Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

T-6 Texan to replace T-34 [NAS Corpus Christi]
Corpus Christi Caller-Times ^ | December 4, 2006 | Fanny S. Chirinos

Posted on 12/05/2006 9:31:42 AM PST by SwinneySwitch

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-23 next last

Contributed photos

A T-6 Texan pilot observes his wingmen during a
training flight near Laughlin Air Force Base. The
single-engine, two-seat T-6, which will replace the
single-engine, two-seat T-34, will have a digital
cockpit instead of dial-instrumentation.

1 posted on 12/05/2006 9:31:47 AM PST by SwinneySwitch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: SwinneySwitch

2 posted on 12/05/2006 9:34:50 AM PST by r9etb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SwinneySwitch
The T-34 used at the Corpus Christi base costs about $1 million. The T-6 is about a $4.3 million aircraft.

A four million dollar TRAINER?

Good lord, why not digitze the cockpit of a Cessna 172 for basic pilot training?

3 posted on 12/05/2006 9:36:43 AM PST by Terabitten (How is there no anger in the words I hear, only love and mercy, erasing every fear" - Rez Band)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Terabitten

You're right--they're costly. But do you want to under-train pilots who will soon be flying $80M fighters? The venerable 172 is a good civil aircraft, but it doesn't beging to replicate the speed and maneuverability of front-line military aircraft.

TC


4 posted on 12/05/2006 9:42:02 AM PST by Pentagon Leatherneck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: SwinneySwitch
The original T-6 Texan in the foreground.


5 posted on 12/05/2006 9:45:25 AM PST by My2Cents
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SwinneySwitch
I like this Texan better:


6 posted on 12/05/2006 9:46:40 AM PST by Gator101
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pentagon Leatherneck
You're right--they're costly. But do you want to under-train pilots who will soon be flying $80M fighters? The venerable 172 is a good civil aircraft, but it doesn't beging to replicate the speed and maneuverability of front-line military aircraft.

Correct me if I'm wrong - flight training consists of at least two parts - basic and advanced, right? Then, after that, the pilots have to qualify in their aircraft. If I understand correctly, the T-6 Texan II is for basic flight training - simply learning to fly. They still have to go to advanced training, where they learn more about high-performance fighters, and then they still have to check out in their combat aircraft.

It seems that $4.3 million is a bit pricey to train basic flight skills.

7 posted on 12/05/2006 9:48:05 AM PST by Terabitten (How is there no anger in the words I hear, only love and mercy, erasing every fear" - Rez Band)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: My2Cents

Didn't know you could recycle designations. I'm thinking what else I'd like to see back.


8 posted on 12/05/2006 9:50:00 AM PST by tanuki
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Pentagon Leatherneck

Two other items:

First, thank you for your service. You gave me a free country to grow up in.

Second: I was being a *bit* tongue in cheek about the 172. My main point remains, however, about $4.3 million seeming a bit pricey for a basic trainer.


9 posted on 12/05/2006 9:50:39 AM PST by Terabitten (How is there no anger in the words I hear, only love and mercy, erasing every fear" - Rez Band)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Terabitten
Good lord, why not digitze the cockpit of a Cessna 172 for basic pilot training?

First the Cessna 172 is a high-wing aircraft so landings & approaches are different. I wouldn't think that the Cessnas airframe is pre-stressed for aerobatics, either. I would think that if you used the 172 you'd have to add an intermediate step to flight training using still another trainer. THAT would be REALLY wasteful.

10 posted on 12/05/2006 9:53:28 AM PST by Tallguy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Tallguy
First the Cessna 172 is a high-wing aircraft so landings & approaches are different. I wouldn't think that the Cessnas airframe is pre-stressed for aerobatics, either. I would think that if you used the 172 you'd have to add an intermediate step to flight training using still another trainer. THAT would be REALLY wasteful.

See my post #9. I was being a bit sarcastic about the Cessna 172. The point remains, however, that $4.3 million is awfully damn expensive for a basic flight trainer.

11 posted on 12/05/2006 9:57:46 AM PST by Terabitten (How is there no anger in the words I hear, only love and mercy, erasing every fear" - Rez Band)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Terabitten
If you look at the follow on aircraft student aviators will flow into, it doesn't make sense to use a 172 for primary flight training.

Some of the students trained in the T-6 will be selected for fighter and strike pipelines and their next aircraft will be either the T-38 or T-45.

These students need a high performance aircraft capable of aerobatic performance, training towards glass cockpits, and hands on stick and throttle flying.

12 posted on 12/05/2006 9:58:58 AM PST by USNBandit (sarcasm engaged at all times)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Terabitten

OK. The point remains though that if you skimp on capabilities in the Basic Trainer, then it's a bigger jump to the Advanced Trainer.

Kinda interesting how the T6 was revamped after all these years. I imagine that a good chunk of the cost for those puppies is the electronics. So you're not getting away from that $4.3 mil per copy price regardless of the specific aircraft type that you choose.

Someone once refered to the electronics package of a combat aircraft as "prime cuts" -- presumably because that's where the bulk of the $$$'s go.


13 posted on 12/05/2006 10:04:13 AM PST by Tallguy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Tallguy
Someone once refered to the electronics package of a combat aircraft as "prime cuts" -- presumably because that's where the bulk of the $$$'s go.

So it's a $3 million avionics package?

Does it at least come with a cd player?

14 posted on 12/05/2006 10:23:25 AM PST by Terabitten (How is there no anger in the words I hear, only love and mercy, erasing every fear" - Rez Band)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Terabitten

It is not just a basic trainer. Students who are selected for multi engine and helicopters will take advanced training in the Texan as well.

The training is also much more that just takeoff and landing. They go through familiarization, instrument training, form training and acrobatics. These aircraft also have to be able to withstand about 1000 flight hours a year.

I think the price tag is just about right for the mission to which it is assigned.


15 posted on 12/05/2006 10:36:19 AM PST by Francis McClobber
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: SwinneySwitch

T-34
16 posted on 12/05/2006 10:37:16 AM PST by F-117A (Hey, Borat! Come talk to these "people"!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tanuki

The've recycled names, of course. The one that comes to mind is the Corsair. I'd like to see them bring back the P-51 Mustang.


17 posted on 12/05/2006 11:02:35 AM PST by My2Cents
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Pentagon Leatherneck

Remember that at T-34 is basically a tandem seat Beech Bonanza.


18 posted on 12/05/2006 11:11:19 AM PST by Starwolf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Terabitten

Actually it does. I've flown them all and know that the newly minted pilot who now advances through the stages of the new joint service training program into the separate aircraft and service specific tracks is far, far superior to those of us who've made that journey in the past. Where once military flying was a combination of navigating, communicating and aviating as a member of a larger group, the new aerial warrior is much more likely to be a one-airplane delivery system and strike force. In addition to the traditional roles, the speed at which things occur, the over-the-horizon systems management and electronic wizzardry demand much more than stick and rudder know-how.
And, it cannot be ignored that there will be far fewer winged guys and gals in flight suits than has been the case throughout the history of military operations. The new T-6 is the right basic machine to create the manned aircraft driver of the 21st Century.


19 posted on 12/05/2006 11:27:52 AM PST by middie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: SwinneySwitch
According to the Navy, the last T-34C training flight occurred last year...

Three Wire Magazine

20 posted on 12/05/2006 11:32:24 AM PST by pabianice
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-23 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson