Warbird Information Exchange

OK, so since I earned my high performance/complex in a T-34A, I have become quite a fan. I am asking the WIX Brain to help. I am looking for AF A & B pictures but also, any history of training bases and any pictures configured in a "light attack" version.

Anyone?

_________________
"There are old pilots and bold pilots but few old, bold pilots."

i never knew there was a combat version!!

_________________
tom d. friedman - hey!!! those fokkers were messerschmitts!! * without ammunition, the usaf would be just another flying club!!! * better to have piece of mind than piece of tail!!

Don't know either. Some research indicated there might have been a version, maybe just for training purposes? Do I understand correctly that from the Mentor, one progressed to the Tweet?

_________________
"There are old pilots and bold pilots but few old, bold pilots."

The USAF/USN never operated an armed T-34 variant.
The US Army evaluated the type in the early 50s armed with two 0.30 machine guns, six rockets or 2 150lb bombs. The plane used was the YT-34 prototype that is now at the Castle museum.


Many T-34C (turbines) sold abroad were equipped for light attact and or FAC use. Most famously, some were in the Falklands during the war with the UK.

_________________
Remember the vets, the wonderful planes they flew and their sacrifices for a future many of them did not live to see.

When the Dominican Republic gave up thier Mustangs they recieved T-34s to replace them. Is it possible that some of those were armed?

_________________
"I can't understand it, I cut it twice and it's still too short!" Robert F. Dupre' 1923-2010 Go With God.

Hey, anything is possible. I got out my semi-old Putman book Beech Aircraft by Pelletier...which doesn't mention any piston Mentors being armed.
The Dominican Republic meachines are listed as ex-USN...and no mention of them being armed.

_________________
Remember the vets, the wonderful planes they flew and their sacrifices for a future many of them did not live to see.

You might see if Lou Drendel a photo book, T-34 In Action, no.107and maybe there is a photo in there. Lou has done a lot of paperback books on different planes, He is or was active in the T-34 group.

A Mentor is a fun little sport plane, able to do some of everything. It's fun and good at normal aerobatics, and most of all it is the easiest airplane to fly that I can think of. You sit on the center-line, in the front cockpit, under a bubble canopy and have a central stick for control. The VSO stall speed is about 48 knots or so, with gear and flaps down. You can do normal approach at about 65k,no need to be above 70, and you have a nosewheel for steering after landing. The controls, especially elevator are effective all the way down to the "minimum run landing" speed of 50 knots, which requires some power to maintain, and after touchdown you can brake and they are pretty effective, You can easily land and stop in 1500 feet maybe more like 1000 feet. If I had to make an engine out forced landing, and could chose my plane, it would be a 34. I have actually done one sort of forced landing when I ran a tank dry, and it was not problem as I was near an airport,and made it. It will handle up to about a 20mph crosswind before you run out of control.
They are a bit heavy and not too streamlined so they are not real fast, they are not going to cruise anywhere near a fighter speed. Perhaps about 140 knots with the original engine, and perhaps up to about 170 knots with the 285 or 300 hp Continental engine that many owners have installed. This conversion is really expensive, just a guess would be $75,000 and depends on how much the engine costs, whether it is new or used. You have to have new prop and lot's of work,and you probably lose the inverted oil system that the original one has. The original 225hp engine in very reliable, and it performs ok down low. At sea level it will climb about 1000 fpm, about like a T-6. The problem with the Mentor is that when you get to 8,000 feet it might climb 300 fpm while the T-6 with itls supercharger is still climbing 1000, and it will well up above 10,000. T-6s have been flown above 20,000 feet on mapping photo flights, while it is hard to get a T-34 to 14,000. The 34 has a nice baggage compartment, and the 2nd cockpit is fully fitted with controls for the passenger or student. It was a well made airplane and very advanced for its time. It came with a lot of neat military looking instruments in both cockpits, and I really like that look. There are quite a few switches and gadgets to play with, there is even an emergency gear Up, not just down, system that few other planes have. Some guys can't stand not to have all the latest gadgets, and when the put the larger engine in, they also put new instruments in the panels. I am all for good radios, but I think part of the charm of a warbird is the military interior, and I don't see the alure of having one look just like half the new Cessnas on the ramp, but there are perhaps more guys that are techo nerds than there are preservers like me. Some might allege that I am a bit old fashioned and out of date, but that can't be true, can it? The new vacuum driven instruments are lighter than the original electrically driven military ones, and of course converting them is a really big expense also. You can easily spend $50k or even $100k if you try to outdo some King Air with your Mentor panel. I've seen one that had not only full new instruments in the back cockpit but a full 2nd set of radios also.
If anyone wants any help learning to fly a T-34 or advice on a purchase please call me.
If I had to teach a basic student, I'd love to use a T-34 if I didn't have a tailwheel plane to use. I would be confident in having most any student or pilot fly from the front while I was in the back,and I have even done that.

_________________
Bill Greenwood
Spitfire N308WK

No mention of U.S. armed Mentors there either
(or in Swanborough & Bowers epic U.S. Military Aircraft since 1909).

If you think about it, it doesn't make any sense for the USAF or USN to arm them. The Mentors were used for primary training. Basically guys just learning how to fly...learning how to shoot would come later in the program once they were put in specic trainer flows...fighter, transport, bomber, etc.


The Drendel book does say that Argentina did equip some piston T-34s with a 30 cal machine gun in each wing and underwing pylons.

And like the Beech book I mentioned above, it has photos of foreign armed T-34Cs.

If you have a T-34 and want to arm it, you'll need some paint and the Evita soundtrack.

_________________
Remember the vets, the wonderful planes they flew and their sacrifices for a future many of them did not live to see.

I'm with you Bill. A great syllabus for a new pilot, airman certificate in a tail wheel and high performance/complex in the Mentor.

Now, I need my own Mentor...so to speak.

_________________
"There are old pilots and bold pilots but few old, bold pilots."

My understanding is that some foreign countries did put underwing armament or hardpoints on some T-34s and that those T-34s are not eligible for FAA standard airworthiness certification due to the spar modifications. Pure hearsay on my part though.

Maybe you are thinking of the Temco T-35A Buckaroo, 10 of which were sold to Saudi Arabia armed with 2 .30" mgs and 10 2.75" rockets.
mike13

_________________
Beware of the use of the word "NEVER" as it can come back to bite you.

As mentioned, the T-34 was a primary trainer just like its predecessor the PT-17 and PT-19. No need for armament or long range fuel tanks.
The A's and B's only had 225 hp. The stock A's and B's are great fun but don't climb that great and will run hot if climbing for an extended time or doing aerobatics for more than about 15 minutes. Most of the warbird A's and B's have been retrofitted with 260 hp., 285 hp., 300 hp. or 310 hp. engines. It makes for a very fine aircraft.
I think it was the Chilean A.F. put small external wing drop tanks on their upgraded 260 hp. aircraft. These had holes drilled into the spars to bolt the hardpoints on to and the FAA didn't like that. I have flown one and the only real difference I noticed is at idle power, it drops like a stone because of the increased drag from the tanks.
The addition of external stores or guns to a small engined T-34 would have over taxed the 225 hp. engine. It would have climbed poorly, ran hot, and had a serivce ceiling of only 4 or 5 thousand feet, IMHO.

I never had any trouble with my 225 hp stock T-34 running hot in climb or acro. I think they are pretty reliable engine, low stressed and can take the use,and if you are doing acro they stock one has an oil system that allows inverted flight.
If you are patient and lightly loaded, a stock T-34 has a ceiling of over 14,000 feet,and I have flown that a number of times going east or west in Colorado. I don't know about with some load bolted on the wings, but a stock T-34 seems pretty decent up to about 7000 feet. I once flew my 34 from Aspen to the Bahamas in company with David Fain AT-6 and John Reynolds SNJ. Leaving Colorado they really had to wait on me, especially in climb. As we got down below 5000 feet the T-34 was ok and at sea level it climbed right with a T-6. As for as the bigger engine, I have flown a 285 version and it is lively at sea level. But if you went up to 14,000 that extra 60 hp would be only about like 30 hp so still sluggish in climb.
It is a neat and fun little plane to fly. Wish I could go up in one today. I did a lot of my formation practice in the T-34,its good and easy for that. I think it is also a very safe plane for most flying if you don't pull the wings off with big g forces. They are stressed to 6 positive and 3 negative gs which should be enough for most people.
I have not kept up with the current state of the AD s. For awhile there the FAA really was on the case about T-34s. They ignored problems with vtail Bonanzas for years, but gave T-34 s a lot of scutiny after there were two fatal accidents due to over g in combat type schools.

One scary thing for me, it that I almost flew in the T-34 that had the last fatal accident. It was a school at Houston Hooks airport. I was there for a few days between airshows and went over to see about doing some acro. I met the owner, and sat in the plane. He was a friendly guy, and real salesman. In the end it was very expensive and his partner was the opposite type, a real obnoxious jackass. He soured me on flying with them, really in the few minutes that I waited for the owner to come in . That might have saved my life. The plane had not had the wing inspection it should have had, and the fatal accident occurred within the next month or two, and it was the nice guy that was lost.
I still did acro in my plane after that,but of course not with a passenger and not over about 3 gs which was enough for a loop.

_________________
Bill Greenwood
Spitfire N308WK

A long time ago, my dad's shop restored three of them two of which won silver wrench awards at Oshkosh. The first one came directly from Pensacola, via a trade with the Navy by Dennis Buehn and we were the first to license it and fly it civilian. It had the original style oil cooler which we thought was the culprit for the high engine temps. Maybe the Nogles or someone designed an STC to solve the problem.
The original engine & prop combination with original wingtips is a hoot to fly aerobatics. Completely superior to the Decathlon I was taking acro in at the time. It did very nice rolls and snap rolls, and hammerheads were very straightforward. Later dad replaced the engine with a 285, three bladed prop, A-36 Bonanza wingtips, and a smoke oil system mounted forward of the firewall. It had a much slower roll rate, very nose heavy and difficult to do decent hammerheads, and snap rolls were lousy due to the Bonanza wingtips and also the C.G. moves forward consderably on the big engine birds. Louses up the aerobatic qualites, IMHO.

Re the original style oil cooler. If it worked ok when it came out of the factory and was in both Navy and Air Force service all those years, often in hot weather, then it probably was ok.
I can't remember what my temps used to indicate, but I always tried to keep the oil tank topped up. Mine used a bit of oil, and leaked a little, so can't recall temps, but I wouldn't have flown it outside the approved limit, certainly not for 10 years. It was still running good when I flew it to Sun N Fun and back just before I delivered it to the new owner.
One thing about climb, other than being light or having cool weather, is to make sure the prop turns full rpm, therefore full power. If you try to climb at 2300 or 2400 rpm, you don;t get much.
Know that Continental, at least in my current engine, measures oil pressure different than Lycoming, at least that is what the engine shop told me. They measure it as it leaves the engine, I think, rather than going into the pump; thus the oil pressure is lower. If they do this with temperature, then the same engine might indicate a higher oil temp than if you measured it like a Lycoming does.

_________________
Bill Greenwood
Spitfire N308WK