USAF to scrap T-3A Fireflys...

[C]

Grounded since 1997, the USAF Academy is scrapping over 100 Slingsby Firefly.

Apparently the aircraft suffered 66 engine failures whilst in service. Shocking. You wonder what on earth they were doing to the things though either maintenance wise or through flawed engine handling. You would consider blaming the aircraft, but considering it's a successful trainer with several other air forces, you wonder what went on...

http://www.aero-news.net/index.cfm

[Tweek]

As you say, I'd expect it to be down to poor maintenance. I've not heard of any problems on this scale in the UK Firefly fleet.

And is it really necessary to scrap them all? Perhaps they aren't of any importance, as they're not American!

[C]

As you say, I'd expect it to be down to poor maintenance. I've not heard of any problems on this scale in the UK Firefly fleet.

And is it really necessary to scrap them all? Perhaps they aren't of any importance, as they're not American!

I would be slow to accuse the USAF of poor maintenance, maybe just unsuitable maintenance for this particular type.

As for the scrapping, the USAFA basically has said that as they've been dormant since 1997, they would be worth very little as they'd need a very thorough overhaul and more.

I'm just glad that the case against Slingsby was thrown out...

[Tweek]

I would be slow to accuse the USAF of poor maintenance, maybe just unsuitable maintenance for this particular type.

Well of couse, else they'd have no airworthy aircraft!

[Chris_F]

A good friend of mine and his instructor died in one of those.

[dcunning30]

Perhaps they aren't of any importance, as they're not American!

I bet you're right!

.....waiting for the Marines to scrap all those Harriers they've got!  ....unimportant foreign airplanes!  

[C]

I bet you're right!

Particularly when the manufacturer they replaced was a certain company called Cessna...

I wonder if their poor service with the USAF (versus reliable service with other air forces) could be the environment where they're flown.  The US Air Academy's airfield is about a mile above sea level, so I suspect they are flown at higher altitudes more often than experienced in the hands of other air forces.

I was thinking the same thing. It was not an oxygen equipped aircraft, so its use in the UK would have been below FL100. This could be where it gets interesting, because IIRC the accidents pretty much involved spinning. In the UK we would not spin without entering at somewhere about 6000ft/FL60 or higher. If they were operating from an already high airfield, you could end up spinning very close to terra firma indeed, or conversely, uncorfortably high sans oxygen...

[C]

Reading back through the case it appears the accidents were "altitude and heat" related (one of the two operating bases was 8000ft amsl), involving engine failures.

This is were it becomes slightly farcical - despite engine (Lycoming - an American company) failure being the most common failure - it was little village based Slingsby who were inevitably sued for several million dollars by the victims families. Apparently spin testing at Edwards AFB of all places concluded there was nothing wrong with the aeroplane at all! :-/

[Tweek]

This is were it becomes slightly farcical - despite engine (Lycoming - an American company) failure being the most common failure - it was little village based Slingsby who were inevitably sued for several million dollars by the victims families. Apparently spin testing at Edwards AFB of all places concluded there was nothing wrong with the aeroplane at all! :-/

Well I suppose it would be easier to get money out of a relatively small company.

I bet they didn't check into the safety record of Fireflys serving elsewhere, either.

[Chris_F]

This is were it becomes slightly farcical - despite engine (Lycoming - an American company) failure being the most common failure - it was little village based Slingsby who were inevitably sued for several million dollars by the victims families.

Do you think the families were actually being patriotic by choosing not to sue the American company?  Or is it more likely that their lawyer simply advised them to sue the manufacturer, for any number of reasons (perhaps it's easier to get money out of 'em, perhaps they had deeper pockets, etc).

We're talking about red blooded Americans here.  THere's no way a real American would actually pass up the opportunity to sue someone simply because they were American as well.  :)

[C]

Do you think the families were actually being patriotic by choosing not to sue the American company?  Or is it more likely that their lawyer simply advised them to sue the manufacturer, for any number of reasons (perhaps it's easier to get money out of 'em, perhaps they had deeper pockets, etc).

True, probably because Slingsby are a relatively small foreign company, and Textron Lycoming a large US company...

[dcunning30]

True, probably because Slingsby are a relatively small foreign company, and Textron Lycoming a large US company...

Still hooked on that foreign/domestic matter?  

Perhaps the plane manufacture was the target for the lawsuit is because they're the one who holds the actual contract with the Air Force.  The powerplant manufacture holds a contract with the plane manufacture, not the Air Force.  If the fault is actually with the powerplant manufacture, it is the responsibility of the plane manufacture to sue them.

Here's an analogy:  Say you have a house built.  You get into your sparkling new whirlpool tub and turn it on.  Lo and behold, you become electrocuted by defective manufacturing of the tub.  You end up in the hospital and loose time at work, etc.  Now, given that you have a contract with the home builder and not the whirlpool tub manufacture, who are you going to go after?

...the answer is obvious.  Now back to the subject of the airplane.  Going after the plane manufacture rather than the powerplant manufacture is the same concept, not some notion of American vs British, which is silly to me.  

[C]

Going after the plane manufacture rather than the powerplant manufacture is the same concept, not some notion of American vs British, which is silly to me.  

Far more fun though...

Maybe they should have sued the USAF in that case - as they were the one's operating the aircraft when they crashed.

Still smacks to me of a case of pick on the little guy - in this case the relatively tiny Slingsby, rather than the behemoths of either USAF or Textron (who would have no interest of course as they own both Lycoming and Cessna). These cases in their worst extreme would maybe have dented (or just scratched) Textron finacially (had no effect on the USAF!), but could easily have crippled Slingsby into oblivion.

[dcunning30]

Still smacks to me of a case of pick on the little guy - in this case the relatively tiny Slingsby, rather than the behemoths of either USAF or Textron (who would have no interest of course as they own both Lycoming and Cessna). These cases in their worst extreme would maybe have dented (or just scratched) Textron finacially (had no effect on the USAF!), but could easily have crippled Slingsby into oblivion.

Oh, definately.  Any lawyer worth his degree would look to see who he should go after that would give him the best chance of winning his case.  So in that respect, they might consider going after the foreign company after all, considering the foreign company may not be as savvy in American litigation as a domestic company.

[C]

Anyway, to sum up, it is a real shame that 100 very nice aeroplanes are going to scrap.

Also I find it quite bizarre that the USAF Academy is based at a high altitude airfield, when they are operating normally aspirated piston prop trainers. I'm sure there's an explanation. Not being from the USAFA I don't happen to know it!