Thu Dec 09, 2004 8:41 pm
Indeed.
In Canada, TC said that if we inspected the spar as told by the second AD and found nothing to report, we were allowed to get back to full manufacturer's limits. Which we did, nothing was found and we are now back to normal. I don't think the FAA allows the US T-34 do it, correct me if I'm wrong.
Randy, there's a difference between teaching dogfighting to trained military pilots and giving dogfight experiences to non-pilots. One is air-minded and will fly within the limits while the other will just want to have fun. I remember that the first T-34 to be lost had something like 1 000 such flights (or any other high number) and that the fights went on to 10Gs sometimes. That's bad. I don't know why they don't use Extra 300s for that, it's what they are there for.
Paul, is your T-34 the one in your avatar?
Ours was made in Canada by CCF, S/N 122. They made 25 of them, ours is the 22nd. We have a 285HP Continental in it.
In Canada, TC said that if we inspected the spar as told by the second AD and found nothing to report, we were allowed to get back to full manufacturer's limits. Which we did, nothing was found and we are now back to normal. I don't think the FAA allows the US T-34 do it, correct me if I'm wrong.
Randy, there's a difference between teaching dogfighting to trained military pilots and giving dogfight experiences to non-pilots. One is air-minded and will fly within the limits while the other will just want to have fun. I remember that the first T-34 to be lost had something like 1 000 such flights (or any other high number) and that the fights went on to 10Gs sometimes. That's bad. I don't know why they don't use Extra 300s for that, it's what they are there for.
Paul, is your T-34 the one in your avatar?
Ours was made in Canada by CCF, S/N 122. They made 25 of them, ours is the 22nd. We have a 285HP Continental in it.
Thu Dec 09, 2004 8:42 pm
Since you fly a T-34 do you think its time that the FAA step in and restrict Air Combat Schools for T-34. I only ask this because they seem to be the only aircraft that have had parts come off due to what ever the problem.
Rob, that's my point. There are much better aircraft out there to do that job, such as an Extra 300.
Thu Dec 09, 2004 8:56 pm
My personal belief is that the ACM schools should stop using the T-34's, as I said earlier.
Just a review on history, three T-34A's lost wings. All three T-34A's were operated by ACM schools. Two were operated by the same school. T-34A's are FAA certified for aerobatics, T-34B's are not. Odd, I know... T-34B's have a stronger spar (part of the original Navy requirements).
I'm not sure it's in the FAA's jurisdiction to shut these schools down, unless there was some sort of mx or AD compliance violation, none of which we know about at this point or will probably know about for some time.
Just a review on history, three T-34A's lost wings. All three T-34A's were operated by ACM schools. Two were operated by the same school. T-34A's are FAA certified for aerobatics, T-34B's are not. Odd, I know... T-34B's have a stronger spar (part of the original Navy requirements).
I'm not sure it's in the FAA's jurisdiction to shut these schools down, unless there was some sort of mx or AD compliance violation, none of which we know about at this point or will probably know about for some time.
Last edited by Paul Draper on Thu Dec 09, 2004 9:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Thu Dec 09, 2004 9:04 pm
Hi
I flew T28s and also flew FAC for them in Vietnam and unfortunately I saw two break up as a result of both damage and overstress. However it had a great reputation as a rugged and reliable aircraft and generally speaking I would say that if it is not abused it should be a great Warbird which is more than I can say for a couple of others mentioned here. I think everyone has to remember that these crashes of Mentors involved aircraft doing things that were at the high end of their envelope and they are getting on now. It is buggering up the reputation of a fine trainer and I reckon they should not be doing it.
My two bobs worth
Kindest regards
John Parker.
I flew T28s and also flew FAC for them in Vietnam and unfortunately I saw two break up as a result of both damage and overstress. However it had a great reputation as a rugged and reliable aircraft and generally speaking I would say that if it is not abused it should be a great Warbird which is more than I can say for a couple of others mentioned here. I think everyone has to remember that these crashes of Mentors involved aircraft doing things that were at the high end of their envelope and they are getting on now. It is buggering up the reputation of a fine trainer and I reckon they should not be doing it.
My two bobs worth
Kindest regards
John Parker.
Thu Dec 09, 2004 9:08 pm
Ollie wrote:Paul, is your T-34 the one in your avatar?
I don't own it, I just get to fly it occasionally.
But yes, that is the one I fly. It's got a whole whopping 1400 Hours on it Total Time! Built in 1956 and flown by the Navy for two years, put in storage in 1958, and sold in 1972. Traveled around from owner to owner unassembled until the previous owner got it and restored/assembled it. When my friend bought it it was flying and bare aluminum. We painted it this summer after doing the AD this past spring. It's painted in it's original markings, all the way down to all the maintenance stencils, and access panel markings. The cockpit is WAY original, and the engine is the original Contental IO-470-4 (225HP) with the Original Beech two blade prop. We even have all the original log books for the plane!
We're very happy with how it turned out!
Thu Dec 09, 2004 10:28 pm
Hey guys, first, condolences to the pilots family and friends. I am currently remodeling a home for a friend who is an instructor at Texas Air Aces. He was scheduled to fly that A/C the day before the crash, but was cancelled due to weather. From what his wife told me, that A/C came from Atlanta. I will get more info. next week from him, and if you have a question, I will be glad to ask. Kind of a bummer though, as I was invited to tag along when there was an empty seat!
Tim Landers
Tim Landers
T-34 losing wings
Fri Dec 10, 2004 4:11 am
Thanx Ollie, for re-posting this subject. I botched the "original" post due
to some local news reports, which in their wording had combined info
from the '03, and most recent '04 crash of a Tx Air Aces T-34. I tried
to edit the post..but my server was "kicking-me-off". Eventually,
I got back online, and in that "window"..deleted the whole post..but not
before 134 folks had read it. I finally got back online "clean" tonight.
So far, it seems to have been a single aircraft incident with an instructor
training a student or joyriding a customer. Wing separated...plane
spirralled down...no survivors.
My apologies for the erroneous info.
to some local news reports, which in their wording had combined info
from the '03, and most recent '04 crash of a Tx Air Aces T-34. I tried
to edit the post..but my server was "kicking-me-off". Eventually,
I got back online, and in that "window"..deleted the whole post..but not
before 134 folks had read it. I finally got back online "clean" tonight.
So far, it seems to have been a single aircraft incident with an instructor
training a student or joyriding a customer. Wing separated...plane
spirralled down...no survivors.
My apologies for the erroneous info.
Last edited by airnutz on Mon Dec 20, 2004 5:57 am, edited 2 times in total.
T-34 Advanced Aerobatics
Fri Dec 10, 2004 5:07 am
But in the meantime I have been reminded, that these aircraft are 50
years old and are being asked to perform Extreme aerobatics...that
probably should be delegated to "younger" aircraft.
According to an earlier report from Aviation Today(online), that "N44KK anda sister aircraft N34BA were due for AMOC repairs at the time of the 2003 accident. N44KK was operating 20 hours beyond the 200 hour "grace" period that the FAA had granted prior to the inspection. The TAA sister, N34BA was at the repair station at the time of the 03 accident and she subsequently failed the inspection for the "doubler" repairs to the spar. N34BA was going to require the Baron-spar replacement which was about $40K US.
In an article posted on AVWEB by a current T-34 pilot/writer, John Deakin,
he was very critical of the FAA/NTSB "rush to judgement" of the 1999
wing seperation loss of the Sky Warriors T-34 in Georgia. Mr. Deakin
offered some interesting and thought provoking opinions of the cause
of this craft loss...extreme maneuvers and resultant wing-twist failure.
Aug 15,1999...READ THIS...
www.avweb.com/cgi-bin/udt/im.display.pr ... .id=182086
In speaking with a "fed" friend of mine earlier today, he said "we may be seeing the end of ACM use of the T-34."
There also is a fella here in Texas seriously considering a rebuilt wing
program for the T-34 involving "new-spar wing exchange".
Hope this offering goes somewhat toward reversing my earlier error....
Fly Safe...
years old and are being asked to perform Extreme aerobatics...that
probably should be delegated to "younger" aircraft.
According to an earlier report from Aviation Today(online), that "N44KK anda sister aircraft N34BA were due for AMOC repairs at the time of the 2003 accident. N44KK was operating 20 hours beyond the 200 hour "grace" period that the FAA had granted prior to the inspection. The TAA sister, N34BA was at the repair station at the time of the 03 accident and she subsequently failed the inspection for the "doubler" repairs to the spar. N34BA was going to require the Baron-spar replacement which was about $40K US.
In an article posted on AVWEB by a current T-34 pilot/writer, John Deakin,
he was very critical of the FAA/NTSB "rush to judgement" of the 1999
wing seperation loss of the Sky Warriors T-34 in Georgia. Mr. Deakin
offered some interesting and thought provoking opinions of the cause
of this craft loss...extreme maneuvers and resultant wing-twist failure.
Aug 15,1999...READ THIS...
www.avweb.com/cgi-bin/udt/im.display.pr ... .id=182086
In speaking with a "fed" friend of mine earlier today, he said "we may be seeing the end of ACM use of the T-34."
There also is a fella here in Texas seriously considering a rebuilt wing
program for the T-34 involving "new-spar wing exchange".
Hope this offering goes somewhat toward reversing my earlier error....
Fly Safe...
Last edited by airnutz on Fri Dec 10, 2004 2:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.
'34 N #
Fri Dec 10, 2004 5:14 am
Anyone know the N-number of the TAA T-34 lost on Tuesday?
Thanx guys...
Thanx guys...
Fri Dec 10, 2004 6:53 am
I would hate to own a T-34 now!
BUY??...SELL??...I'm so confused
Fri Dec 10, 2004 7:36 am
Or...it might be a good time to BUY !!!!! Especially if yer really good to
Mr. Forgotten Field...and your able to "encourage" him to find a crate
'oer two of "moldy but goldy" T-42 Cochise spars! You'd wish you had '34's comin out yer ears....
If a fella had a handfull of them he might be able to get the wing re-spar price down 20 or 30%.
Mr. Forgotten Field...and your able to "encourage" him to find a crate
'oer two of "moldy but goldy" T-42 Cochise spars! You'd wish you had '34's comin out yer ears....
If a fella had a handfull of them he might be able to get the wing re-spar price down 20 or 30%.
Fri Dec 10, 2004 9:59 am
Rob wrote:
Rob, that's a no no. You should never give the gov't an oportunity to get more involved. The more involved they get, the more regulated they will make things. The more restricted things will be. They overdo their job already.
Since you fly a T-34 do you think its time that the FAA step in and restrict Air Combat Schools for T-34. I only ask this because they seem to be the only aircraft that have had parts come off due to what ever the problem.
Rob, that's a no no. You should never give the gov't an oportunity to get more involved. The more involved they get, the more regulated they will make things. The more restricted things will be. They overdo their job already.
Fri Dec 10, 2004 10:58 am
The A/C was N-141SW
Tim Landers
Tim Landers
Fri Dec 10, 2004 12:56 pm
Hey guys, it's a no brainer; Stop using aircraft in the air combat businesses that are not qualified for unlimited aerobatics! The T-34 is a very fine aircraft , not a darn thing wrong with them. Wrong aircraft for the mission at hand. The T-34 was designed to be used as a primary trainer and occasionally entry level aerobatics like loops and rolls. Any instructor will tell you that occassionally a student will try to kill you. The air combat schools are unpredictable because you really don't know what the customer is going to do once you give him the controls!
Example1: About ten years ago I gave a guy a T-34 ride who had just gotten his private ticket. We went up to 5000' AGL. and I did a couple of rolls ,etc. THen I gave him the airplane and said "do whatever you want". The guy violently jerked the stick back and the wing went up, the nose down and it started shuttering. The indicated airspeed was 125 knots and the stall warning light came on in my cockpit. I grabbed the controls back
and said over the intercom "What in the hell are you doing?" He said he was slamming the stick around like in the movie "Top Gun" . I told him well you just put us into a 5 G accelerated stall. Don't ever do that again because no one really slops an airplane around like that. There really isn't ever a good reason to put 5 G's on a T-34, you can do the same aerobatic maneuver with less airspeed and decrease the G-loadings.
Another time I got a bright idea to do a square loop in the T-34. I had been watching these at Oshkosh, had analyzed how to do each segment and then set out to try one. I built up a head of steam, 165 knots, smoke on and then briskly back on the stick with the same force you would apply doing a snap roll, then un G'ing the T-34 in the vertical. Man it shot up like a rocket, then onto it's back, nose 15 degrees above the horizon. Inverted , I chopped the power and dove vertically to connect the smoke lines, for an almost perfect square loop!
Then my passenger asked, hey did you black out? No. "Well I was out from the entry until I came through hanging on the straps upside down".
He goes "how many G's did we pull , I think we popped some rivets! I said don't know check the G-meter in the back cockpit. He replied 6.3 g's and I have a rivet in my lap." So we went back and landed, inspected literally every rivet on the aircraft and found the missing rivet came from a magnesium panel in the rear cockpit. I had visions of my days as a mechanic in an A-4E squadron in the Marines Corps when pilots would rip rows of rivets loose on the wings or tail surfaces over G' ing the A-4's . Yes not even combat aircraft are unlimited. The T-34 checked out okay. I checked the dash 1 and it said the ultimate structural design load for the T-34 is 6.6 G's. We were very lucky.
I tell this story in hopes that it will help people realize how very easy it can be to get an aircraft outside of it's performance envelope. I had no idea I would be doing those kind of G loads on either of those flights. [/b]
Example1: About ten years ago I gave a guy a T-34 ride who had just gotten his private ticket. We went up to 5000' AGL. and I did a couple of rolls ,etc. THen I gave him the airplane and said "do whatever you want". The guy violently jerked the stick back and the wing went up, the nose down and it started shuttering. The indicated airspeed was 125 knots and the stall warning light came on in my cockpit. I grabbed the controls back
and said over the intercom "What in the hell are you doing?" He said he was slamming the stick around like in the movie "Top Gun" . I told him well you just put us into a 5 G accelerated stall. Don't ever do that again because no one really slops an airplane around like that. There really isn't ever a good reason to put 5 G's on a T-34, you can do the same aerobatic maneuver with less airspeed and decrease the G-loadings.
Another time I got a bright idea to do a square loop in the T-34. I had been watching these at Oshkosh, had analyzed how to do each segment and then set out to try one. I built up a head of steam, 165 knots, smoke on and then briskly back on the stick with the same force you would apply doing a snap roll, then un G'ing the T-34 in the vertical. Man it shot up like a rocket, then onto it's back, nose 15 degrees above the horizon. Inverted , I chopped the power and dove vertically to connect the smoke lines, for an almost perfect square loop!
Then my passenger asked, hey did you black out? No. "Well I was out from the entry until I came through hanging on the straps upside down".
He goes "how many G's did we pull , I think we popped some rivets! I said don't know check the G-meter in the back cockpit. He replied 6.3 g's and I have a rivet in my lap." So we went back and landed, inspected literally every rivet on the aircraft and found the missing rivet came from a magnesium panel in the rear cockpit. I had visions of my days as a mechanic in an A-4E squadron in the Marines Corps when pilots would rip rows of rivets loose on the wings or tail surfaces over G' ing the A-4's . Yes not even combat aircraft are unlimited. The T-34 checked out okay. I checked the dash 1 and it said the ultimate structural design load for the T-34 is 6.6 G's. We were very lucky.
I tell this story in hopes that it will help people realize how very easy it can be to get an aircraft outside of it's performance envelope. I had no idea I would be doing those kind of G loads on either of those flights. [/b]
Fri Dec 10, 2004 2:28 pm
Is this a unique problem with T-34s and ACM operators? Reason I ask is that the RCAF basically gave up on the T-34 after they lost a wing on one in 1955/56. I've always wondered if there is any connection to that accident and all the ACM accidents over the last few years? Did the U.S. military every have any spar related accidents with the non-turbo Mentors? I know nothing about T-34s, I'm just curious.
Jim
Jim