T-34 crash

Ditch wrote:
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.

Isn't it just a CFI instructing a student in 'unusual attitudes'? That's
not a commercial operation or a 'for hire' operation.

Hilton

Bob Moore wrote:
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,

I'm not disagreeing with your assertion that Experimental certificate
aircraft cannot be used for hire. I'm suggesting that "instruction in
unusual attitudes" is neither a commercial operation, nor 'for hire'.

Hilton

"Hilton" wrote

I'm not disagreeing with your assertion that Experimental certificate
aircraft cannot be used for hire. I'm suggesting that "instruction in
unusual attitudes" is neither a commercial operation, nor 'for hire'.

Of course not...if I do it for free, or if I do it in the student's
own experimental aircraft which was the case when I did the YAK-52
thing.

Bob Moore

Isn't it just a CFI instructing a student in 'unusual attitudes'?

Not all the pilots in these operations are CFI's. Some only have a commercial
pilot certificate....and it still doesn't matter as the FAA doesn't view that
way.


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

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

"Corky Scott" wrote in message
...
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

Which probably proves my point that if you go fast enough and pull hard
enough on the control stick, something will break. I don't have T-34 spec's
in front of me, but my guess is that the aerobatic g limit is something like
6, with an ultimate (failure) limit of 9 g's. In a rolling maneuver, each
of these figures is reduced by 1/3 or so, so in rolling flight, the wing's
designed failure point is roughly 6 g's... Exceed that, and you're likely
to have a very bad day.

The same concept applies to a C-172 or an Ercoupe, although the G limits
vary...

KB

Michael wrote:

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.

Have you ever flown with Rick Gillenwaters? I have.

Rick was an outstanding pilot and the consumate professional in the
cockpit. He was certainly NOT a "weekend warrior", but rather a
retired Air Force IP. Rick was the example of what all pilots should
aspire to be; you are a typical usenet buffoon typing about that of
which you seem to know *NOTHING*.
Goodbye Rick....

Dave Russell
8KCAB / N2S-3

Michael wrote:

The T-34 is not a fighter. It is not designed to take the stresses of
ACM.

How many g's are required for the "gentlemen's" ACM routinely flown
by these outfits?

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.

Saying and doing are two different animals. Since you seem
to give some import to this comment, how many g's did the
'student' apply as a result of the comment - asymmetric
or symmetric?

Dave 'RAC IA' Hyde