air Combat" (which you can't as there's no definition as to what that is according to the T-34 POH or any other POH) wings would still come off as people exceeded the airframes real limits.

These accidents could just as easily have happened at an aerobatic school as an air combat school.

We need to clear things up here.

There's a difference between two qualified pilots doing tail chases around the sky and pretending they are over Europe in 1944 and a non-pilot having paid himself a ride in a T-34 for the purpose of simulating a dogfight.

I don't think the non-pilot will be as keen as the pilots to respect the speed and load limits of the plane. I know that the outfits selling these mock combat rides often get G loading that are extremely wild compared to a normal airbatic session.

The Lima Limas do airbatics in their Mentor, yet no wing ever came off. Same thing for Julie Clark, she has been doing shows for quite a long time, and although she had her Mentor modified a short while ago, no wings ever came off before that!

Like I always say, there are two ways to do airbatics :

1- to do it right
2- to not do any

_________________
Olivier Lacombe -- Harvard Mk.4 C-GBQB

There are 53 "B" models on the FAA registry, B models were used by the US Navy. There are 39 "A" models on the registry, A models were used by the US Air Force.

Some Export models of the T-34 had hardpoints installed by the company operating them.

Thanks Paul!

I feel much better now.

_________________
Olivier Lacombe -- Harvard Mk.4 C-GBQB

There are also 211 T-34As on the register as Beech A45s, and 7 as Beech B45s, and 126 T-34Bs as Beech D45s.

_________________
Dan Johnson

Rob,

The problem is not with the Air Combat schools, the problem appears to be in using the T-34 in this role.

People on this forum are assuming that since the 3 wing separation incidents occured at Air Combat schools that this is the problem. Well kids, I'm here to tell you that there's no difference between what they're doing and what others are doing in the T-34. Oh sure, these guys were pulling hard, and probably getting quite a few sorties in, but the stresses on the airframe are no different than what Julie Clark does during her routine.

Mock Air Combat doesn't pull wings off airplanes, G's do. I don't think there have been any wing failures of the Siai Marchetti SF 260.

Focus on the problem...sustained G loading or excessive G loading of the T-34 wing. The solution will probably see these airplanes turned into 2 seat Bonanzas, but the failures will cease.

I'm pretty sure Julie stays inside the enveloppe all the time, where as the ACM schools cross it very often. I've seen the show, and while she does throw the Mentor around pretty good, it's not that extreme. She does it extremely well.

I would like to know how many hours the oldest T-34 totalled while in service, and see if they ever pushed through the enveloppe.

The airplane is sound. Fly it inside it's enveloppe, don't push it and you'll do fine.

Take a Ferrari and drive it in the mud, and see what happens. Just because an aircraft is airbatic doesn't mean it can perform like an Extra 300.

When we pulled the wings off ours, we found two bent ribs that had been bent for more than 30 years, the results of a hard landing. And that plane was in CAP and used as a hack, so it must have had its share of suspicious flights. We replaced the ribs and voilà.

_________________
Olivier Lacombe -- Harvard Mk.4 C-GBQB

What's the difference? Regardless of whether the passenger is paying for a simulated combat ride or not there is still a PIC who must confirm to the operational limits of the aircraft. These include airspeed and G limits.



I've flown on one of the "air combat" rides in the T-34, and I can attest that my backseater was there to keep the flight de-conflicted and to ensure that the aircraft limits were observed.



I could also do a nice aerobatic routine in the Mentor at 3 G's, which is probably closer to what Julie is doing with her T-34. As for the Lima Lima team, well you don't tend to pull many G's when flying in formation. Certainly nowhere near what the airframe is rated to.



Sorry Ollie, I just don't agree. Take for example my L-39. I've done 4G loops and I've done 8G loops. Both are approved and within limits. Bot are, as you put it "right". What this issue is about is finding what the new LOWER limits should be for the T-34. If wings come off, the old limits are too high.

What I meant is either you are qualified to do airbatics or you aren't. If you aren't they stay away from it, you'll either damage the aircraft, yourself or both.

I'm not, and even though I fly two fully airbatic aircrafts, I stay nice and easy and go from point A to point B.

_________________
Olivier Lacombe -- Harvard Mk.4 C-GBQB

Just received AvFlash and they say that the aircraft had suffered a canopy separation that had damaged the rear spar. I don't know if it had been repaired or not, or how it was repaired.

So it is not just a case of old airplanes breaking up in the air. I suggest you head out to avweb.com and read what they put up on the subject.

http://www.avweb.com

_________________
Olivier Lacombe -- Harvard Mk.4 C-GBQB

Well, I believe that's exactly what the problem is. According to the AVweb article the wing failed in a different location than any of the previous failures. To quote AVweb, "...the failure point was in the center fuselage section...", which would make one think that the canopy incident may not have played any role in this accident.

Ollie, you are assuming that the G limits are being exceeded in the Air Combat schools, while everyone else is playing by the rules. You may be correct, but until such a time as the FAA can prove to themselves that that's what happened I'm sure the T-34 fleet will stay on the ground.

They may stay there in the USA.

I have yet to see anything said by TC for ours.

Safe skies guys.

_________________
Olivier Lacombe -- Harvard Mk.4 C-GBQB

What I heard this weekend is that the aircraft had a failure inboard of the wing attach points. The part of the wing dtructure that is inside of the fuselage. This is thought to be a new type of failure from the previous two. As I understand it, the FAA and others are going to take a very thorough look at that area and see if it could affect all T-34's or even Bonanzas and other Beech built aircraft with similar design.