BOE773 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Posted (6 years 9 months 1 week 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 3386 times:
The Air Force's fleet of 110 T-3A Firefly aircraft will be destroyed after the airplane's short but deadly run in the service's pilot training program during the 1990s, the Air Force said Friday.
The British-made T-3 replaced the T-41 aircraft in 1993 but was grounded in 1997 after three Air Force Academy cadets and their three instructors died in separate crashes in consecutive years..
The Slingsby T-3A was used in the Enhanced Flight Screening Program.
The decision to destroy the planes was delayed by litigation involving Air Force claims against the manufacturer, Smith said.
Lumberton From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 4708 posts, RR: 21 Reply 3, posted (6 years 9 months 1 week 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 3379 times:
Has anything replaced theT-3?
"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
L-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29366 posts, RR: 61 Reply 6, posted (6 years 9 months 1 week 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 3362 times:
I don't fault Slingsby for despite what the air force claims.
The problem was that the Air Force changed the engine when they spec'd out the aircraft. The design is a very successful trainer in England, but the USAF wanted a bigger engine, which I believe combined with the higher altitudes of Colorado Springs
It is worthwhile to note that the USAF did not have the same problems with the aircraft that not assigned to the Academy but to lower altitude bases.
OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
MissedApproach From Canada, joined Oct 2004, 713 posts, RR: 2 Reply 7, posted (6 years 9 months 1 week 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 3339 times:
Didn't the SAAF get rid of a newish trainer & dig old ones out of storage (T-6 Harvard/Texan IIRC)?
Wasn't there a plane with suitable power that fit the USAF's requirements without modification?
RAFOHunter From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 18 posts, RR: 0 Reply 8, posted (6 years 9 months 1 week 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 3321 times:
Slingsby have extremely good products. The US military has a history of changing the specs on service aircraft and then sueing the manufacturers when there's a problem.
Quoting BOE773 (Reply 5): The English never had much luck selling their aircraft to the world.
Concordes, Tridents and VC10s were a few of the failures.
Can't remember too many indigenous Canadian planes getting sold abroad!!! Don't see too many Avro Arrows around the world!
UK had a lot of success selling aircraft - and giving away the technology.
Tridents and VC10's were in use with airlines around the world. Comet sold overseas. Harrier, Jaguar, Hunter, Hawk to name but a few.
As for Concorde, only the French and English had the balls to fly them, and for many successful years too. Politics took too much away from other countries being able to buy them. Canada backed off when the US backed out of buying the Concorde. How surprising!
CPDC10-30 From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2000, 4759 posts, RR: 26 Reply 11, posted (6 years 9 months 1 week 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 3169 times:
Quoting RAFOHunter (Reply 8): Can't remember too many indigenous Canadian planes getting sold abroad!!! Don't see too many Avro Arrows around the world!
These are in current production, not to mention others made in the past (and some I have neglected to add and their derivatives):
RAFOHunter From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 18 posts, RR: 0 Reply 12, posted (6 years 9 months 1 week 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 3122 times:
Quoting CPDC10-30 (Reply 11): These are in current production, not to mention others made in the past (and some I have neglected to add and their derivatives):
Yes, conceded, not too much in the last 40 years!
I had totally dismissed Bombardier (used to work for them too!) Canadair and DHC. One other for the list would be the very successful DHC Chipmunk (I prefer the smaller planes).
GDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 12735 posts, RR: 79 Reply 13, posted (6 years 9 months 1 week 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 3120 times:
As some have said already, the Slingsbury is in successful use elsewhere, a contractor here providing intial flight screening for the MoD had them too.
Having said that, 20 years ago, when the RAF were in search of a turboprop trainer to replace the Jet Provosts, they wanted something off the shelf-or as much off the shelf as RAF specs would allow.
What they got, was the Tucano-built by Shorts under licence, but with a Garrett engine replacing the PT-6.
Shorts might have been selected for political reasons, the engine change reason (on an already successful design), is less clear cut.
The RAF really wanted BAe to built a version of the Swiss PC-9.
The NDN Firecracker aircraft looked great too, but lacked a big production partner, also needed development. (If an aircraft cannot be developed to production for your home air force, how the hell is it supposed to be built and be a success?)
Though Shorts did export it's Tucano versions to Kenya and Kuwait, BAe included the PC-9 in their huge deals with Saudi.
BOE773 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 14, posted (6 years 9 months 1 week 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 3108 times:
Quoting CPDC10-30 (Reply 11): While it isn't nice saying that British aircraft haven't had many market successes, it is quite true at least in the past 40 years.
Well I'm sorry to sound insulting.
Yes indeed, the Hawk and Harrier were successful.
David L From United Kingdom, joined May 1999, 9242 posts, RR: 42 Reply 15, posted (6 years 9 months 1 week 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 3073 times:
Quoting RAFOHunter (Reply 8): Tridents and VC10's were in use with airlines around the world. Comet sold overseas. Harrier, Jaguar, Hunter, Hawk to name but a few.
The BAC 1-11, Viscount and BAe 146 didn't do too badly, either - they even sold in the USA. And then there are our more recent collaborative projects, such as the Jaguar, Tornado, Typhoon and Airbus.
Quoting L-188 (Reply 6): The problem was that the Air Force changed the engine when they spec'd out the aircraft. The design is a very successful trainer in England, but the USAF wanted a bigger engine, which I believe combined with the higher altitudes of Colorado Springs
Looking at Table 2.1 in that article, I'm struggling to relate the "fatal mishaps" with faults in the aircraft:
1984 UK Aerobatics 1 Aerial display; insufficient altitude for maneuver
1984 UK Cross Country 1 On training flight, pilot became lost and attempted a bail-out too low
1985 UK Spin 2 Failed to recover, no pre-impact defects
1987 UK Aerobatics 2 Engine failure while inverted in loop. Probably pilot error, since placards warn against negative G flight
1987 Sweden Aerobatics 1 Low level aerobatics
1987 UK Aerobatics 2 Pilot initiated maneuver too low
1987 Switzerland Spin 2 Spun too low to ground---no defects noted
1989 Japan Aerobatics 2 Steep turn after takeoff, rolled inverted
1989 Turkey SFL 2 Wing dropped near the ground
1989 Turkey Formation 2 On inside of turn after takeoff, hit house
1990 UK Aerobatics 1 Misjudged altitude during aerobatics
1990 New Zealand Aerobatics 1 No information
Manzoori From UK - England, joined Sep 2002, 1516 posts, RR: 37 Reply 16, posted (6 years 9 months 1 week 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 2924 times:
Quoting BOE773 (Reply 14): Well I'm sorry to sound insulting
No you're not! You repeatedly post topics bashing anything British and quite frankly it's getting really tiresome. I've lost count of how many of your inflammatory threads have been deleted.
Seriously... Get a life!
Flightlineimages DOT Com Photographer & Web Editor. RR Turbines Specialist
BOE773 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 19, posted (6 years 9 months 1 week 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 2819 times:
Personally I think that the engine to airframe fuel line(s) interface needed some tweaking to preclude the vapor lock problem. Then the craft would have been a winner.
DEVILFISH From Philippines, joined Jan 2006, 4449 posts, RR: 1 Reply 20, posted (6 years 9 months 1 week 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 2810 times:
Quoting BOE773 (Thread starter): The Air Force's fleet of 110 T-3A Firefly aircraft will be destroyed after the airplane's short but deadly run in the service's pilot training program during the 1990s, the Air Force said Friday.
Why destroy perfectly serviceable aircraft? I'm sure the Phil. Air Force (for one) would be ecstatic to receive those as donations. They have a knack for turning junk into useful items (not saying the T-3As are junk, mind you.)
Quoting GDB (Reply 13): the Slingsbury is in successful use elsewhere,
Quite a macabre name for a successful product? Anyway, the mishap list quoted in Reply 15 do suggest it was judged harshly.
Quoting L-188 (Reply 6):
It is worthwhile to note that the USAF did not have the same problems with the aircraft that not assigned to the Academy but to lower altitude bases.
Most bases in RP are near sea level and training flights are mostly conducted away from mountainous areas.
Quoting RAFOHunter (Reply 8): The US military has a history of changing the specs on service aircraft and then sueing the manufacturers when there's a problem.
Quoting Manzoori (Reply 16): repeatedly post topics bashing anything British
With this shameless plug (begging?), I'd go out on a limb and say the PAF would never disparage the Slingsby nor sue the donors if some of the T-3As were given to them!
L-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29366 posts, RR: 61 Reply 21, posted (6 years 9 months 1 week 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 2791 times:
Quoting BOE773 (Reply 19): Personally I think that the engine to airframe fuel line(s) interface needed some tweaking to preclude the vapor lock problem. Then the craft would have been a winner.
I want to say that was the cause of all if not most of those USAF crashes and the condition was exastrabated by the hot and high conditions at Colorado Springs.
Again, I think the big issue was an airframe system/engine mismatch when the USAF spec'd that larger motor then everybody else was using.
OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
2H4 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 8950 posts, RR: 62 Reply 23, posted (6 years 9 months 1 week 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 2635 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW HEAD DATABASE EDITOR
Quoting BOE773 (Reply 5): The English never had much luck selling their aircraft to the world.
MissedApproach From Canada, joined Oct 2004, 713 posts, RR: 2 Reply 24, posted (6 years 9 months 1 week 2 hours ago) and read 2588 times:
So hey, what will replace (or has replaced) these airplanes in the USAF?
Can you hear me now?
25 BOE773: Sales for these exec jets took off when Beechcraft, then Raytheon took control of them.
26 DEVILFISH: A newsbrief in Flight International says the destruction of the T-3as was to have taken place Sep 25. Anyone has a link to a video or a photo?
Sponsor Message: 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 4708 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined May 1999, 9242 posts, 
From UK - England, joined Sep 2002, 1516 posts, 
From Philippines, joined Jan 2006, 4449 posts, 
They have a knack for turning junk into useful items (not saying the T-3As are junk, mind you.)
Sponsor Message: 
Printer friendly format
