T-34 crash

"Dudley Henriques" wrote
The T34 unfortunately, more or less fits this visualization.

I have done some areobatic instructing in the YAK-52, a plane
that in my opinion is far more suitable for this kind of work
than the T-34 in which I learned to fly.
The YAK is slowed somewhat by the radial engine and the gear
resting outside the wing in the retracted position.
The YAK also came equiped with an inverted fuel system and a
7g wing.

Unfortunately...the YAK must be certificated in the "Experimental
Exhibition" category and therefore cannot be used for hire.

Bob Moore

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

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.

"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

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*

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.

Bob Moore wrote:
Unfortunately...the YAK must be certificated in the "Experimental
Exhibition" category and therefore cannot be used for hire.

Bob,

I don't think these are 'for hire' operations.

Hilton

Bob,

I don't think these are 'for hire' operations.


Hilton


Even tho the they are not FAR 135 operators, the FAA still considers them a
commercial operation. We needed waivers to fly formation, etc... and the FAA
monitored (at least the 2 companies I was involved with) very closely.


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

"Hilton" wrote

Bob Moore wrote:
Unfortunately...the YAK must be certificated in the "Experimental
Exhibition" category and therefore cannot be used for hire.

Bob,
I don't think these are 'for hire' operations.

Section 91.319: Aircraft having experimental certificates:
Operating limitations.

(a) No person may operate an aircraft that has an experimental
certificate—

(1) For other than the purpose for which the certificate was
issued; or

(2) Carrying persons or property for compensation or hire.


Bob

In article ,
Bob Moore wrote:



Section 91.319: Aircraft having experimental certificates:
Operating limitations.

(a) No person may operate an aircraft that has an experimental
certificate—

(1) For other than the purpose for which the certificate was
issued; or

(2) Carrying persons or property for compensation or hire.


It is possible to fly passengers for hire, but it takes a waiver to do
so. The Collings Foundation B-24 is "experimental".

--
Dale L. Falk

There is nothing - absolutely nothing - half so much worth doing
as simply messing around with airplanes.

http://home.gci.net/~sncdfalk/flying.html