T-34's Grounded

[Juan Jimenez]

The FAA has just issued an emergency AD that appears to ground _all_ Beech
T-34 aircraft, all models, until further notice, after confirming that the
Texas Air Aces T-34 that went down a few days ago suffered a wing
separation. It only allows a few hours of flight under very strict
restrictions to reposition aircraft to home bases, etc.

See http://www.aero-news.net for more info, I just got the email from the
FAA this morning and posted the news immediately.

Juan

[Ben Jackson]

In article >,
Juan Jimenez > wrote:
>The FAA has just issued an emergency AD that appears to ground _all_ Beech
>T-34 aircraft, all models, until further notice, after confirming that the

I could pull 6+ Gs in a rolling pullout in MY airplane and SOMETHING would
come off of it. The FAA would just call it pilot error.

--
Ben Jackson
>
http://www.ben.com/

[Ron Wanttaja]

On Sat, 11 Dec 2004 21:35:11 GMT, (Ben Jackson) wrote:

>In article >,
>Juan Jimenez > wrote:
>>The FAA has just issued an emergency AD that appears to ground _all_ Beech
>>T-34 aircraft, all models, until further notice, after confirming that the
>
>I could pull 6+ Gs in a rolling pullout in MY airplane and SOMETHING would
>come off of it. The FAA would just call it pilot error.

Nice bit of background in the December issue of AIR AND SPACE magazine:

http://www.airandspacemagazine.com/ASM/Mag/Index/2005/DJ/svmt.html

Ron Wanttaja

[Dave S]

And it went to press a month or so too early... given the current
circumstances..

Dave

Ron Wanttaja wrote:
> On Sat, 11 Dec 2004 21:35:11 GMT, (Ben Jackson) wrote:
>
>
>>In article >,
>>Juan Jimenez > wrote:
>>
>>>The FAA has just issued an emergency AD that appears to ground _all_ Beech
>>>T-34 aircraft, all models, until further notice, after confirming that the
>>
>>I could pull 6+ Gs in a rolling pullout in MY airplane and SOMETHING would
>>come off of it. The FAA would just call it pilot error.
>
>
> Nice bit of background in the December issue of AIR AND SPACE magazine:
>
> http://www.airandspacemagazine.com/ASM/Mag/Index/2005/DJ/svmt.html
>
> Ron Wanttaja

[Ron Wanttaja]

On Sun, 12 Dec 2004 06:01:09 GMT, Dave S > wrote:

>Ron Wanttaja wrote:
>>>
>>>>The FAA has just issued an emergency AD that appears to ground _all_ Beech
>>>>T-34 aircraft, all models, until further notice, after confirming that the
>>>
>>>I could pull 6+ Gs in a rolling pullout in MY airplane and SOMETHING would
>>>come off of it. The FAA would just call it pilot error.
>>
>>
>> Nice bit of background in the December issue of AIR AND SPACE magazine:
>>
>> http://www.airandspacemagazine.com/ASM/Mag/Index/2005/DJ/svmt.html
>>
>> Ron Wanttaja
>
>And it went to press a month or so too early... given the current
>circumstances..

Oh, I don't know...it certainly doesn't imply that the problems were definitely
over. To quote the last line on Peter Garrison's article: "Like an athlete who
discovers in his 40s that his body can no longer take the punishment it used to,
the T-34 was passing into a new phase: not old age, but perhaps middle age, a
time for reflection, restraint, and an awareness of mortality."

Garrison's announced himself on the T-34 bulletin board on Yahoo; it'll be
interesting to see what he says.

Ron Wanttaja

[BTIZ]

looks like that T-34 that came by my glider in the traffic pattern yesterday
was getting in his final flight, or moving it to an airport that could do
the work needed.. and he stopped for gas... never did find out if he ever
saw me..

BT

"Juan Jimenez" > wrote in message
...
> The FAA has just issued an emergency AD that appears to ground _all_ Beech
> T-34 aircraft, all models, until further notice, after confirming that the
> Texas Air Aces T-34 that went down a few days ago suffered a wing
> separation. It only allows a few hours of flight under very strict
> restrictions to reposition aircraft to home bases, etc.
>
> See http://www.aero-news.net for more info, I just got the email from the
> FAA this morning and posted the news immediately.
>
> Juan
>
>
>
>

[Bela P. Havasreti]

I recall reading that towards the end of the operational
"life" of the P-51 Mustang, the military put G limits on
the airplane that were more restrictive than the factory
originally specified (forget just what the new limit was....).

Point being, the military realized the airframes were
getting old/tired, and did the prudent thing by limiting
the G loads on the poor ole' gals.

It would be foolish to think one could operate an aircraft
up to the design structural limit forever....

Bela P. Havasreti

[Juan Jimenez]

I heard stories that after the war, the government was trying to sell brand
new P-51's still in the crates, with new engines, for something like
$1200... I wonder what the spread of TT is on the P-51 airframes.

"Bela P. Havasreti" > wrote in message
...
>I recall reading that towards the end of the operational
> "life" of the P-51 Mustang, the military put G limits on
> the airplane that were more restrictive than the factory
> originally specified (forget just what the new limit was....).
>
> Point being, the military realized the airframes were
> getting old/tired, and did the prudent thing by limiting
> the G loads on the poor ole' gals.
>
> It would be foolish to think one could operate an aircraft
> up to the design structural limit forever....
>
> Bela P. Havasreti

[Almarz]

A friend who is from The UK remembers Spits for about 100 dollars with
a spare engine. His dad didn't let him have one though, no room in
the garage. Stearmans were bought mainly for the full tanks of fuel
and I think a T6 could be had for about 1.2K. The deals were there
until about 1963 or so when the interest started to build.

On Sun, 12 Dec 2004 19:40:56 -0400, "Juan Jimenez"
> wrote:

>I heard stories that after the war, the government was trying to sell brand
>new P-51's still in the crates, with new engines, for something like
>$1200... I wonder what the spread of TT is on the P-51 airframes.
>
>"Bela P. Havasreti" > wrote in message
...
>>I recall reading that towards the end of the operational
>> "life" of the P-51 Mustang, the military put G limits on
>> the airplane that were more restrictive than the factory
>> originally specified (forget just what the new limit was....).
>>
>> Point being, the military realized the airframes were
>> getting old/tired, and did the prudent thing by limiting
>> the G loads on the poor ole' gals.
>>
>> It would be foolish to think one could operate an aircraft
>> up to the design structural limit forever....
>>
>> Bela P. Havasreti
>
>