What is Happening with T-34C's?

[ORVAL FAIRAIRN]

I understand that the T-34C is now phased out of Naval service. I have
also heard rumors that the Navy, in their infinite wisdom, is going to
cut them all up, rather than sell them to willing civilian buyers.

Anybody out there know the truth?

[Kyle Boatright]

At some point, the US stopped selling surplus aircraft to civilians. Most
recent warbirds that ended up in private hands were the result of a civilian
trading the government for the aircraft. For instance, if the USAF wanted a
C-45 for the Air Force Muesum, and you had a well preserved example, they
might trade you a surplus aircraft for it.

So, in a roundabout way, some of the aircraft may end up in civilian hands,
but probably not many. Presumably, the rest will go to foreign governments
or will be scrapped.

KB

"ORVAL FAIRAIRN" > wrote in message
...
>I understand that the T-34C is now phased out of Naval service. I have
> also heard rumors that the Navy, in their infinite wisdom, is going to
> cut them all up, rather than sell them to willing civilian buyers.
>
> Anybody out there know the truth?

[Joe Delphi]

"Kyle Boatright" > wrote in message
...
>
> So, in a roundabout way, some of the aircraft may end up in civilian
hands,
> but probably not many. Presumably, the rest will go to foreign
governments
> or will be scrapped.
>
> KB

I know one T-34C that ended up in the hands of the base flight club. Not
sure if that is considered "civilain" since it was a military base but
civilains were in the flight club and flew it, myself included. This was
back in the early 1990s so not sure if the policy was different at that
time.

JD

[Allen Epps]

In article <wZwQe.137073$E95.60418@fed1read01>,
"Joe Delphi" > wrote:

> "Kyle Boatright" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > So, in a roundabout way, some of the aircraft may end up in civilian
> hands,
> > but probably not many. Presumably, the rest will go to foreign
> governments
> > or will be scrapped.
> >
> > KB
>
> I know one T-34C that ended up in the hands of the base flight club. Not
> sure if that is considered "civilain" since it was a military base but
> civilains were in the flight club and flew it, myself included. This was
> back in the early 1990s so not sure if the policy was different at that
> time.
>
> JD

Which flying club was that? NUW had B's for a while.

Pugs

[billw4]

What is their reason for scrapping them?



"Kyle Boatright" > wrote in message
...
> At some point, the US stopped selling surplus aircraft to civilians. Most
> recent warbirds that ended up in private hands were the result of a
civilian
> trading the government for the aircraft. For instance, if the USAF wanted
a
> C-45 for the Air Force Muesum, and you had a well preserved example, they
> might trade you a surplus aircraft for it.
>
> So, in a roundabout way, some of the aircraft may end up in civilian
hands,
> but probably not many. Presumably, the rest will go to foreign
governments
> or will be scrapped.
>
> KB
>
> "ORVAL FAIRAIRN" > wrote in message
> ...
> >I understand that the T-34C is now phased out of Naval service. I have
> > also heard rumors that the Navy, in their infinite wisdom, is going to
> > cut them all up, rather than sell them to willing civilian buyers.
> >
> > Anybody out there know the truth?
>
>

[Allen Epps]

In article et>,
"billw4" > wrote:

> What is their reason for scrapping them?
>
>
>
> "Kyle Boatright" > wrote in message
> ...
> > At some point, the US stopped selling surplus aircraft to civilians. Most
> > recent warbirds that ended up in private hands were the result of a
> civilian
> > trading the government for the aircraft. For instance, if the USAF wanted
> a
> > C-45 for the Air Force Muesum, and you had a well preserved example, they
> > might trade you a surplus aircraft for it.
> >
> > So, in a roundabout way, some of the aircraft may end up in civilian
> hands,
> > but probably not many. Presumably, the rest will go to foreign
> governments
> > or will be scrapped.
> >
> > KB
> >
> > "ORVAL FAIRAIRN" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >I understand that the T-34C is now phased out of Naval service. I have
> > > also heard rumors that the Navy, in their infinite wisdom, is going to
> > > cut them all up, rather than sell them to willing civilian buyers.
> > >
> > > Anybody out there know the truth?
> >
> >

Replaced by the T-6A

http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/factfile/aircraft/air-t6a.html

If you're asking why (or if) they are actually being broken up don't
know.
Pugs

[Jim Carriere]

ORVAL FAIRAIRN wrote:
> I understand that the T-34C is now phased out of Naval service. I have
> also heard rumors that the Navy, in their infinite wisdom, is going to
> cut them all up, rather than sell them to willing civilian buyers.
>
> Anybody out there know the truth?

I'm not sure buying an ex training command aircraft would be such a
great deal. Although the maintenance is great and keeps them going
in government service, they lead a hard life. Think of it like
getting a car at a police auction.

[Gord Beaman]

Jim Carriere > wrote:
snip
>
>I'm not sure buying an ex training command aircraft would be such a
>great deal. Although the maintenance is great and keeps them going
>in government service, they lead a hard life. Think of it like
>getting a car at a police auction.

I gotta agree...aircraft used to train sprog crews have a hard
life...it's nothing that great maintenance can change either, the
basic airframe is often subjected to much greater stresses than
they are with more experienced handling...in my somewhat
experienced opinion at least... :)
--

-Gord.
(use gordon in email)

[[email protected]]

On Thu, 01 Sep 2005 01:11:57 GMT, Gord Beaman >
wrote:

>Jim Carriere > wrote:
> snip
>>
>>I'm not sure buying an ex training command aircraft would be such a
>>great deal. Although the maintenance is great and keeps them going
>>in government service, they lead a hard life. Think of it like
>>getting a car at a police auction.
>
>I gotta agree...aircraft used to train sprog crews have a hard
>life...it's nothing that great maintenance can change either, the
>basic airframe is often subjected to much greater stresses than
>they are with more experienced handling...in my somewhat
>experienced opinion at least... :)

A "B" would not be too much of a machine to operate for most folks,
but the "C" (with that fuel-swilling turboprop and all the t-prop
maintenance needs) would be a rich man's toy. This is assuming no
serious airframe issues! :-)

It would be fun, but for that kind of money you could probably run a
T-28 and have more fun. And get lot's more "style points." ;-)

Bill Kambic

[Bob McKellar]

> wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 01 Sep 2005 01:11:57 GMT, Gord Beaman >
> wrote:
>
>>Jim Carriere > wrote:
>> snip
>>>
>>>I'm not sure buying an ex training command aircraft would be such a
>>>great deal. Although the maintenance is great and keeps them going
>>>in government service, they lead a hard life. Think of it like
>>>getting a car at a police auction.
>>
>>I gotta agree...aircraft used to train sprog crews have a hard
>>life...it's nothing that great maintenance can change either, the
>>basic airframe is often subjected to much greater stresses than
>>they are with more experienced handling...in my somewhat
>>experienced opinion at least... :)
>
> A "B" would not be too much of a machine to operate for most folks,
> but the "C" (with that fuel-swilling turboprop and all the t-prop
> maintenance needs) would be a rich man's toy. This is assuming no
> serious airframe issues! :-)
>
> It would be fun, but for that kind of money you could probably run a
> T-28 and have more fun. And get lot's more "style points." ;-)
>
> Bill Kambic
>
Years ago a T-34C showed up at my local airport, by coincidence during a
Bonanza fly-in.

I told the guys they may have had the ugliest Bonanza there, but at least it
was the fastest!

On a related topic, I read "somewhere" that Beech was concerned about
potential future liability issues, and that the contract stipulated that the
C's would never be allowed into civilian hands. I have no evidence other
than a conspicuously faulty memory, so this may be total BS. However, the
piston versions in civilian hands have had a number of fatal accidents
involving structural faulure, so I can see Beech's point.

Bob McKellar

[Peter Stickney]

wrote:

> On Thu, 01 Sep 2005 01:11:57 GMT, Gord Beaman
> > wrote:
>
>>Jim Carriere > wrote:
>> snip
>>>
>>>I'm not sure buying an ex training command aircraft would be such a
>>>great deal. Although the maintenance is great and keeps them going
>>>in government service, they lead a hard life. Think of it like
>>>getting a car at a police auction.
>>
>>I gotta agree...aircraft used to train sprog crews have a hard
>>life...it's nothing that great maintenance can change either, the
>>basic airframe is often subjected to much greater stresses than
>>they are with more experienced handling...in my somewhat
>>experienced opinion at least... :)
>
> A "B" would not be too much of a machine to operate for most folks,
> but the "C" (with that fuel-swilling turboprop and all the t-prop
> maintenance needs) would be a rich man's toy. This is assuming no
> serious airframe issues! :-)

Didn't they ground all civil registered T-34s a couple of years back
when the wings started falling off of them again? IIRC, at least one
of the T-34s that crashed had already had the wing spar mods that
were supposed to fix the problem. That's not good.

> It would be fun, but for that kind of money you could probably run a
> T-28 and have more fun. And get lot's more "style points." ;-)

A T-28 is more like a jet than a recip inside. The electric and
hydraulic systems are Learjet complex. They're great airplanes, but
they're expensive to maintain.

--
Pete Stickney
Java Man knew nothing about coffee.

[ORVAL FAIRAIRN]

In article >,
"Bob McKellar" > wrote:

> > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Thu, 01 Sep 2005 01:11:57 GMT, Gord Beaman >
> > wrote:
> >
> >>Jim Carriere > wrote:
> >> snip
> >>>
> >>>I'm not sure buying an ex training command aircraft would be such a
> >>>great deal. Although the maintenance is great and keeps them going
> >>>in government service, they lead a hard life. Think of it like
> >>>getting a car at a police auction.
> >>
> >>I gotta agree...aircraft used to train sprog crews have a hard
> >>life...it's nothing that great maintenance can change either, the
> >>basic airframe is often subjected to much greater stresses than
> >>they are with more experienced handling...in my somewhat
> >>experienced opinion at least... :)
> >
> > A "B" would not be too much of a machine to operate for most folks,
> > but the "C" (with that fuel-swilling turboprop and all the t-prop
> > maintenance needs) would be a rich man's toy. This is assuming no
> > serious airframe issues! :-)
> >
> > It would be fun, but for that kind of money you could probably run a
> > T-28 and have more fun. And get lot's more "style points." ;-)
> >
> > Bill Kambic
> >
> Years ago a T-34C showed up at my local airport, by coincidence during a
> Bonanza fly-in.
>
> I told the guys they may have had the ugliest Bonanza there, but at least it
> was the fastest!
>
> On a related topic, I read "somewhere" that Beech was concerned about
> potential future liability issues, and that the contract stipulated that the
> C's would never be allowed into civilian hands. I have no evidence other
> than a conspicuously faulty memory, so this may be total BS. However, the
> piston versions in civilian hands have had a number of fatal accidents
> involving structural faulure, so I can see Beech's point.
>
> Bob McKellar

The structural failures were all associated with "air combat"
operations, where the airframes were continually abused. (rolling,
high-G pullouts at or above redline, etc.)

[Jim Carriere]

Peter Stickney wrote:
>>A "B" would not be too much of a machine to operate for most folks,
>>but the "C" (with that fuel-swilling turboprop and all the t-prop
>>maintenance needs) would be a rich man's toy. This is assuming no
>>serious airframe issues! :-)
>
>
> Didn't they ground all civil registered T-34s a couple of years back
> when the wings started falling off of them again? IIRC, at least one
> of the T-34s that crashed had already had the wing spar mods that
> were supposed to fix the problem. That's not good.

IIRC, the wing spars in the B and C are different designs.

[[email protected]]

A pair of them in Navy livery stopped in AVL for fuel today. Guess they
aren't gone yet.

David Johnson

[Zippy]

"ORVAL FAIRAIRN" wrote in message
...
I understand that the T-34C is now phased out of Naval service. I have
also heard rumors that the Navy, in their infinite wisdom, is going to
cut them all up, rather than sell them to willing civilian buyers.

Anybody out there know the truth?

[/i][/color][/i][/color]

Replaced by the T-6A

http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/factfile/aircraft/air-t6a.html


Pugs[/QUOTE]

The T-6A replaced the T-34C only for SNFO training (as of right now). SNA's still use the T-34C for their primary training and probably will for some years to come before it is replaced by the T-6.