Go Back  Airline Pilot Central Forums > Career Builder > Military
End of an Era Looms ... >

End of an Era Looms ...

Notices
Military Military Aviation

End of an Era Looms ...

Old 04-29-2009, 09:36 AM
  #21  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Ferd149's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: LAX ERA
Posts: 3,457
Default

I hate to give my age away, but I was on the staff at Randolph when the choice of the T-6 was made (I even flew the PC-9 when it came around on the demos). We didn't want it, the Navy forced it on us as they liked single engine turbo props and it didn't approach the performance of their T-45s, which the jets we liked did. Anyway, a decision made at the DOD level for JSUPT.

The USAF wanted a twin engine jet, several were available but........

Ferd
Ferd149 is offline  
Old 04-29-2009, 10:41 AM
  #22  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Tweetdrvr's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Feb 2007
Position: A-300 F/O
Posts: 281
Default

Like this little jet here derived from the Citation

JPATS CitationJet

Chapter 17 excerpt << CW, the book << Cessna Warbirds

http://www.cessnawarbirds.com/blog/images/jpats.jpg

If Cessna had gotten the T-1 contract with the Citation, then turned around and won JPATs with this little machine, there would have been two jets on the ramp with 70% mx common logistics train. How is that for a win for the taxpayer? Sen. Dole did not care either way, his voters in Kansas were going to get paid to build airplanes. Cessna lost both and is still in business, Raytheon could have lost both and would still be in business. Want a trainer? Buy a Cessna!!
Tweetdrvr is offline  
Old 04-29-2009, 10:46 AM
  #23  
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
 
KC10 FATboy's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jun 2007
Position: Legacy FO
Posts: 4,094
Default

Doesn't the T-6 out perform the T-37? If so, other than the reliability of having a second motor, what real advantage would there have been in having a twin engine airplane for an initial pilot training aircraft?
KC10 FATboy is offline  
Old 04-29-2009, 11:11 AM
  #24  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Ferd149's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: LAX ERA
Posts: 3,457
Default

Originally Posted by Tweetdrvr View Post
Like this little jet here derived from the Citation

JPATS CitationJet

Chapter 17 excerpt << CW, the book << Cessna Warbirds

http://www.cessnawarbirds.com/blog/images/jpats.jpg

If Cessna had gotten the T-1 contract with the Citation, then turned around and won JPATs with this little machine, there would have been two jets on the ramp with 70% mx common logistics train. How is that for a win for the taxpayer? Sen. Dole did not care either way, his voters in Kansas were going to get paid to build airplanes. Cessna lost both and is still in business, Raytheon could have lost both and would still be in business. Want a trainer? Buy a Cessna!!
Tweet.........that's the one we liked in the Stan/Eval shop.

Ferd
Ferd149 is offline  
Old 04-29-2009, 11:18 AM
  #25  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Ferd149's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: LAX ERA
Posts: 3,457
Default

Originally Posted by KC10 FATboy View Post
Doesn't the T-6 out perform the T-37? If so, other than the reliability of having a second motor, what real advantage would there have been in having a twin engine airplane for an initial pilot training aircraft?
There were (in our minds) ramp safety issues that the Navy said weren't there but the biggest was having to train flame out landings. How do they do it now with mixing straight ins, overheads and SFO landings all at one aux field? We just weren't set up for that. I retired before the T-6s arrived so I don't know how it's done or if they decided the engine reliability was good enough not to worry about it, but we didn't want a single engine trainer.

Yes the PC-9 that I flew way out performed a tweet. It would do a "snowman" - 3 Immelmans followed by 3 Split Ss. Oh, and 300K on initial if you needed it too. Plus, the T-6 has a bigger engine than the PC-9 did (for the pressurization).

Ferd
Ferd149 is offline  
Old 04-29-2009, 01:39 PM
  #26  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Tweetdrvr's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Feb 2007
Position: A-300 F/O
Posts: 281
Default

Originally Posted by KC10 FATboy View Post
Doesn't the T-6 out perform the T-37? If so, other than the reliability of having a second motor, what real advantage would there have been in having a twin engine airplane for an initial pilot training aircraft?
yes and no

The takeoff roll is 1000' less, it is not as fast at cross country cruise 260 TAS at FL250 vice 270 TAS, it won't go faster than 245 KIAS at 14K running max torque, so it can't comply with our weather recall procedures to fly home at 250, if you are coming home from the high area. That one is not so important since RAPCON slows everybody down for sequence anyway. It isn't faster on the deck, but both will exceed 250 below 10K. Oddly enough we do interval takeoffs in formation with less time 6 secs for the T-6 and 10 secs for the Tweet, but it seems like it takes me two miles longer to complete the rejoin on a straight out departure than it did in the Tweet. The Tweet was easier to stop than the T-6. My record in the Tweet is about 1100 feet from brick one with a 15kt headwind, and 700lbs of gas using the min approach speed for a given weight chart in the appendix of the dash-1, I won't even attempt that in the T-6. I made it to 1100 hours before blowing a tire, and the student I was with did it by jumping on the brakes doing a mere 60 knots 4000' down the runway with 2000 feet to go.

Ferd, we are mixing straight ins and ELPs and it really gums up the pattern. Basically a guy on initial requesting to go to high key is treated just like a straight in at 5 miles, and until he gets to low key, no one gets closed or a break from initial. We have relaxed the rules a little, but that is the nutshell. It just complicates midphase a bit more, because now you need weather that permits a low key (1500 AGL) to launch a midphase, so in the winter it can cause headaches when we are restricted patterns most of the day. You can also get to low key just to fly the final turn portion of it by pulling closed to a 1500 AGL pattern or doing a wide break and climbing to the low key from initial. We are supposedly just grading the set up, but woe to the poor kid who can't get it all just right to have the gear, flaps at takeoff (50%) and torque set at 4-6% for simulated zero thrust feathered prop by the low key point to turn base.

I cannot get a double immelman out of it. Maybe one of our previous RAAF exchange pilots could have, but carrying the airconditioner and pressurization we have eats that extra 200HP from the PC-9 up and then some. I could get a Tweet to do a loop at 160 KIAS, but that was a lot of finese and basically getting it to fall on its back after getting vertical. I think if I got a T-6 slower than 200 and tried to go over the top, that torque would take over and roll it somewhere less than 90knots when I tried to pull it through to complete the loop.

OK I will quit thread jacking and ask does anyone know when the retirement ceremony is a SPS? A friend of mine and I are thinking of trying to get an out and back or jumpseat to DFW and drive up for the thing.
Tweetdrvr is offline  
Old 04-29-2009, 02:36 PM
  #27  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Ferd149's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: LAX ERA
Posts: 3,457
Default

Tweet.........thanks for all the info. So, it's like most of us had feared talking about it in the office. Us (ATC Stan/Eval) and the DOT (syllabus) guys hated the idea and the problems we could see coming for the "user". The safety guys had concerns about the prop but the requirements guys told us to shutup and color, it was way above our paygrade. In the end, the Navy went behind our backs and basically told the Sec of Defense that if they wanted J PATS (which they did) it had to be the PC-9. And that's the story as I knew it when I retired in '95.

If you find out a date for a final ceremony, put it on here or pm me please. I retired as the US SNR at ENJJPT (my 3rd tweet tour) and would love to see the ceremony.

Ferd

PS.........I'm not surprised that the production model doesn't perform as well as the demo version
Ferd149 is offline  
Old 04-29-2009, 02:40 PM
  #28  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Posts: 829
Default

Originally Posted by KC10 FATboy View Post
Doesn't the T-6 out perform the T-37?
Doesn't outperform it in terms of reliability and lack of complexity - something that may be important in a long-lived primary flight trainer. To date, there have been quite a few mx issues - new aircraft notwithstanding. There is no doubt that the airplane will never be able to take the beatings that a Tweet (or T-34) could.
LivingInMEM is offline  
Old 04-29-2009, 02:41 PM
  #29  
Gets Weekends Off
 
bunk22's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jun 2007
Position: Retired Naval Aviator
Posts: 377
Default

Interesting topic. I never flew the T-37, only the T-34C and the T-2C Buckeye. I just finished up a tour flying the T-34C as an associate IP with VT-6. I will say that IMO, a replacement is long overdue for the 34. The T-6 is obviously more in line being a turbo-prop with much higher performance over the T-34C. Not sure if I'll miss the 34 much when it goes....a very slow, noisy and uncomfortable aircraft. However, very manueverable and very easy to fly. The T-6 adresses in my mind, a few critical things it didn't have, ejection seats, power power, ability for the IP to see better around the stud and canopy's able to withstand bird strikes up to what, 4lbs?? at a certain speed. I see both sides of the house with the Tweet vs Texan.

A buddy of mine few T-6A's at Pensacola and compared it to the T-2C Buckeye in performance, better in some ways, worse in others. I'll be flying T-6A's with VT-10 as an associate pilot when I return from Iraq next year I don't remember much from the T-2C but I assume the T-6 is a joy to fly from all I hear. From the few folks I know who flew the T-37 (Navy guys who went to Vance), they loved it. My mother's old boss was an A-37 Dragonfly pilot in Vietnam and that plane was the love of his life as he put it.
bunk22 is offline  
Old 04-30-2009, 07:58 AM
  #30  
Get's Every Day Off
 
ExAF's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: Retired
Posts: 1,858
Default Different Animal

Originally Posted by bunk22 View Post
My mother's old boss was an A-37 Dragonfly pilot in Vietnam and that plane was the love of his life as he put it.
Completely different animals. They are more different than they are alike. The A-37 is just as uncomfortable as a tweet, but MUCH better performance. It was like flying a little sports car and was A LOT of fun, but I didn't shed a tear when we parked them either.
ExAF is offline  
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Ak Pilot
Regional
21
05-01-2009 09:37 AM
1st overnite
Money Talk
12
04-13-2009 09:38 PM
Nosmo King
Mergers and Acquisitions
31
01-05-2009 08:59 AM
Cessnan1315efw
Hangar Talk
2
08-16-2008 06:37 PM
SWAjet
Major
0
03-15-2005 11:37 AM

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Your Privacy Choices