T-34 crash

On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 16:03:45 GMT, "Dudley Henriques"
wrote:


"Michael" wrote in message
roups.com...
The second bird had the Baron spar. It didn't help. If you
consistently pull back hard and roll, NOTHING will help.

Houston FSDO is investigating. Unfortunately, the only person at the
Houston FSDO who knew anything about aerobatics (and would have been
competent to investigate) quit in disgust months ago, so don't expect
much.

It is interesting to note that EVERY T-34 spar failure without
exception has been at one of these weekend warrior outfits - not a
single one in private hands has ever had a problem, including one
18,000 hour T-34 that is used for airshows by the owner.

Michael

I completely agree with this opinion.

The T34 was a problem before the modifications, and will remain a
problem after the mods as long as it remains in the hands of these
fighter pilot wannabe schools.
The issue is well known in the air show safety community. The problem is
nose low rolling pullouts. The T34 is extremely clean and if handled
well is a fine aerobatic airplane. I used one before the spar mod and
had no problems with it.
The instructors flying these fantasy flights are mostly well qualified
pilots. The issue is the entry into the cockpits of the business
equation. Instead of a normal instructor/student scenario on these
flights, you have a "customer" up front and a pilot in back who has a
vested interest in seeing that the "customer" gets maximum bang for his
buck. This is NOT a good situation as the customer begins
"experimenting" with ACM on another airplane in 3 dimensional space
flying an airplane that is as slippery as an eel nose low. Invariably,
these "customers" will end up going deep nose low on the right side of
the envelope as they attempt to get that little "extra" needed for a
tracking solution on the camera sight.
The "instructors" on these fantasy flights are unfortunately always
fighting the same decision; how far to let the "customer" go into a nose
low rolling pullout before taking over the airplane. It's a fairly well
known factor of this type of work that the "customers" DON'T LIKE IT
when you take the airplane away from them. It takes away from the
psychological high they take away from the experience.
It's a two sided coin, and all the pilots who engage in the fantasy
business are aware of it. Most handle it well, and manage to keep the
"customer" out of trouble while at the same time not being obvious about
how they are doing this. Trust me.....this is an ART FORM!! :-)
The use of the T34 for these flights was a bad choice in the beginning
and in my opinion will remain a bad choice. Because the airplane is so
slippery nose low, the error margins relating to over g in a rolling
pullout are just too narrow for this type of work, and the business
equation being present in the rear cockpit can be deadly in this
airplane.
Just my opinion.
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/CFI Retired
for email; take out the trash

They should use Stearmans. You could go straight down and pull/roll
as hard as you want! (tounge slightly pressing onto cheek....).

Bela P. Havasreti

The T-34 article in the current Air & Space begins by recounting the
Sky Warriors Aerial Laser Combat fatal accident in April 1999. The
customer (60 year old retired airline pilot) and safety pilot (51 year
old former fighter pilot) were killed. An onboard video and audio
system recorded the safety pilot urging the customer to "Bury your
nose, bring it down," seconds before the right hand wing came off in a
descending turn.

http://www.ntsb.gov/NTSB/brief.asp?e...05X00416&key=1

--

Paul Hirose
To reply by email delete INVALID from address.

The instructors flying these fantasy flights are mostly well qualified
pilots. The issue is the entry into the cockpits of the business
equation. Instead of a normal instructor/student scenario on these
flights, you have a "customer" up front and a pilot in back who has a
vested interest in seeing that the "customer" gets maximum bang for his
buck. This is NOT a good situation as the customer begins
"experimenting" with ACM on another airplane in 3 dimensional space
flying an airplane that is as slippery as an eel nose low. Invariably,
these "customers" will end up going deep nose low on the right side of
the envelope as they attempt to get that little "extra" needed for a
tracking solution on the camera sight.
The "instructors" on these fantasy flights are unfortunately always
fighting the same decision; how far to let the "customer" go into a nose
low rolling pullout before taking over the airplane. It's a fairly well
known factor of this type of work that the "customers" DON'T LIKE IT
when you take the airplane away from them. It takes away from the
psychological high they take away from the experience.
It's a two sided coin, and all the pilots who engage in the fantasy
business are aware of it. Most handle it well, and manage to keep the
"customer" out of trouble while at the same time not being obvious about
how they are doing this. Trust me.....this is an ART FORM!! :-)
The use of the T34 for these flights was a bad choice in the beginning
and in my opinion will remain a bad choice. Because the airplane is so
slippery nose low, the error margins relating to over g in a rolling
pullout are just too narrow for this type of work, and the business
equation being present in the rear cockpit can be deadly in this
airplane.
Just my opinion.
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/CFI Retired
for email; take out the trash


I agree with this, having been there and done that in the instructor roll.
While working at Air Combat for my brief stint, we limited the G to around 4 to
help with the rolling G problem and my standards were to take the airplane if
it was going to go into that situation (it rarely does, if you know how to talk
the customer away from it). Walter Mitty be damned.
When I did it in the T-6 (about 2% of the flights I did in that airplane), it
was more of a typical student/instructor relationship with more of a realistic
briefing in the begining. I never had a problem with the rolling pullout
scenario in the T-6.




-John
*You are nothing until you have flown a Douglas, Lockheed, Grumman or North
American*

On 9 Dec 2004 06:06:48 -0800, "Michael"
wrote:

The second bird had the Baron spar. It didn't help. If you
consistently pull back hard and roll, NOTHING will help.

Houston FSDO is investigating. Unfortunately, the only person at the
Houston FSDO who knew anything about aerobatics (and would have been
competent to investigate) quit in disgust months ago, so don't expect
much.

It is interesting to note that EVERY T-34 spar failure without
exception has been at one of these weekend warrior outfits - not a
single one in private hands has ever had a problem, including one
18,000 hour T-34 that is used for airshows by the owner.

Michael


Ironically, Air & Space Magazine (Jan '05) has an article on the T-34
wing spar failures and the several "fixes" that were developed by
private industry after the FAA and Raytheon failed to come up with a
cost effective solution. The story identified the problem of all
T-34s being lumped into one group when all of the failures were
concentrated in these hot-dog organizations. The FAA didn't want to
hear it.

The solutions that were described in the article all, to different
degrees, sounded like viable means of maintaining airworthiness. I
wonder if the accident airplane had any of these fixes installed. I
hope that this situation doesn't destroy the innovative work that was
done by many to "solve" the original problem. It appears as though
T-34s flown within a reasonable flight envelope is a safe plane. It
would be a shame to see them all grounded because a few people pushed
them beyond their limits.
Rich Russell

"Richard Russell" wrote in message
...
On 9 Dec 2004 06:06:48 -0800, "Michael"
wrote:

The second bird had the Baron spar. It didn't help. If you
consistently pull back hard and roll, NOTHING will help.

Houston FSDO is investigating. Unfortunately, the only person at the
Houston FSDO who knew anything about aerobatics (and would have been
competent to investigate) quit in disgust months ago, so don't expect
much.

It is interesting to note that EVERY T-34 spar failure without
exception has been at one of these weekend warrior outfits - not a
single one in private hands has ever had a problem, including one
18,000 hour T-34 that is used for airshows by the owner.

Michael


Ironically, Air & Space Magazine (Jan '05) has an article on the T-34
wing spar failures and the several "fixes" that were developed by
private industry after the FAA and Raytheon failed to come up with a
cost effective solution. The story identified the problem of all
T-34s being lumped into one group when all of the failures were
concentrated in these hot-dog organizations. The FAA didn't want to
hear it.

The solutions that were described in the article all, to different
degrees, sounded like viable means of maintaining airworthiness. I
wonder if the accident airplane had any of these fixes installed. I
hope that this situation doesn't destroy the innovative work that was
done by many to "solve" the original problem. It appears as though
T-34s flown within a reasonable flight envelope is a safe plane. It
would be a shame to see them all grounded because a few people pushed
them beyond their limits.
Rich Russell

According to the early reports, the crashed T-34 had the Baron spar mod,
which is an appropriate and approved modification/structural improvement.
Despite that, you can still over G an airplane, and rolling pull out's (and
the associated asymmetric G loading) are a worst case scenario. Whether it
shows in the POH or not, all aircraft (including modern fighters) have a
substantially lower G margin under assymetric G loading.

KB

snip

Quit in disgust?

Another qualified experienced white male perhaps with a "new"
clueless politically correct Black "Guvment" female manager???

Hey it's the new FAA. No experienced white males allowed



Houston FSDO is investigating. Unfortunately, the only person at the
Houston FSDO who knew anything about aerobatics (and would have been
competent to investigate) quit in disgust months ago, so don't expect
much.

Spockstuto wrote:
snip

Quit in disgust?

Another qualified experienced white male perhaps with a "new"
clueless politically correct Black "Guvment" female manager???

Hey it's the new FAA. No experienced white males allowed

I haven't plonked a loathsome moron in quite some time.

*plonk*

Boy, that felt _good_!

On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 18:14:12 -0500, "Kyle Boatright"
wrote:

According to the early reports, the crashed T-34 had the Baron spar mod,
which is an appropriate and approved modification/structural improvement.
Despite that, you can still over G an airplane, and rolling pull out's (and
the associated asymmetric G loading) are a worst case scenario. Whether it
shows in the POH or not, all aircraft (including modern fighters) have a
substantially lower G margin under assymetric G loading.

KB

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.

Corky Scott

On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 11:26:53 -0500, Corky Scott
wrote:

On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 18:14:12 -0500, "Kyle Boatright"
wrote:

According to the early reports, the crashed T-34 had the Baron spar mod,
which is an appropriate and approved modification/structural improvement.
Despite that, you can still over G an airplane, and rolling pull out's (and
the associated asymmetric G loading) are a worst case scenario. Whether it
shows in the POH or not, all aircraft (including modern fighters) have a
substantially lower G margin under assymetric G loading.

KB

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.

Corky Scott

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

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