USAF T-3 trainers to be scrapped?

Randy Haskin · **Posted:** Sun Sep 10, 2006 11:23 am

Okay, so they're not exactly warbirds by the strict definition, but I think they're just as much warbirds as any other trainers.

Sad end to the story...I'd love to pick one up, personally. Is there anyone with any contacts to the scrap company mentioned in the article?

http://sanantonio.bizjournals.com/sanan ... st=b_ln_hl

Quote:

Fleet of Air Force training planes to be scrapped
San Antonio Business Journal - 8:33 PM CDT Friday

The Air Force has decided to dispose of its fleet of T-3A Firefly aircraft, which have been grounded since 1997 following a series of fatal accidents.

The T-3A was selected in 1992 to replace the T-41 aircraft for the Air Education and Training Command (AETC) headquartered at Randolph Air Force Base in San Antonio. Between 1993 and 1995, 113 aircraft were purchased. But the entire fleet was stood down in July 1997 as a result of engine stoppages during flight and ground operations. The T-3As had been involved in mishaps between 1995-97 that resulted in the deaths of three instructor pilots and three students.

The T-3A aircraft have been stored without maintenance at the Air Force Academy and at the Hondo (Texas) Airport.

AETC officials selected TOTALL Metal Recycling Inc. based in Granite City, Ill., to handle the disposition contract. The aircraft will be completely destroyed and used for scrap metal.

Air Force agencies determined that other options for disposing of the aircraft, including selling them for parts, would have proved too costly to meet Federal Aviation Administration standards for resale to the public.

EDIT:
Here are a couple shots I took of the T-3s out at Hondo back in December '05...took 'em with my cellphone camera prior to getting shooed off by the rent-a-cop.

King · **Posted:** Sun Sep 10, 2006 11:51 am

Scrap metal? Funny thought, since they are mostly composites!

I see those planes in Hondo all the time. Very sad as the fuel problems were fixed and then they were grounded. Several of my engineers worked the redesign of the fuel system.

All the T-3As in Hondo also have air-conditioning. We installed the system in every single one of them.

skymstr02 · **Posted:** Sun Sep 10, 2006 12:16 pm

From reading the FAA Type Certificate Data Sheet, they are composite, and there are strict temperature limitations on when they can be operated. You must also use a special paint thats UV resistant. Here's my reference: http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_an ... /A73EU.pdf

And since theres a contract for destruction, I doubt that you'll be able to get one. The government will have a representative to asure complete destruction of all airframes. I think that its a matter of liability vs historical value.

airnutz · **Posted:** Sun Sep 10, 2006 12:51 pm

Some nice shots of the Slingsby at Hondo, apparently he lotto'd a better
rentacop than Randy did. Some interesting commentary as well..
www.aero-web.org/specs/slingsby/t-3a.htm

A sad waste of tax dollars...

King · **Posted:** Tue Sep 12, 2006 6:17 pm

skymstr02 wrote:

I think that its a matter of liability vs historical value.

But you cannot sue the government over something like this. They would be immune if you had an accident in one.

Sad waste, wish something could be done to stop the destruction.

Obergrafeter · **Posted:** Tue Sep 12, 2006 7:43 pm

There is no liability to the goverment. If any it would go to the manufacturer airframe powerplant or parts. It is simple economics! No airframe manufactruer wants to compete with a 115 airframes dumped on the market, and Lycoming doesn't want to compete with that and more engines dumped on the market (some brand new in the crates) true. Also if there was even one plane out in the real world the gov. is afraid we (the taxpayers) would find out its not a man killer that they want you to beleive.
This is one more time we are taking it the shorts. We were screwed when the Air Force bought them over better equipment and were screwed again. Why do you think they are going to destroy them so quickly. After there gone nobody can cry foul. The other crime in this story is that we have been and are still paying a private security firm to guard these valuable assets 24-7-365. At least that will come to an end.

King · **Posted:** Tue Sep 12, 2006 8:02 pm

Obergrafeter wrote:

The other crime in this story is that we have been and are still paying a private security firm to guard these valuable assets 24-7-365. At least that will come to an end.

And paying $12,000 amonth to store them. For NINE YEARS!!

I was really sad that Mooney lost out on that contract. Mooney had a real nice airplane in the fray. One of my engineers left me to go be the Engineering Manager at Mooney and we talked about that airplane all the time. He finally got several of the engineers and mechanics together and put it back together. He even got Lycoming to send him a engine. All of this off the books.

When the owners of Mooney (at that time) found out they threw a fit. But, they let them finish it off. Several years ago Mooney brought that airplane to Oshkosh with the red and black tiger stripe paint job. He is now at Columbia Aircraft Manufacturing and I wonder what became of that airplane. I might have to make a trip to Kerrville for a supplier inspection and see what happened to it.

Obergrafeter · **Posted:** Tue Sep 12, 2006 8:34 pm

Mark, Whats a million and a quarter amongst friends. If there ever was a poster child for throwing good money after bad the T-3 should be at the top of the list. I said it years ago when they picked a foreign plane over the American manufacturers that somebody should have gone to jail then and as an after thought someone should join him now on this disposal thing. The most amazing thing is that there was considerable discussion on the replacement for the T-3 to be the Cessna 172 instead of the Diamond. Wouldn't that been a hoot! Round and round we go. I think the only reason Cessna lost out was that there would have been to many taxpayers asking what happened to all the T-41s they started with. I guess we will never know how many billions it cost us.

Raven · **Posted:** Tue Sep 12, 2006 8:49 pm

Quote:

"We critically challenged ourselves as to what was the right moral policy and economical and legal decision and were led to completely salvage these airplanes, because we no longer have a mission for this aircraft,'' David Smith, news division chief with Air Education and Training Command's public affairs office, told The Gazette of Colorado Springs.

There's a man whose first language is no longer English, but bureaucratese... :roll:

If he can't speak clearly, do we believe he can think clearly and make a sensible decision?

Obergrafeter · **Posted:** Tue Sep 12, 2006 9:43 pm

Bet he's a lawyer. What he ment to say is they are blowing smoke up our collective taxpaying arses and don't think were smart enough to know the difference. OK no mission for the aircraft so why not one for Dayton, one for Randolph, and one for Edwards. Liability? why not take out the whiskey compass and sell it for $2.00 Granted the airframes are pretty rough- all the fabric coming off the control surfaces on the outside stored ones, but the ones in the containers are probably ok. Hell I would volunteer to fly one to Dayton. Come to think of it the containers are probably worth more than the salvage company is paying. The more I think about this farce the madder I get!

bdk · **Joined:** Sun May 02, 2004 1:16 am **Posts:** 11324

skymstr02 wrote:

From reading the FAA Type Certificate Data Sheet, they are composite, and there are strict temperature limitations on when they can be operated.

This is odd. Most aerospace epoxies have a service temperature of 180F. Could this airplane be made with polyester resin? :shock:

skymstr02 wrote:

You must also use a special paint thats UV resistant.

The name for that on a fabric covered airplane is silver dope. A UV resistant paint requirement is common for composite aircraft.

King wrote:

But you cannot sue the government over something like this. They would be immune if you had an accident in one.

True, but the famililies of victims in the past have gotten the politicians involved which has put pressure on the government. There would be an outcry if the government released aircraft to the "unsuspecting" public that weren't even safe enough for military use. Same reason they cut up military jeeps and humvees before they get released.

Ztex · **Posted:** Wed Sep 13, 2006 12:02 am

I think the temperature restrictions are in place because of teh "vapor lock" issue not with the airframe...I think...

Z

Randy Haskin · **Posted:** Wed Sep 13, 2006 8:21 am

Obergrafeter wrote:

said it years ago when they picked a foreign plane over the American manufacturers that somebody should have gone to jail then

It's important to understand from an Air Force perspective how the T-3 program came about.

The USAF Chief of Staff at the time, General McPeak, had a hard-on to intensify the flight screening program. He (and I'm sure others on the Air Staff) felt that the T-41 did not adequately screen future USAF pilots. Remember also that the USAF pilot training program was undergoing a significant change, too, with the adoption of the two-track (T-1 and T-38 ) training program.

Key to McPeak's desire for a better screener than the T-41 was the ability to perform full-up acro, which the Mescalero obviously could not.

He said,

Quote:

"The T-41 is your grandmother's airplane. Our mission is to train warrior-pilots, not dentists to fly their families to Acapulco."

So...was the Mooney or other US-sourced aircraft full acro certified? If the US manufacturers didn't offer what the USAF wanted to buy, or for a price that's reasonable, then I don't see any problem with buying from an ally.

Ztex · **Posted:** Wed Sep 13, 2006 9:39 am

I can't believe "we" are not enlightened enough to save at least one airframe..how many airplanes are not here because somebody thought it was a good idea to scrap every last one of them.

I would love to see a FW200...wouldn't you?

Gee Whiz

Broken-Wrench · **Joined:** Sun Oct 24, 2004 12:37 pm **Posts:** 1197

I can understand scraping the airframes but not the enines, props and instruments resale them :?:

Warbird Information Exchange

USAF T-3 trainers to be scrapped?

Who is online