DB6 - a few points:
1. The increased availability of RAF QFIs due to better manning balance figures is the only reason that I postulate more becoming QFIs and hence more going to UAS DE flights with a decreased need for JEFTS. Nothing to do with any 'quality' issue concerning JEFTS FIs.
2. In my opinion, we do need to train pilots in a aircraft with good agility in roll. F260 might indeed have a big engine and high climb rate as a result (to give the Firefly which would have operated from C Springs the same performance as the F200 at sea level), but to achieve rapid roll rates does it not require autorotative manoeuvring in the roll plane? All the F260 display aerobatics I've seen seem to concentrate on vertical, looping and 'flick' manoeuvres. Nothing else we fly in the RAF requires 'flick' manoeuvring as part of normal manoeuvring - so such trick flying is somewhat irrelevant.
3. The T-3A had a poor history in the USAF; The T-3 fleet was grounded in July 1997, following an inexplicable engine failure in Colorado. Three instructors and three students were killed in crashes since the plane went into service in 1994. Two crashes were the result of pilot error, while a third occurred because of a stall condition from which the pilot was unable to recover. The predecessor T-41 had no fatal accidents in 30 years of flight, although the T-41 was incapable of performing the aerobatics and spins that were the hallmark of the T-3. The T-3's engine had failed 66 times at takeoff or landing, and the Air Force grounded 57 of the planes on 10 occasions due to problems with the engines, fuel systems and brakes.
4. I agree that the T67 F260 is a better aeroplane for its task than the plastic pig although I consider that a Bulldog 260 would have been better than either! It is the task it is being required to be used for with which I have concerns.
Last edited by BEagle; 4th Jul 2002 at 05:09.