WT Forums

The Airforce take the T-3a out of service.
http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123026857


Salute Dutchy
------------------------
Termites do it in the dark!
(47FS Barksdale afb)

_________________
73-1664

The maintenance reliability of the Firefly has always been an issue at the Air Force Academy. They have been using the Diamond DV-20 Katana like this one:
http://library.thinkquest.org/2819/katana.htm

http://www.flying-colors.org/katana/ , for a few years now. They still use Cessna 150/152 and 172 aircraft as well, but the Katana is the primary trainer.

_________________
Just give me some ammo, a little water.....and some chips if you got 'em

IIRC they had lots of problems with the engines icing up on the T-3s.

Just cross out "machine gun" and write in "pizza"

_________________
The only time you have too much fuel is when you're on fire.

They were also under powered for the task. Nothing acrobatic, but still not enough gerbils to get the job done. The Katana has a Rotax type engine and is a very capable airframe. Not that the AFA allows it's cadet pilots to experience it, but the plane is capable of 20kt crosswind components (from the Bombardier website).

_________________
Just give me some ammo, a little water.....and some chips if you got 'em

The T-3s have been out of service since '97. They've just finally decided to junk'em after ten years of mulling.

Crushed under his own mental block...

Problem is, many of these accidents were pilot error. Most of all the problems were with the aircraft that were based out of Colorado Springs at USAFA, the birds down in Hondo never really had any problems. Second major issue was training. The Hondo birds were flown primarily by civilian CFIs, while the USAFA birds were flown by IPs mainly from heavy jet backgrounds, with little time/experience in recip prop aircraft. Even in the '96 accident, the plane stalled and crashed following engine failure during a simulated forced landing. In a simulated forced landing (simulating engine failure), if the engine does in-fact fail, the procedure should be able to be completed to landing since you're simulating the real emergency in the first place! You've selected a suitable landing spot, done the procedures, etc....to then stall the aircraft is indicitive of poor technique, not necessarily something wrong with the plane; though this plane seemingly had some isses and was more complex that the T-41. Still, many of the accidents cited show the same thing regard pilot technique.

The plane did have some design probs........again, mostly affecting the Colorado Springs based planes....density altitude affects of some sort probably. Vapor lock was one of the problems, something to do with the fuel pump design that was added. Tied to that was a student that knew nothing, being instructed by an IP..usually some heavy-plane co-pilot type, that truthfully, didn't know much more than the stud. IPs had lots of heavy or fighter jet time, but very little recip prop time.....as evidenced by the accidents that only became so after pilot intervention.