slingsby firefly
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: 1000ft above you, giving you the bird!
Posts: 579
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
robrob,
Cant help but read into your posts that you never had sight of the POH handbook - you are stating some incredible failures in operating a military aircraft across all levels of responsibility and accountability...I'm sure you might be paraphrasing but if as you are writing that is how they operated the aircraft it is no wonder the USAF had the incidents they had.!
Not wishing to be disrespectful!
Cant help but read into your posts that you never had sight of the POH handbook - you are stating some incredible failures in operating a military aircraft across all levels of responsibility and accountability...I'm sure you might be paraphrasing but if as you are writing that is how they operated the aircraft it is no wonder the USAF had the incidents they had.!
Not wishing to be disrespectful!
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: West Sussex
Posts: 319
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Could someone post the maneuvering CG limits for the T67? Are they the same for all the variants?
Slingsby SR Group
No idea if these limits are the same for the bigger engined varients, but I doubt it.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 858
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jetscream, the Air Force had its own self-written operating and maintenance manuals. The pilots studied the flight manual and knew it inside and out. But as mind boggling as it sounds we did nothing for weight and balance--it was never considered or calculated. The other glaring omission is that we never practiced gliding stalls and we never received any "student screws up the spin recovery" training. We got that training on the job and it was eye opening.
I do believe that we were operating the aircraft with the CG beyond the aft limit which would make the aircraft more unstable and more likely to enter and remain in a spin.
dobbin1, thank you for the excellent link. I'm looking at the weight and balance spreadsheet and reading through the manual now.
Baikonour, thanks for the link to the spin testing document. I didn't know the spin testing was carried out at Hondo Texas.
The more I learn about the T67 the more I realize the Air Force did a crappy job of developing the operating manual and the training syllabus for the instructors and the cadets.
I do believe that we were operating the aircraft with the CG beyond the aft limit which would make the aircraft more unstable and more likely to enter and remain in a spin.
dobbin1, thank you for the excellent link. I'm looking at the weight and balance spreadsheet and reading through the manual now.
Baikonour, thanks for the link to the spin testing document. I didn't know the spin testing was carried out at Hondo Texas.
The more I learn about the T67 the more I realize the Air Force did a crappy job of developing the operating manual and the training syllabus for the instructors and the cadets.
Last edited by robrob; 11th May 2016 at 17:28.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 413
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The more I learn about the T67 the more I realize the Air Force did a crappy job of developing the operating manual and the training syllabus for the instructors and the cadets.
Well, that would hardly seem to be an issue with the aircraft - whatever its design or origin - then.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 858
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For those interested this document is a great review of the T67M260 and the Air Force's Enhanced Flight Screening Program's development: https://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/docs/t3bar.pdf
The Air Force tested the T67M200 in August 90 and tested the brand new T67M260 in August 91.
The report mentions some fatal accidents that aren't listed in the ASN database:
1984 UK Aerobatics "Aerial display; insufficient altitude for maneuver"
1985 UK Spin accident resulting in two fatalities from a "failure to recover." The 1986 Cranfield crash is also mentioned so it's not that crash.
1987 Sweden Aerobatics "Low level aerobatics" It lists the Switzerland spin accident so it not that crash.
1989 Japan "Steep turn after takeoff , rolled inverted."
1989 Turkey Simulated Forced Landing "Wing dropped near the ground."
1989 Turkey Formation "On inside of turn after takeoff, hit house."
1990 New Zealand Aerobatics "No information"
Adding these fatal accidents to the ASN T67 database gives a total of 28 fatal T67 accidents.
Anyone have any info on these unlisted fatal accidents?
sapperkenno, I have updated my T-3A webpage but the T67 still has a god awful safety record. Over 10% of the T67 fleet have been destroyed in fatal accidents.
It doesn't explain the other 25 fatal crashes all over the world. How about the Test Pilot Instructor that "failed to recover" from a spin in Mojave California? You can't write that one off on "some dim-wit that doesn't know how to do a proper spin recovery."
The Air Force tested the T67M200 in August 90 and tested the brand new T67M260 in August 91.
The report mentions some fatal accidents that aren't listed in the ASN database:
1984 UK Aerobatics "Aerial display; insufficient altitude for maneuver"
1985 UK Spin accident resulting in two fatalities from a "failure to recover." The 1986 Cranfield crash is also mentioned so it's not that crash.
1987 Sweden Aerobatics "Low level aerobatics" It lists the Switzerland spin accident so it not that crash.
1989 Japan "Steep turn after takeoff , rolled inverted."
1989 Turkey Simulated Forced Landing "Wing dropped near the ground."
1989 Turkey Formation "On inside of turn after takeoff, hit house."
1990 New Zealand Aerobatics "No information"
Adding these fatal accidents to the ASN T67 database gives a total of 28 fatal T67 accidents.
Anyone have any info on these unlisted fatal accidents?
sapperkenno, I have updated my T-3A webpage but the T67 still has a god awful safety record. Over 10% of the T67 fleet have been destroyed in fatal accidents.
Well, that would hardly seem to be an issue with the aircraft - whatever its design or origin - then.
Join Date: May 2010
Location: UK
Age: 79
Posts: 1,086
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Simple - A low level spin in ANY aircraft is unlikely to be recoverable.
Spin recovery needs a lot of altitude. Only a suicidal idiot would enter a deliberate spin below 5000ft AGL.
Spin recovery needs a lot of altitude. Only a suicidal idiot would enter a deliberate spin below 5000ft AGL.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 413
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Only a suicidal idiot would enter a deliberate spin below 5000ft AGL.
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: London
Age: 55
Posts: 125
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ancient greek - 1 1/2 turn competition spins are done from 3000-3500ft, (well that's the aim, entry may end up being in the high 2000's) often with a high rotation element so that thde exit is vertical. the trick is to do it in a plane designed for proper aerobatics, unlike say a slingsby or bulldog. Of course at that height a 'chute is probably not going to help much. I'm sure though slingsby's have been flown in many competitions
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: West Sussex
Posts: 319
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A 1 turn competition spin in the T67m uses around 1100 ft so spinning from 3000 or 3500 is not a problem if you know what you are doing.
If I am spinning with a student on the controls I always start above 5,000 ft just in case they get the recovery wrong. We always wear parachutes and practice abandon drills on the ground as part of the AOPA aeros course.
In the 10 years I have been flying and teaching aeros in the T67 I have never got into an accidental spin (plenty of departures of course, but always recovered at incipient stage by centering the controls) and I have never had any hint of a problem recovering from fully developed intentional spins. Always aware that the next one might be the first problem one though.
If I am spinning with a student on the controls I always start above 5,000 ft just in case they get the recovery wrong. We always wear parachutes and practice abandon drills on the ground as part of the AOPA aeros course.
In the 10 years I have been flying and teaching aeros in the T67 I have never got into an accidental spin (plenty of departures of course, but always recovered at incipient stage by centering the controls) and I have never had any hint of a problem recovering from fully developed intentional spins. Always aware that the next one might be the first problem one though.
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: 1000ft above you, giving you the bird!
Posts: 579
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In summary to 4 pages of pruning - I think we can safely say the T67 is a fine aircraft if you operate it as per the POH and within CG limits.
Always do an AOPA aeros course if you want to have $hits and giggles doing loops, rolls and other fun stuff.
Always wear a parachute
Don't self teach aeros
Simples!
Always do an AOPA aeros course if you want to have $hits and giggles doing loops, rolls and other fun stuff.
Always wear a parachute
Don't self teach aeros
Simples!
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 858
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My summary of 4 pages of pruning:
36 T67's destroyed with 48 fatalities in flying accidents. That's the new total using the ASN and Enhanced Flight Screening Broad Area Review report.
Know what you're getting into when you get into a T67.
36 T67's destroyed with 48 fatalities in flying accidents. That's the new total using the ASN and Enhanced Flight Screening Broad Area Review report.
Know what you're getting into when you get into a T67.
CG and Pilot Position
AFMs commonly give a single arm for the crew positions, even though seats are commonly on tracks.
Parachutes (or more importantly lack of) will also affect the arm.
Many of us single seat glider owners will have the glider CG calculated after weighing with pilot wearing chute and strapped in.
I bought my first glider from a gentleman weighing some thirty pounds more than me; so I had to remove several tail weights. The fellow who bought it from me reinstalled them.
Another consideration is that North Americans, including USAF personnel, tend to weigh more and be taller; so sitting farther back.
Parachutes (or more importantly lack of) will also affect the arm.
Many of us single seat glider owners will have the glider CG calculated after weighing with pilot wearing chute and strapped in.
I bought my first glider from a gentleman weighing some thirty pounds more than me; so I had to remove several tail weights. The fellow who bought it from me reinstalled them.
Another consideration is that North Americans, including USAF personnel, tend to weigh more and be taller; so sitting farther back.
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: West Sussex
Posts: 319
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AFMs commonly give a single arm for the crew positions, even though seats are commonly on tracks.
Parachutes (or more importantly lack of) will also affect the arm.
Many of us single seat glider owners will have the glider CG calculated after weighing with pilot wearing chute and strapped in.
I bought my first glider from a gentleman weighing some thirty pounds more than me; so I had to remove several tail weights. The fellow who bought it from me reinstalled them.
Another consideration is that North Americans, including USAF personnel, tend to weigh more and be taller; so sitting farther back.
Parachutes (or more importantly lack of) will also affect the arm.
Many of us single seat glider owners will have the glider CG calculated after weighing with pilot wearing chute and strapped in.
I bought my first glider from a gentleman weighing some thirty pounds more than me; so I had to remove several tail weights. The fellow who bought it from me reinstalled them.
Another consideration is that North Americans, including USAF personnel, tend to weigh more and be taller; so sitting farther back.
Only a suicidal idiot would enter a deliberate spin below 5000ft AGL.
How many T67s have spun in doing competition aeros?
Top of the box wouldn't be more than 3500' agl. Granted they're not intending to do more than a couple of turns, but still.
How many T67s have spun in doing competition aeros?
Top of the box wouldn't be more than 3500' agl. Granted they're not intending to do more than a couple of turns, but still.
If/When time and money allows and the kids stop bleeding me dry, I'll start flying again, and I would quite happily fly a FF.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 858
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I believe there is duplication between the two reports you mention, so your total is wrong.
Is it this one from the BAR report?
1984 UK Aerobatics "Aerial display; insufficient altitude for maneuver"
From the ASN database:
1984 Slingsby T67M Firefly G-SFTY Specialist Flying Training Ltd 1 Torquhan Farm, near Galashiels - Cross country flight, pilot bailed out too low and died.
1985 Slingsby T.67A Firefly G-BJGH Specialist Flying Training Ltd 0 Teesside International Airport, Middleton St. George, County Durham - Nose wheel fell off, damaged beyond repair
1986 Slingsby T67M Firefly G-FFLY Slingsby Aviation PLC 1 Cranfield, Bedfordshire (EGTC) - This crash is in both reports and I accounted for this - not duplicated
1987 Slingsby T67A Firefly G-BIUZ Slingsby Aviation PLC (reg. owners) 0 Cranfield, Bedfordshire - Takeoff stall crash avoiding a midair, no fatality, written off
Here's a screen capture of the ASN T67 accident database:
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 858
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"one day, you'll put in the inputs to recover the spin and it won't recover as you expect, don't start £$%"£$"£ about with it, stick with it and it will drop out" It did it once and completed another rotation and then dropped out. I don't know why, but it did.
It's like ghosts, you don't believe in them until you see one yourself.
Was this a right-hand spin? The Edwards test flight guys found the aircraft recovered quicker from left-hand spins. They speculated it was due to prop wash making the rudder more effective. The fatal Academy intentional spin crash hit the ground in a right-hand spin. The Apr 2016 crash looks to be right-hand too.
We should also take note that many of the T67 crashes resulted from stalls, some at low level, some that progressed into spins. In the T67 stall + rudder = aggressive wing drop. That should be plaquered too.
Last edited by robrob; 13th May 2016 at 14:43.
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Hotel Gypsy
Posts: 2,821
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is the key. Sometimes the Firefly doesn't react the way it should.
From memory the FF's are not cleared for inverted spinning,
Read the very interesting report in Baikonour's post:
For those interested, here is a USAF document about spin tests they carried out on the Firefly.
Inverted Mode Discovery
The possibility of an inverted spin seemed remote, due to the reluctance of the aircraft to depart or spin from an inverted stall. We tried roll coupled entries, but could not generate sufficient roll rate to translate to a yaw rate. The only card left unturned was the effect of the elevator trim (remember that trim tab)--could it make a difference?
We found with the elevator trim set full nose up, the aircraft would spin inverted in either direction. This was accomplished from an inverted stall, with full forward stick and full pro-spin rudder held throughout the incipient stage (1 to 2 turns) and the developed spin. The full nose up setting of the trim tab allowed an extra bit of elevator control power when inverted. This in turn, kept the angle of attack high enough to allow a yaw rate to develop. And as we know, stall plus yaw equals spin.
Follow-On Tests
Naturally, Slingsby wanted to further investigate the inverted spin mode. Their follow-on testing completed before delivery verified the importance of the trim tab for inverted spins. Expanding from the QT&E sorties, they looked at both forward and aft CG, as well as heavy and light aircraft weights. In all cases, once the trim was set more than half nose up, the propensity for inverted spinning increased. The aircraft was more susceptible to inverted spins with right rudder, though it could spin both directions once the trim was set to full nose up (as we had done during QT&E). Slingsby also found the neutral recovery to be most effective for the inverted spin. In the end, Slingsby recommended the aircraft not be certified in this area and for inverted spins to remain a "prohibited" maneuver. In part, this decision was an economic one, as travelling the certification highway can be a long and expensive journey. And on-time delivery of the aircraft was paramount to both the USAF and the contractor.
The possibility of an inverted spin seemed remote, due to the reluctance of the aircraft to depart or spin from an inverted stall. We tried roll coupled entries, but could not generate sufficient roll rate to translate to a yaw rate. The only card left unturned was the effect of the elevator trim (remember that trim tab)--could it make a difference?
We found with the elevator trim set full nose up, the aircraft would spin inverted in either direction. This was accomplished from an inverted stall, with full forward stick and full pro-spin rudder held throughout the incipient stage (1 to 2 turns) and the developed spin. The full nose up setting of the trim tab allowed an extra bit of elevator control power when inverted. This in turn, kept the angle of attack high enough to allow a yaw rate to develop. And as we know, stall plus yaw equals spin.
Follow-On Tests
Naturally, Slingsby wanted to further investigate the inverted spin mode. Their follow-on testing completed before delivery verified the importance of the trim tab for inverted spins. Expanding from the QT&E sorties, they looked at both forward and aft CG, as well as heavy and light aircraft weights. In all cases, once the trim was set more than half nose up, the propensity for inverted spinning increased. The aircraft was more susceptible to inverted spins with right rudder, though it could spin both directions once the trim was set to full nose up (as we had done during QT&E). Slingsby also found the neutral recovery to be most effective for the inverted spin. In the end, Slingsby recommended the aircraft not be certified in this area and for inverted spins to remain a "prohibited" maneuver. In part, this decision was an economic one, as travelling the certification highway can be a long and expensive journey. And on-time delivery of the aircraft was paramount to both the USAF and the contractor.
I think the summary at the end of the paper is very telling:
Overall Assessment and Impact of Testing
On the USAF side, we were pleased with the Firefly's spin characteristics--how it spun when you wanted to and a when you weren't expecting it. The inverted spin potential seemed remote enough to eliminate most of the worry on part of the user. The T-3A had a no-nonsense, erect spin mode that would expose pilots to the spin environment in a safe and energy-efficient manner. As long as the pilot utilized rudder for primary anti-spin control, most mistakes during recovery could be tolerated.
On the USAF side, we were pleased with the Firefly's spin characteristics--how it spun when you wanted to and a when you weren't expecting it. The inverted spin potential seemed remote enough to eliminate most of the worry on part of the user. The T-3A had a no-nonsense, erect spin mode that would expose pilots to the spin environment in a safe and energy-efficient manner. As long as the pilot utilized rudder for primary anti-spin control, most mistakes during recovery could be tolerated.
As an aside, but relevant to robrob's comment about W&B of the T-3A, when I flew Chipmunks at UBAS is the 60s, there was never any discussion of gross weight or W&B. I presume the assumption was that even with ex-truckie middle-aged QFIs in the back seat, there was no issue.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Cambridge, England, EU
Posts: 3,443
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post