Goodbye, T-3

Keith Lane

Keith Lane

Pattern Altitude
Joined
Feb 25, 2005
Messages
1,637
Location
Conyers, Georgia
Display Name
Display name:
Keith Lane
Looks like the T-3 trainer is headed out to the recyclers.

" The Air Force has finally decided what to do with its barely-flown fleet of 106 training airplanes: Concede that it's high-flying junk."


http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1534054,00.html?cnn=yes

Killing students woulda been bad enough, but to kill "highly trained" instructors proved the problems I guess.
 
So USAF pays some $487,000 each (in Clinton-era dollars) for a fleet of foreign-built, fixed-gear airplanes with big engines, and all we get for it are some dead pilots and a pile of aluminum ashtrays.

Meanwhile, off-the-shelf F33C Bonanzas (used as military trainers by several countries), new T-41's (Cessna 172 and R172, derided by Gen. McPeak as "your grandmother's airplane") and others, could have been had for a song by comparison.

Even Mooney had an entry in the competition, a very attractive modification of the newer M20 series airframe with a bubble canopy. It was rejected because of a problem with spin handling with full fuel.

McPeak himself flies an RV -- wouldn't a fleet of those make great primary trainers?

So to the long list of airplanes that could not replace the good ol' Cessna 172, add the Slingsby T-3 Firefly.

"Slingsby T-3 Firefly" ... sounds like something from a Marx Brothers movie.

-- Pilawt
 
Pilawt said:
Even Mooney had an entry in the competition, a very attractive modification of the newer M20 series airframe with a bubble canopy. It was rejected because of a problem with spin handling with full fuel.
Click to expand...

To be fair...Mooney stated that the M20 airframe would have required serious and expensive re tooling to accomodate the negative g requirements. That said, it was a very cool looking airplane.

I never understood why they couldn't identify the problem and just fix it.

Len
 
Why we can't just buy a proven military trainer like the Marchetti SF260 is beyond my understanding. Its fully aerobatic has many U.S. components including a Lycoming engine.
 
Anthony said:
Why we can't just buy a proven military trainer like the Marchetti SF260 is beyond my understanding. Its fully aerobatic has many U.S. components including a Lycoming engine.
Click to expand...

Because the DOD has a strong bias against OTS solutions to any problem. I suspect it's a case of the procurement folks wanting to stay within their comfort zone coupled with a perceived loss of importance on their part if their job is reduced to "shopping".
 
lancefisher said:
Because the DOD has a strong bias against OTS solutions to any problem. I suspect it's a case of the procurement folks wanting to stay within their comfort zone coupled with a perceived loss of importance on their part if their job is reduced to "shopping".
Click to expand...

Morons.
 
lancefisher said:
Because the DOD has a strong bias against OTS solutions to any problem. I suspect it's a case of the procurement folks wanting to stay within their comfort zone coupled with a perceived loss of importance on their part if their job is reduced to "shopping".
Click to expand...
Not to mention the reduced opportunities for kickbacks.
 
Steve said:
It's a sad sight to see at Hondo, TX. All those T-3s under the hail sheds, rotting.
Click to expand...

I'm not so sure they're really good for anything else.
 
Steve said:
http://www.vansaircraft.com/public/nigerian.htm
Click to expand...
What an idea! We want cadets to be knowledgeable about structures and systems, right? So let 'em build their own primary trainers, which they get to keep for their own after 'x' years of service.

Just kidding. But then ... that's better than half a mil for a Slingsby Lawn Dart.

-- Pilawt
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top