Matronics Email Lists :: View topic

Matronics Email Lists
Web Forum Interface to the Matronics Email Lists

Get Email Distribution Too! FAQ Search Memberlist Usergroups Register

Profile Log in to check your private messages Log in

T-3 FIREFLY

Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> Engines-List

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author Message

rv8vator(at)comcast.net
Guest

Posted: Wed Sep 20, 2006 11:46 am Post subject: T-3 FIREFLY

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

dodsond(at)qnet.com
Guest

Posted: Thu Sep 21, 2006 4:12 am Post subject: T-3 FIREFLY

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



--

Speedy11(at)aol.com
Guest

Posted: Thu Sep 21, 2006 6:37 am Post subject: T-3 FIREFLY

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]

GrummanDude

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

Posted: Thu Sep 21, 2006 8:46 pm Post subject: T-3 FIREFLY

--

_________________
Gary
AuCountry Aviation
Home of Team Grumman

GrummanDude

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

Posted: Thu Sep 21, 2006 9:30 pm Post subject: T-3 FIREFLY

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.

---------------------------------------------------------

--

_________________
Gary
AuCountry Aviation
Home of Team Grumman

glcasey(at)adelphia.net
Guest

Posted: Fri Sep 22, 2006 4:29 am Post subject: T-3 FIREFLY

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]

dodsond(at)qnet.com
Guest

Posted: Fri Sep 22, 2006 9:31 am Post subject: T-3 FIREFLY

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



--

jboatri(at)emory.edu
Guest

Posted: Fri Sep 22, 2006 1:05 pm Post subject: T-3 FIREFLY

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

GrummanDude

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

Posted: Fri Sep 22, 2006 8:36 pm Post subject: T-3 FIREFLY

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

 --

_________________
Gary
AuCountry Aviation
Home of Team Grumman

GrummanDude

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

Posted: Fri Sep 22, 2006 8:45 pm Post subject: T-3 FIREFLY

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.

--

_________________
Gary
AuCountry Aviation
Home of Team Grumman

Ed in JXN

Joined: 24 Mar 2006
Posts: 122

Posted: Fri Sep 22, 2006 8:48 pm Post subject: T-3 FIREFLY

Well said, Jeff!



Ed in JXN

MkII/503



---

glcasey(at)adelphia.net
Guest

Posted: Sat Sep 23, 2006 5:33 am Post subject: T-3 FIREFLY

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]

dodsond(at)qnet.com
Guest

Posted: Sun Sep 24, 2006 4:07 pm Post subject: T-3 FIREFLY

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



--

jboatri(at)emory.edu
Guest

Posted: Sun Sep 24, 2006 4:22 pm Post subject: T-3 FIREFLY

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/

Jim Baker

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

Posted: Sun Sep 24, 2006 4:25 pm Post subject: T-3 FIREFLY

 	  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

Ed in JXN

Joined: 24 Mar 2006
Posts: 122

Posted: Sun Sep 24, 2006 5:06 pm Post subject: T-3 FIREFLY

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

---

dodsond(at)qnet.com
Guest

Posted: Mon Sep 25, 2006 4:59 pm Post subject: T-3 FIREFLY

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



--

dodsond(at)qnet.com
Guest

Posted: Mon Sep 25, 2006 4:59 pm Post subject: T-3 FIREFLY

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



--

jboatri(at)emory.edu
Guest

Posted: Mon Sep 25, 2006 5:46 pm Post subject: T-3 FIREFLY

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/

dodsond(at)qnet.com
Guest

Posted: Tue Sep 26, 2006 7:19 pm Post subject: T-3 FIREFLY

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



--

Display posts from previous:

	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