T-34 crash

On 13 Dec 2004 14:08:10 -0800, "Michael"
wrote:

Richard Russell wrote:
AVWeb has a story out today saying that the wing failed in an area
that was totally different from any of the previous failures and
different from the fix the AD covered.

That's not good news for T-34 owners.

The only good news for T-34 owners would be if the FAA recognized the
real problem. The real problem has nothing to do with the airplane.

The T-34 is not a fighter. It is not designed to take the stresses of
ACM. It is designed to perform some limited aerobatics, and if flown
within those limitations it will never have a problem - or at least
none ever has been a problem.

The Baron spar modification makes the airplane a little stronger in a
crucial area - but it does not turn what is a limited-capability
aerobatic trainer into a fighter. It can't be done. Unfortunately,
given the way these planes are flown, nothing less will do.

I hate to speak ill of the dead, but in this case there is no
alternative. Anyone who has ever observed these weekend warrior antics
and knows anything at all about aerobatic flight can easily see that
these planes are ROUTINELY flown outside the design envelope. It's the
responsibility of the safety pilot in the back to keep the plane within
the envelope, but that doesn't happen. In fact, in the first (US)
accident, there is actually a voice recording of the safety pilot
encouraging the pilot up front to be more agressive - seconds before
the wing came off.

Unfortunately, the FAA insists on treating the weekend warrior
operators and the private owners the same. All T-34's are now grounded
because of the antics of a few who should have (and probably did) know
better.

Michael

I agree. The Air & Space article acknowledged the efforts that many
made to separate "normal" flying from the combat simulation programs.
The FAA was not receptive to that argument. I don't know any of the
victims of these events but I have to wonder how, in light of the
history of these wing departures in high stress situations, they could
continue to expose themselves and their clients to this unacceptable
(to me) risk. I understand that my observations are not based upon
scientific data but it seems clear that the planes are not up to the
task.
Rich Russell