WWII hanger planes - Page 2

Seahawk · 04-20-2009, 04:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tcar

Super-duper Bonanza.

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

Dixie · Dixie's Garage

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

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.

The proud owner helping me do a landing gear check

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

#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

I think the USAF has low and slow covered just fine already...

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 · 10:51 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

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.