Matronics Email Lists Forum Index Matronics Email Lists
Web Forum Interface to the Matronics Email Lists
 
 Get Email Distribution Too!Get Email Distribution Too!    FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

T-3 FIREFLY

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> Engines-List
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
rv8vator(at)comcast.net
Guest





PostPosted: Wed Sep 20, 2006 11:46 am    Post subject: T-3 FIREFLY Reply with quote

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


- The Matronics Engines-List Email Forum -
 

Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:

http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Engines-List
Back to top
dodsond(at)qnet.com
Guest





PostPosted: Thu Sep 21, 2006 4:12 am    Post subject: T-3 FIREFLY Reply with quote

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

--


- The Matronics Engines-List Email Forum -
 

Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:

http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Engines-List
Back to top
Speedy11(at)aol.com
Guest





PostPosted: Thu Sep 21, 2006 6:37 am    Post subject: T-3 FIREFLY Reply with quote

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
Quote:
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.


[quote][b]


- The Matronics Engines-List Email Forum -
 

Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:

http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Engines-List
Back to top
GrummanDude



Joined: 15 Jan 2006
Posts: 926
Location: Auburn, CA

PostPosted: Thu Sep 21, 2006 8:46 pm    Post subject: T-3 FIREFLY Reply with quote

--

- The Matronics Engines-List Email Forum -
 

Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:

http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Engines-List

_________________
Gary
AuCountry Aviation
Home of Team Grumman
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
GrummanDude



Joined: 15 Jan 2006
Posts: 926
Location: Auburn, CA

PostPosted: Thu Sep 21, 2006 9:30 pm    Post subject: T-3 FIREFLY Reply with quote

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.
---------------------------------------------------------
--


- The Matronics Engines-List Email Forum -
 

Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:

http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Engines-List

_________________
Gary
AuCountry Aviation
Home of Team Grumman
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
glcasey(at)adelphia.net
Guest





PostPosted: Fri Sep 22, 2006 4:29 am    Post subject: T-3 FIREFLY Reply with quote

I'd sure like to know what those things were that were "overlooked" in the design of the fuel delivery system, having just designed one for my 540.  Can you share that bit of knowledge?
Gary Casey
Lancair ES, IO-540

On Sep 21, 2006, at 11:56 PM, Engines-List Digest Server wrote:
[quote]


    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. [b]


- The Matronics Engines-List Email Forum -
 

Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:

http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Engines-List
Back to top
dodsond(at)qnet.com
Guest





PostPosted: Fri Sep 22, 2006 9:31 am    Post subject: T-3 FIREFLY Reply with quote

All true... the operation of the aircraft was abominable. The engine
installation needed work, but was not flawed beyond repair.

It took a lot of political pressure to get the USAF to accept the T-6A (a
turbo-prop) to replace the T-37 (a pure jet) for primary training at UPT.
That culture is finally fading from the USAF, but not quickly. I strongly
believe the T-3 mishaps and incidents were a directly a result of forcing
pilots to fly it that were trained not only on pure jet equipment but also
with the attitude that non-jets were beneath them. The aircraft were not
respected by mid-level leadership, and so that rubbed off on the pilots. I
know some felt they were being "left out" of the "real Air Force". Their
approach to the mission reflected that.

Still, the planes were goofy as you said. The USAF also got Slingsby to
re-configure the cockpit so the primary pilot seat was on the right... so
the mid-cockpit throttle would be in the left hand. Ridiculous. If given
one of the aircraft, I would take out the instruments, radios and other such
goodies, remove the engine and propeller, and scrap the airframe. Not that
it was unsafe, but it didn't fly "well". It was a dog performance-wise.

-Doug Dodson
Edwards AFB 1998-2006

--


- The Matronics Engines-List Email Forum -
 

Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:

http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Engines-List
Back to top
jboatri(at)emory.edu
Guest





PostPosted: Fri Sep 22, 2006 1:05 pm    Post subject: T-3 FIREFLY Reply with quote

So we've now had several people in the know tell us that the airplane
had problems, many of them brought on by the USAF higher-ups. The
USAF brass does the dirty deed (maybe they took lessons from
Chicago's Mayor Daley?) and then blames it on potential torts.

Hm.

I'd find them more believable if: 1) there was a history of similar
suits (there's an awful lot of military surplus equipment out there -
googling finds no cases brought against the feds due to selling Joe
Civie something that ended up killing him) and 2) if they didn't have
such a vested interest in making this all go away, what with being
(apparently) part of the original problem and then remaining
aggressively stupid about dealing with it.

There may be tons of surplus equipment tort cases out there
justifying blaming the litigation boogey man, so apologies if I
missed them. And apologies in advance if this opinion offends tender
sensibilities, but this sure smacks of classic CYA.

My less than two cents. Have great weekend, I'm off to fly the Piet!
--

_____________________________________________________________
Jeffrey H. Boatright, PhD
Associate Professor, Emory Eye Center, Atlanta, GA, USA
Senior Editor, Molecular Vision, http://www.molvis.org/molvis
mailto:jboatri(at)emory.edu


- The Matronics Engines-List Email Forum -
 

Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:

http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Engines-List
Back to top
GrummanDude



Joined: 15 Jan 2006
Posts: 926
Location: Auburn, CA

PostPosted: Fri Sep 22, 2006 8:36 pm    Post subject: T-3 FIREFLY Reply with quote

My Commander at Edwards was on the board that approved it. He tried to
talk the committee out of getting it, saying existing planes like a
T-34 would be cheaper and it was a known quantity from a certified
supplier. He was out voted.

Gary Vogt
Edwards AFB, 1982-1998
--


- The Matronics Engines-List Email Forum -
 

Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:

http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Engines-List

_________________
Gary
AuCountry Aviation
Home of Team Grumman
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
GrummanDude



Joined: 15 Jan 2006
Posts: 926
Location: Auburn, CA

PostPosted: Fri Sep 22, 2006 8:45 pm    Post subject: T-3 FIREFLY Reply with quote

1. don't put the gascolator above the exhaust pipe
2. use at least 3/8 inch fuel line (not the 5/16 inch stuff like the
FireFly)
3. keep the boost pump as low as practical
- - the tests we did at SAIC showed a lot of pump cavitation when the
pressure at the carb was low
- - - although the fuel in the float bowl of the carb was probably
fine.
--


- The Matronics Engines-List Email Forum -
 

Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:

http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Engines-List

_________________
Gary
AuCountry Aviation
Home of Team Grumman
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Ed in JXN



Joined: 24 Mar 2006
Posts: 122

PostPosted: Fri Sep 22, 2006 8:48 pm    Post subject: T-3 FIREFLY Reply with quote

Well said, Jeff!

Ed in JXN
MkII/503

---


- The Matronics Engines-List Email Forum -
 

Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:

http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Engines-List
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
glcasey(at)adelphia.net
Guest





PostPosted: Sat Sep 23, 2006 5:33 am    Post subject: T-3 FIREFLY Reply with quote

Thanks very much!  In my design:
1.  The gascolator is mounted in a cooled box at the bottom center of the firewall (not above the exhaust pipe as it is on some Lancairs)
2.  3/8 fuel line used  (almost went to 1/2 inch, but didn't).
3.  Electric pump is at the lowest point in the whole fuel system. 

I was afraid that what they "overlooked" were esoteric details that I might have missed.   Looks like they ignored the obvious.

Gary Casey

[quote]
From: teamgrumman(at)aol.com (teamgrumman(at)aol.com)


--> Engines-List message posted by: teamgrumman(at)aol.com (teamgrumman(at)aol.com)


1.  don't put the gascolator above the exhaust pipe
2.  use at least 3/8 inch fuel line (not the 5/16 inch stuff like the 
FireFly)
3.  keep the boost pump as low as practical
  - -  the tests we did at SAIC showed a lot of pump cavitation when the 
pressure at the carb was low
  - - - although the fuel in the float bowl of the carb was probably 
fine. [b]


- The Matronics Engines-List Email Forum -
 

Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:

http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Engines-List
Back to top
dodsond(at)qnet.com
Guest





PostPosted: Sun Sep 24, 2006 4:07 pm    Post subject: T-3 FIREFLY Reply with quote

CYA doesn't wash because the "A" that bought the aircraft is long gone, and
no less than three subsequent Air Force Chiefs of Staff came to the same
decision after reviewing the situation (as it evolved) over a long period of
time. They were no doubt advised by their respective JAG officers as well
as MAJCOM commanders, contracting officers, financial officers, ... In the
big scheme of things, more resources were spent trying to get the aircraft
to work physically and politically than the darn things were worth.

Considering how much military equipment has been retired over the years,
there really isn't all that much in civilian hands. For aircraft at least,
most individuals that own a warbird got it from a third party such as a
foreign government or a military contractor that acquired the machine in
service of the government.

-Doug Dodson

--


- The Matronics Engines-List Email Forum -
 

Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:

http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Engines-List
Back to top
jboatri(at)emory.edu
Guest





PostPosted: Sun Sep 24, 2006 4:22 pm    Post subject: T-3 FIREFLY Reply with quote

Doug,

Is it that you're arguing institutional CYA doesn't exist?

Jeff
Quote:


CYA doesn't wash because the "A" that bought the aircraft is long gone, and
no less than three subsequent Air Force Chiefs of Staff came to the same
decision after reviewing the situation (as it evolved) over a long period of
time...

--
Jeffrey H. Boatright, Ph.D.
Associate Professor
Department of Ophthalmology
Emory University School of Medicine
Atlanta, GA 30322
Editor-in-Chief
Molecular Vision
http://www.molvis.org/


- The Matronics Engines-List Email Forum -
 

Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:

http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Engines-List
Back to top
Jim Baker



Joined: 30 Mar 2006
Posts: 181
Location: Sayre, PA

PostPosted: Sun Sep 24, 2006 4:25 pm    Post subject: T-3 FIREFLY Reply with quote

Quote:
They were no doubt advised by their respective JAG officers as well
as MAJCOM commanders, contracting officers, financial officers,

Wonder how quick they'd shut down sales of Continental
engined ground power units if they knew the engines were being
pulled and modded for aircraft use......

Jim Baker
580.788.2779
Elmore City, OK


- The Matronics Engines-List Email Forum -
 

Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:

http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Engines-List
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Ed in JXN



Joined: 24 Mar 2006
Posts: 122

PostPosted: Sun Sep 24, 2006 5:06 pm    Post subject: T-3 FIREFLY Reply with quote

Doug,

You must admit the tactics used in the Firefly disposal are pretty
unusual for what should otherwise be a relatively minor matter. CYA isn't
all that uncommon in the military and the Air Force-imposed mods to the T-3,
and the ensuing complications, make CYA all the more plausible.

Ed in JXN
---


- The Matronics Engines-List Email Forum -
 

Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:

http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Engines-List
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
dodsond(at)qnet.com
Guest





PostPosted: Mon Sep 25, 2006 4:59 pm    Post subject: T-3 FIREFLY Reply with quote

The T-3 hardware is a minor matter to the USAF in financial terms. I am
convinced someone would actually sue the DoD for simply selling the parts to
the public. No failure has to occur. This potential implies that simply
scrapping the hardware is the smart and simple way to go. I know of more
than one homebuilder who scrapped his own aircraft when he was done with it
rather than sell it.

-Doug Dodson

--


- The Matronics Engines-List Email Forum -
 

Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:

http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Engines-List
Back to top
dodsond(at)qnet.com
Guest





PostPosted: Mon Sep 25, 2006 4:59 pm    Post subject: T-3 FIREFLY Reply with quote

Uh, OK. Maybe there is such a thing, but the DoD is not a college football
alumni association. What would be the driving motivation for "institutional
CYA"? Why would a person make a decision to protect an institution as fast
changing as the military? In my experience, my leaders considered first
what is best for the mission, and so long as that criteria is met, what is
best for the education and morale of the workforce. CYA certainly exists but
it doesn't seem to span the length of a tour of whomever is involved.
Safety IS the primary motivation for CYA decision making. The USAF may be
the second most risk-averse government agency, right after NASA.

Just my observations and opinion. Maybe I'm just naive.

-Doug Dodson

--


- The Matronics Engines-List Email Forum -
 

Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:

http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Engines-List
Back to top
jboatri(at)emory.edu
Guest





PostPosted: Mon Sep 25, 2006 5:46 pm    Post subject: T-3 FIREFLY Reply with quote

Doug,

I'd say procurement is probably one of the top reasons for
institutional CYA. Misguided pride is another (where one gets the
actions of the organization confused with one's self-perception - I
feel bad when Emory University gets dinged. Why? I wasn't the one who
did x, y, or z. But I still feel bad.).

From my POV, which is not based on military experience, but rather a
little (a little) experience with large organizations both private
and public, there is a vast distance between those who get the job
done (people who you describe, I think, very aptly) and people who
set top level and long term policy. They often are the ones who are
looking to the budget for the next decades and "legacy". At that
level, regardless of who did what on any one project, if the
organization gets dinged, the organization's future is threatened.
Thus, sweep stuff under the rug, make sure the long term budget is
safe.

As for being naive, I apologize if I was condescending. I don't think
you're naive, I think that you and I were just talking at cross
purposes and I tend to be a smart-ass. But I'm working on toning it
down!

Jeff

Quote:


Uh, OK. Maybe there is such a thing, but the DoD is not a college football
alumni association. What would be the driving motivation for "institutional
CYA"? Why would a person make a decision to protect an institution as fast
changing as the military? In my experience, my leaders considered first
what is best for the mission, and so long as that criteria is met, what is
best for the education and morale of the workforce. CYA certainly exists but
it doesn't seem to span the length of a tour of whomever is involved.
Safety IS the primary motivation for CYA decision making. The USAF may be
the second most risk-averse government agency, right after NASA.

Just my observations and opinion. Maybe I'm just naive.

-Doug Dodson

--
Jeffrey H. Boatright, Ph.D.
Associate Professor
Department of Ophthalmology
Emory University School of Medicine
Atlanta, GA 30322
Editor-in-Chief
Molecular Vision
http://www.molvis.org/


- The Matronics Engines-List Email Forum -
 

Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:

http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Engines-List
Back to top
dodsond(at)qnet.com
Guest





PostPosted: Tue Sep 26, 2006 7:19 pm    Post subject: T-3 FIREFLY Reply with quote

Quote: I'd say procurement is probably one of the top reasons for
institutional CYA. Misguided pride is another...

I agree with the second reason (hence my football reference), but I really
don't see much of that in the military on an institutional level. Too much
oversight at all levels. The inclination may be there, but it gets overcome
by competing criteria.

Procurement? Certainly a tough game in the military, and one where MANY
rather embarrassing mistakes are made. But the T-3 had already brought that
humiliation to the institution. Selling them would have opened the door for
more of the same, more so than the scrapping IMO. I could be construed as
CYA to sell the aircraft to reduce the waste just as much as CYA to scrap to
prevent further embarrassment (not even considering the potential for actual
damage to the buyer).

FYI, Edwards just sent a team to Iraq to see why a Comp-Air 7 (highly
modified to include tricycle landing gear and a turboprop) that belonged to
the Iraqi Air Force crashed. The investigation and flight test done on the
remaining fleet pointed to scrapping those aircraft too. Guess what, from
VERY high up it was declared that we would fix the aircraft. The reason was
of course political. The State Department wants it to look like we are
helping the Iraqis, not carrying them. It would have been easier and
cheaper to just give them some C-12's and T-34's to replace their POS
aircraft, but no! Well, some time later, the project appeared to be near to
being scrapped (so to speak). I really don't know the final status as I
retired several months ago and the project was still not quite dead.

-Doug Dodson

--


- The Matronics Engines-List Email Forum -
 

Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:

http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Engines-List
Back to top
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> Engines-List All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group