Flight Journal article on the T-37B(wow)

Nathan · **Posted:** Fri Oct 23, 2009 6:12 pm

hi all,

In the December 2009 issue of Flight Journal is an article on the T-37B retirement. I was never a fan of the T-37 but wanted to share the last paragraph in the article.

It reads, "The Raytheon T-6A Texan II replaced the T-37B as the USAF's standard primary trainer. But T-37B's won't be crowding the warbird circuit: By the end of 2011, all T-37's designated for disposal will have been shredded and recycled, said a USAF spokesman". :roll:

Glad us warbirders where noted! :roll:

warbird1 · **Joined:** Fri Sep 21, 2007 6:25 pm **Posts:** 2760

Not surprising at all. The DOD and FAA still don't trust civilians to operate jet powered warbirds. Heck, even after the T-3 Slingsby Firefly debacle, they won't even release those to the civilian market and they're like glorified Cessna 172's - and they don't even have jet engines!

Obergrafeter · **Posted:** Fri Oct 23, 2009 6:54 pm

Can't release the T-3s as they were shredded into pieces no bigger than a lunch bag. Even the brand new IO-540s that were never out of the crate. One of the most shamefull days in Hondo AAFs rich history.

John Dupre · **Posted:** Fri Oct 23, 2009 9:51 pm

I saw an "ad" somewhere for T-34Cs at Davis Monthan. The catch was they had to pass through a hole 6 inches square! (Or something like that.)

A2C · **Posted:** Fri Oct 23, 2009 11:28 pm

Why should anybody take an interest in airplanes that the USAF doesn't trust us with? My thought is let them scrap them, I'd rather see a Chicom Mig, rather than an Americom bird (anything used after 2009) !

tinbender2 · **Joined:** Fri Jun 01, 2007 12:04 am **Posts:** 212

Well,

If it's the speed that they're threatened by, maybe they should read the Dash-1.

Last time I flew a tweet, it was speed limited to 275 knots, with a bunch of prohibited aerobatic maneuvers. Those airframes have been beat to heck and back, and I certainly did my part. :oops:

Randy Haskin · **Posted:** Sat Oct 24, 2009 7:32 am

warbird1 wrote:

Not surprising at all. The DOD and FAA still don't trust civilians to operate jet powered warbirds. Heck, even after the T-3 Slingsby Firefly debacle, they won't even release those to the civilian market and they're like glorified Cessna 172's - and they don't even have jet engines!

Obergrafeter wrote:

Can't release the T-3s as they were shredded into pieces no bigger than a lunch bag. Even the brand new IO-540s that were never out of the crate. One of the most shamefull days in Hondo AAFs rich history.

While I agree they shouldn't have been shred up, the AF was concerned about the liability of the engine and fuel system modifications that had been at the heart of some of the T-3's problems.

skymstr02 · **Posted:** Sat Oct 24, 2009 10:22 am

warbird1 wrote:

Heck, even after the T-3 Slingsby Firefly debacle, they won't even release those to the civilian market and they're like glorified Cessna 172's -

A T-3 is nothing like a Cessna 172. A C-172 is like a T-41.

gary1954 · **Posted:** Sat Oct 24, 2009 11:19 am

its still a load of crap that the government has virtually forced out the tax-payer from getting an airframe that he could possibly turn a buck on. The Post WWII years were the best. Granted, the scrap man made a heap of scrap cash, but look what was saved. I wouldn't mind having a 6000 pound dog whistle - if I could afford it.

skymstr02 · **Posted:** Sat Oct 24, 2009 1:22 pm

John Dupre wrote:

I saw an "ad" somewhere for T-34Cs at Davis Monthan. The catch was they had to pass through a hole 6 inches square! (Or something like that.)

I've sent several T-34C's to AMARG, and they are worn out. When the Navy has decided that the wing has reached it fatigue life, and won't send up a student, then that's it. We are tracking the FLE (fatigue life expended) monthly, then weekly, then daily to achieve the maximum life from the wings. They've been milked along until the T-6B's show up.

warbird1 · **Joined:** Fri Sep 21, 2007 6:25 pm **Posts:** 2760

skymstr02 wrote:

warbird1 wrote:

Heck, even after the T-3 Slingsby Firefly debacle, they won't even release those to the civilian market and they're like glorified Cessna 172's -

A T-3 is nothing like a Cessna 172. A C-172 is like a T-41.

It's all relative. The T-3 is similar in performance to a T-41 for the purposes of this discussion. Both are slow, prop-driven airplanes that are not high performance, tactical jets, hence my comparison.

skymstr02 · **Posted:** Sat Oct 24, 2009 3:41 pm

The T-3 was a piece of junk from the get go, and the T-41 is a proven stable design from the time the military received the first one.

Uncle Sam screwed the pooch by procuring the T-3, and by scrapping the lot, righted a wrong.

JBoyle · **Posted:** Sun Oct 25, 2009 12:24 am

Blame former USAF Chief of Staff Merrill McPeak for the T-3.

He said he didn't want AF pilots to train in something a dentist might fly his family in.

flyboyj · **Joined:** Sat Oct 10, 2009 1:01 pm **Posts:** 157

warbird1 wrote:

Not surprising at all. The DOD and FAA still don't trust civilians to operate jet powered warbirds. Heck, even after the T-3 Slingsby Firefly debacle, they won't even release those to the civilian market and they're like glorified Cessna 172's - and they don't even have jet engines!

All the T-3s are gone - chopped up!

flyboyj · **Joined:** Sat Oct 10, 2009 1:01 pm **Posts:** 157

skymstr02 wrote:

The T-3 was a piece of junk from the get go, and the T-41 is a proven stable design from the time the military received the first one.

Uncle Sam screwed the pooch by procuring the T-3, and by scrapping the lot, righted a wrong.

I worked on T-3s briefly and there was really nothing wrong with the aircraft, although the T-41 should never have been replaced.

Warbird Information Exchange

Flight Journal article on the T-37B(wow)

Who is online