is there reasoning behind this at all? Doesn't make much sense to me.
will it have the PT6A-68 like the AF's, and will it also be de-rated to 1100shp?
-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
T-6 at whiting?
- Thread starter dodge
- Start date
is there reasoning behind this at all? Doesn't make much sense to me.
will it have the PT6A-68 like the AF's, and will it also be de-rated to 1100shp?
$ (many parts would be affected by a re-design to incorporate beta, not to mention testing, etc). Same engine for the B.
Call me stupid, but what would have been wrong with ordering up new t-34s? Seems like a hell of a lot cheaper, what is really gained by the new t-6 training wise? Obviously martin baker is a nice little option, but if it hasn't been needed ever at this stage of training, why now?
Tell that to the T-34 guys who rode it in over the years who could have ejected in they had an ejection seat. The T-6 money is already there. The T-6 is certainly more of an aircraft with greater speed, more power, bird resistent canopies up to 270 knots, glass cockpit, ejection seats, etc. The advanced avionics/systems prepares studs for future platforms. Lower life cycle costs (which is common in most new aircraft) and lower maintenance man-hours per flight hour. I think in the future, portions of the advanced flight syllabus could be conducted in the T-6, reducing training costs even further. I'm kind of talking out my ass but I think that's the general concept. An arguement could always be made to never move up to another aircraft or trainer. If that were the case, we would still be flying SNJ's. At some point, have to move on with improvements. The AF is doing it, the Navy can do it.
If there's a time when an ejection seat is more applicable than with an inexperienced sma in a high performance aircraft, i don't know what it is.
I don't understand the ancestor worship wrt to the 34. It did its job well for a long time, but it isn't doing as well as we'd like, and oh by the way, we've got something lined up to replace it. The syllabus keeps being cut due to moola and fatigue issues in the 34. eventually, the thing won't be worth a damn for anything but instrument hops. The 34 is old technology, just like the T-28 before it. We aren't trading our -18s in for Scooters (as much as A4s would love it) just because the old timers liked them. Things go forward. Opening up a production line for a 40 year old design makes as much sense as detroit putting fins on cars again. The T-6 isn't perfect, but nothing is, and it's better than what we've got.
It's been proven to train studs just fine. There's not going to be a cosmic brainfart when the first Navy stud from a VT goes to an advanced squadron out of T-6s....oh wait, they've been doing that in JSUPT for quite some time now. I'm not saying you get a better student from a T-6... I'm no IP and I have no clue what the perception vs reality of a stud coming out of 34s is vice 6s... that being said, I'd be surprised if someone who succeeded in one would have trouble succeeding in the other. The individual makes the grades, not the plane. The major benefit of greater safety, plus bringing back good, useful training because we aren't worried about FLM issues nearly as much in a new plane ought to make this a no brainer.
I don't understand the ancestor worship wrt to the 34. It did its job well for a long time, but it isn't doing as well as we'd like, and oh by the way, we've got something lined up to replace it. The syllabus keeps being cut due to moola and fatigue issues in the 34. eventually, the thing won't be worth a damn for anything but instrument hops. The 34 is old technology, just like the T-28 before it. We aren't trading our -18s in for Scooters (as much as A4s would love it) just because the old timers liked them. Things go forward. Opening up a production line for a 40 year old design makes as much sense as detroit putting fins on cars again. The T-6 isn't perfect, but nothing is, and it's better than what we've got.
It's been proven to train studs just fine. There's not going to be a cosmic brainfart when the first Navy stud from a VT goes to an advanced squadron out of T-6s....oh wait, they've been doing that in JSUPT for quite some time now. I'm not saying you get a better student from a T-6... I'm no IP and I have no clue what the perception vs reality of a stud coming out of 34s is vice 6s... that being said, I'd be surprised if someone who succeeded in one would have trouble succeeding in the other. The individual makes the grades, not the plane. The major benefit of greater safety, plus bringing back good, useful training because we aren't worried about FLM issues nearly as much in a new plane ought to make this a no brainer.
Well said. The few harsh critics that I've heard are constantly bitching about how hard it's going to be. So hard that the Air Force does it? Too hard is not a excuse anymore. Students will adjust to what you train them in. Granted, I know some students have problems in the T-34C (I've flown with many of them) but it is what it is. Some students will have issues no matter what.
Are they at least putting better tires on it? Or are we going to be using those skinny little T-38 tires?
Is there an issue w/ blowing tires in the T-6? The Whiting OLFs and North Field itself are at least 1000' shorter than Sherman (best case scenario is North Field @ 6000'), go easy on the brakes.....
We can stop the T-34 on a dime, do we really have to switch???
Smiles in effect, I'd love to get a chance to fly the T-6!
There was a lot of talk about how small the tires are, more likely to blow out under a stud learning to land.
Am I reading this wrong, or are people saying that the t-6 is easier to fly than the t-34? As far as too hard, I'm not saying that, it just seems like a broken system when an aircraft is ordered that limits further use of existing olf's in the current training area. Though, it doesn't really surprise me having observed the procurement process on the ordnance side. My most recent one was ERGM, man did that one get jacked up completely.
I think this claim may have been over exaggerated. During my time at Vance no one had blown any tires, nor had I ever heard of any stud every blowing any tires at Vance during our safety briefs. (5-6 months).
There was one instance where a Marine Stud went wayyy overboard on the brakes... He locked em up and skidded several hundred feet to a stop. He wore through all the chords on the tires... so much in fact that the bottom was flat... airplane had to be towed back to the maintainance hanger. They didn't blow though.
The tires are now used as a props that studs have to carry around whenever they overspeed the gear.
Yea, i'm calling bullshit on the tires scenario.
And on the bounce field problem. T6 can bounce on anything with 5000 feet of asphalt. There are plenty of 5k runways all over, and without the AF's controlled field restriction, there shouldn't be any problem getting bounces in.
And on the bounce field problem. T6 can bounce on anything with 5000 feet of asphalt. There are plenty of 5k runways all over, and without the AF's controlled field restriction, there shouldn't be any problem getting bounces in.
The tire problem isn't bs: not so much for blowing them but because we are replacing them way too often. Sherman doesn't have an organic Tire and Wheel capability either: I don't know if North Field will be getting that. IPs will have to include "tire management" to their list of concerns, but it isn't a show-stopper
Hmm, not over at milton there aren't. The ones that come off the top of my head are, saufley, and whiting field itself. Every other OLF that we use is 4k or less.