If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
|
#12
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
"Bob McKellar" wrote: wrote in message ... On Thu, 01 Sep 2005 01:11:57 GMT, Gord Beaman wrote: Jim Carriere wrote: snip I'm not sure buying an ex training command aircraft would be such a great deal. Although the maintenance is great and keeps them going in government service, they lead a hard life. Think of it like getting a car at a police auction. I gotta agree...aircraft used to train sprog crews have a hard life...it's nothing that great maintenance can change either, the basic airframe is often subjected to much greater stresses than they are with more experienced handling...in my somewhat experienced opinion at least... A "B" would not be too much of a machine to operate for most folks, but the "C" (with that fuel-swilling turboprop and all the t-prop maintenance needs) would be a rich man's toy. This is assuming no serious airframe issues! :-) It would be fun, but for that kind of money you could probably run a T-28 and have more fun. And get lot's more "style points." ;-) Bill Kambic Years ago a T-34C showed up at my local airport, by coincidence during a Bonanza fly-in. I told the guys they may have had the ugliest Bonanza there, but at least it was the fastest! On a related topic, I read "somewhere" that Beech was concerned about potential future liability issues, and that the contract stipulated that the C's would never be allowed into civilian hands. I have no evidence other than a conspicuously faulty memory, so this may be total BS. However, the piston versions in civilian hands have had a number of fatal accidents involving structural faulure, so I can see Beech's point. Bob McKellar The structural failures were all associated with "air combat" operations, where the airframes were continually abused. (rolling, high-G pullouts at or above redline, etc.) |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Peter Stickney wrote:
A "B" would not be too much of a machine to operate for most folks, but the "C" (with that fuel-swilling turboprop and all the t-prop maintenance needs) would be a rich man's toy. This is assuming no serious airframe issues! :-) Didn't they ground all civil registered T-34s a couple of years back when the wings started falling off of them again? IIRC, at least one of the T-34s that crashed had already had the wing spar mods that were supposed to fix the problem. That's not good. IIRC, the wing spars in the B and C are different designs. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
A pair of them in Navy livery stopped in AVL for fuel today. Guess they
aren't gone yet. David Johnson |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
"ORVAL FAIRAIRN" wrote in message
news I understand that the T-34C is now phased out of Naval service. I have also heard rumors that the Navy, in their infinite wisdom, is going to cut them all up, rather than sell them to willing civilian buyers. Anybody out there know the truth? [/i][/color][/i][/color] Replaced by the T-6A http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/...t/air-t6a.html Pugs[/quote] The T-6A replaced the T-34C only for SNFO training (as of right now). SNA's still use the T-34C for their primary training and probably will for some years to come before it is replaced by the T-6. |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
What's happening in this clip? | Speed Demon | Piloting | 12 | January 10th 05 07:58 AM |