Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 05:12 AM - Re: T-3 FIREFLY (Doug Dodson)
2. 07:37 AM - Re: T-3 FIREFLY (Speedy11@aol.com)
3. 07:04 PM - Manifold drain question..... (Jim Baker)
4. 09:46 PM - Re: T-3 FIREFLY (teamgrumman@aol.com)
5. 10:30 PM - Re: T-3 FIREFLY (teamgrumman@aol.com)
Message 1
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Engines-List message posted by: "Doug Dodson" <dodsond@qnet.com>
The Air Force considered carefully several options over a period of 10 years
what to do with the T-3A following the three fatal mishaps. There were
several action groups (one called, get this, "Mothers Against T-3's") that
took legal action against the USAF to stop flying the planes.
During this period, the aircraft was extensively ground and flight tested at
Edwards AFB and other places. Edwards recommended returning the aircraft to
service, but leadership decided the legal risk was too high. Several Air
Force Chiefs of Staffs over the years reviewed the situation. Twice there
were studies done to see if there was another use for the aircraft in the
USAF. None were found. The utility of the aircraft just wasn't there for
anything but primary training. Due to the litigation, scrapping was
approved again.
The liability issue is far reaching in the USAF leadership. The decision
was not impulsive and it was backed up by a series of senior leaders over a
long period of time.
I was not directly involved in the testing at Edwards, but I worked on other
concurrent projects with those that were. There is indeed some utility of
the aircraft outside of the USAF, but the cost to operate them would make
them non-competitive with other models of aircraft. The engines are, in my
opinion, a sad loss to the civilian community, but again, the liability
issue was very worrisome. The dollar cost to the Air Force for scrapping
rather than selling the parts is not significant. The expense to
effectively sell the stuff would offset the majority of the income. The
money saved would be lost in the first attempt at legal action against a
government so uncaring that they would sell killer aircraft parts to the
unwary public.
Disappointing, but blame the litigious society as much as Government
inefficiency.
-Doug Dodson, Lt Col, USAF (ret)
Flight Test Engineer
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-engines-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-engines-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Martin
Sobel
Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2006 12:45 PM
Subject: Engines-List: T-3 FIREFLY
--> Engines-List message posted by: Martin Sobel <rv8vator@comcast.net>
Slingsby did extensive tests on the Firefly fuel system, both standard and
modified.
They could not duplicate any problem.
My feeling is that at least two of the accidents were due to pilot error.
The Firefly is used the world over for initial flight training. No one else
has complained about the airplane.
The USAF did not mothball the airplanes. They were left to sit out in the
open with absolutely no protection from the elements.
I had hoped to get a few of these aircraft into A&P Training schools, but
the USAF destroyed them without any notification whatsoever.
Martin Sobel
Message 2
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Martin,
You're right. The original airplane didn't have enough power so the USAF
asked for more powerful engines. That caused a cooling problem and a CG problem.
Those were never fully resolved but they flew the planes (my son trained in
one). My son said the planes flew oddly.
The accidents were pilot error - although some contribution goes to the
airplane (as reconfigured by the USAF) because it requires so much attention from
the pilot.
As a retired USAF fighter pilot, I'm embarrassed at how the USAF handled this
situation. However, a good portion of the blame goes to our tort system
because the USAF is completely destroying the airplanes in order to avoid any
liability. Our current system of law is totally out of whack.
Stan Sutterfield
Do not archive
My feeling is that at least two of the accidents were due to pilot error.
The Firefly is used the world over for initial flight training. No one else
has complained about the airplane.
Message 3
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Manifold drain question..... |
X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (4.41)
--> Engines-List message posted by: "Jim Baker" <jlbaker@msbit.net>
OK folks...another puzzling mystery. Found the following on the
following site.....
http://www.fwshome.com/baroneduc.html
___________________________________________
Several of the intake manifold drain line checkvalve balls
were missing from their seats on each engine. These are
sucked closed by the vacuum within the intake runners as
the engines are operating (remember that 15 " showing as
manifold pressure is really a partial vacuum to the extent of
the difference between the 15" on the gauge and the ambient
pressure at the aircraft's altitude). When we replaced the
checkvalves, the right engine went smooth as butter, but the
left remained rough.
__________________________________________
When I was replacing the intake drains in my rebuilt
IO520K (scavenged from the old engine) they were just AN
fittings with either hose runs to the firewall/nosewell or just
a short length of AL tube. Are we supposed to have check
balls in the drain valves? Keep in mind the above quote was
from a Baron running IO470s, no turbos.
We recently had a discussion about something related to the
induction system on a Bellanca list but I was convinced then
that my setup was normal...now I'm not so sure. A lot can
happen to an airplane over the years. I'll also ask Bellanca
and TCM in the morning....
Thanks.
Jim Baker
580.788.2779
Elmore City, OK
Message 4
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Engines-List message posted by: teamgrumman@aol.com
-----Original Message-----
From: dodsond@qnet.com
Sent: Thu, 21 Sep 2006 5:09 AM
Subject: RE: Engines-List: T-3 FIREFLY
I was not directly involved in the testing at Edwards, but I worked on
other
concurrent projects with those that were.
I did some of the testing at Edwards regarding the propulsion
system. Whoever installed the 540 overlooked a lot of little things
regarding fuel delivery. 'nuf said.
Also, we were told that the students were instructed NOT to lean and to
treat the plane as if it were a jet ... i.e., single lever: the
throttle. Flying at the Springs at density altitudes into the teens
without leaning is poor instruction at best. I think the T-3A could
have been fixed and flown as a trainer by a competent instructor.
________________________________________________________________________
Check out the new AOL. Most comprehensive set of free safety and
security tools, free access to millions of high-quality videos from
across the web, free AOL Mail and more.
Message 5
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Engines-List message posted by: teamgrumman@aol.com
I did some of the testing at Edwards regarding the propulsion system.
Whoever installed the 540 overlooked a lot of little things regarding
fuel delivery. 'nuf said.
Also, we were told that the students were instructed NOT to lean and to
treat the plane as if it were a jet ... i.e., single lever: the
throttle. Flying at the Springs at density altitudes into the teens
without leaning is poor instruction at best. I think the T-3A could
have been fixed and flown as a trainer by a competent instructor.
there, that's better. Sorry for the confusion.
---------------------------------------------------------
-----Original Message-----
From: dodsond@qnet.com
Sent: Thu, 21 Sep 2006 5:09 AM
Subject: RE: Engines-List: T-3 FIREFLY
I was not directly involved in the testing at Edwards, but I worked on
other
concurrent projects with those that were.
-------------------------
________________________________________________________________________
Check out the new AOL. Most comprehensive set of free safety and
security tools, free access to millions of high-quality videos from
across the web, free AOL Mail and more.
Other Matronics Email List Services
These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.
-- Please support this service by making your Contribution today! --
|