Pelican Parts Forums

Pelican Parts Forums (http://forums.pelicanparts.com/)
-   Off Topic Discussions (http://forums.pelicanparts.com/off-topic-discussions/)
-   -   WWII hanger planes (http://forums.pelicanparts.com/off-topic-discussions/469569-wwii-hanger-planes.html)

Seahawk 04-20-2009 04:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tcar (Post 4617949)
Super-duper Bonanza.

Negative, Ghostrider...the T-34C was turbine powered, a JP5 eating machine.

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1240271940.gif
http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1240271971.jpg

Dixie 04-20-2009 04:06 PM

Quote:

and Number Three as a ground-attack platform, with a 75-millimeter cannon in the nose. This final variant, eventually called the A-26B....
I realize it's a different plane, but one of the B-25 variants my father flew in WWII had a cannon in the nose. The aiming system consisted of a cross-hair mounted on the dash. He said you'd have to be damn lucky to hit a freighter. He also said the plane would shudder so hard when the cannon fired, you'd swear the plane would stop.

varmint 04-20-2009 04:12 PM

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1240272763.jpg

Tim Hancock 04-20-2009 04:14 PM

T-34 (Bonanza in disguise) I do repairs and annual inspections on. Just a trainer and pretty low on the "warbird" pecking order list , but still pretty cool.

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1240272025.jpg
http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1240272197.jpg
http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1240272574.jpg
http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1240272661.jpg

The proud owner helping me do a landing gear check
http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1240272758.jpg

304065 04-20-2009 04:21 PM

#1 sign you trust your A&P- stand in the plane when the gear lever is raised!

Whatever happened to the T34 AD over the spars breaking due to air combat loads?

Tim Hancock 04-20-2009 04:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by john_cramer (Post 4618036)
#1 sign you trust your A&P- stand in the plane when the gear lever is raised!

Whatever happened to the T34 AD over the spars breaking due to air combat loads?

Still an ongoing mess. As it stands right now as far as I recall, AD 01-13-18r1 is still pretty much in effect which means after the initial inspection and modification dictated by the AD has been accomplished, it has to be inspected every 80 hours of flight time by someone with the proper portable eddy current equipment. Most of the fleet has this inspection done at just a couple places around the country. The guys that own the one I work on, are pretty piissed about the whole affair as the aircraft that failed were high time airplanes that had gotten the crap beat out of them at those pay to play combat courses. They always did the Sun & Fun, Oshkosh and a few other military fly-ins, but now they do less so that they can get longer times between flying the airplane out for the 80 hour inspection.

onewhippedpuppy 04-20-2009 06:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by m21sniper (Post 4617573)
I think the USAF has low and slow covered just fine already...

http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b3...ghtonTiger.jpg

If they want more they just need to go out to the desert. A couple hundred A-10s are stored in returnable to service condition.

Buying turboprop planes when we've already got the means to field a 500+ plane A-10 force would be just...plain...stupid.

True, but we're talking different roles. The A-10 is overkill (pun intended) for surveillance roles. For a small country with a equally small budgets, A-10s are not an option for a light ground attack platform. I'd also be willing to bet that A-10s are exponentially more expensive to operate than a turboprop AT-6.

m21sniper 04-20-2009 08:54 PM

That's actually incorrect as far as the A-10 not being suitable for spotting/surveillance.

The OA-10 is the USAF's primary manned FAC-A platform.

I am sure you're right about the operating costs though, especially for the high-tech C model hogs.

Ray B 04-21-2009 05:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seahawk (Post 4617980)
Negative, Ghostrider...the T-34C was turbine powered, a JP5 eating machine.

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1240271940.gif
http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1240271971.jpg

Paul,
When did you go through primary? I was in VT-3 in late 1980 and an IP in VT-2 '84-'86.

If I had the $$$ Rattlsnatch does, I'd love to have a T-34C to knock around in

Heel n Toe 04-21-2009 09:56 AM

A Corsair, a Hornet, and a Skyraider flying together...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PvNIcSW0_Ns

Seahawk 04-21-2009 10:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ray B (Post 4618960)
Paul,
When did you go through primary? I was in VT-3 in late 1980 and an IP in VT-2 '84-'86.

If I had the $$$ Rattlsnatch does, I'd love to have a T-34C to knock around in

VT-2, the Doer Birds.:cool:

Was at VT-6 in mid '83. I had orders to VT-4 in Pensacola for the jet pipeline but was NPQ'd due to sitting height (I'm 6'4"). Losing a waiver can be a bitc$.

Off to HT-8 and HT-18: I got my wings in 1984 so I bet we know some of the some folks...plank owner at HSL-43.

Raging around in a T-34C would be the cats snatch.

onewhippedpuppy 04-21-2009 10:55 AM

Quote:

That's actually incorrect as far as the A-10 not being suitable for spotting/surveillance.<BR>
<BR>
The OA-10 is the USAF's primary manned FAC-A platform.<BR>
<BR>
I am sure you're right about the operating costs though, especially for the high-tech C model hogs.
I never said not suitable. But using an A-10 for surveillance is like using a C-17 to deliver a rifle. Like I said, overkill.

tcar 04-21-2009 11:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seahawk (Post 4617980)
Negative, Ghostrider...the T-34C was turbine powered, a JP5 eating machine.

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1240271940.gif
http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1240271971.jpg

Yeah, I know... super-duper Bonanza = turboprop Bonanza, man.

Heel n Toe 04-21-2009 11:12 AM

It might be cheaper to use the A-10 than to develop a whole new plane, though. And that titanium tub protecting the pilot and the flight control system is a huge plus... the redundant mechanical system in case the hydraulics get shot up, the self-sealing fuel tanks, and all the ways the pilot can deal with things if the landing gear gets damaged... it might be worth the extra fuel and maintenance costs to have a bird that's "overqualified" for the job.

m21sniper 04-21-2009 11:34 AM

Plus the A-10 can do double duty in 'real wars' too.

Seahawk 04-21-2009 12:06 PM

My bad.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tcar (Post 4619647)
Yeah, I know... super-duper Bonanza = turboprop Bonanza, man.


t6dpilot 04-21-2009 01:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by onewhippedpuppy (Post 4617395)
Paul, you still have some pull in the USAF, right? Get them to buy some from us, we could use the business right now!:D

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/...I_JPATS_lg.jpg

Sweet the "new" Texan II.

rattlsnak 04-21-2009 07:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ray B (Post 4618960)
If I had the $$$ Rattlsnatch does, I'd love to have a T-34C to knock around in

Well we could use your ID and fly the ones at the NFC at Dobbins... There arent turbine T34s, but they still are a blast..

Ray B 04-22-2009 04:20 AM

I'd settle for a blast on the Duc right now...

rattlsnak 04-22-2009 10:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ray B (Post 4621041)
I'd settle for a blast on the Duc right now...

Ill handle that for you. Were going to the boneyard on Mon or Tues BTW... and were taking your bikes..


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 07:17 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0
Copyright 2025 Pelican Parts, LLC - Posts may be archived for display on the Pelican Parts Website


DTO Garage Plus vBulletin Plugins by Drive Thru Online, Inc.