Civilian Simulated Air Combat

[Seth]

The purpose of this post is to learn of all flight operations currently offereing simulated air combat - moch dogfighting.

 

I've been reading up a lot of what happned in Georiga with Sky Warriors and their T-34's in 1999.  In addition, Texas Air Aces operation that had similar issues with two aircraft (2003 and 2004).  Also, I've been looking at the businesses that still provide this hoot of a time to most of us non actualy fighter pilots.  I have read a lot about the T-34 AD and the amount of lifetime stress that can build up on an airframe that can cause failure multiples sooner than normal flight parameters (6000 hours vs 50,000+ hours).  High G flights continuously very much add up over time, espeically when rolling at the same time.  Frankly, it makes me wonder a bit about my own Missille and of course Rocket STC conversions if not smart with turbulance and the green/yellow arc location.

 

I know we have some fighter pilots on the board, and thus their opinions on this would be very much welcomed.  This thread is not meant to start a discussion on these moch dogfight operations, but mainly to find out if and where they are located besides the three I'll list below.  I may start another thread for true opinions.  Without proper training and even with, air combat is phenominally dangerous.

 

I've only been able to find three companies that still conduct real mock dogfighting in piston aircraft.

 

-Air Combat USA based in CA with a nationwide tour during the year (SF 260 and Extra 300 aircraft)

-Sky Combat Ace is located in Las Vegas with Extra 300 aircraft

-I think there still may be an outfit in Texas with unknown aircraft

 

Does anyone use T-34's anymore after the three incidents of wing separation?

Did Air Combat USA use T-34's in the past or only the SF-260 and now Extra?

 

I know Gauntlet Warbirds does have upset recovery training, but not dogfighting.

 

I remember seeing an outfit a few years ago that used Bulldogs.

 

I've read a lot and see both sides of the equation.  Safety vs a whole lot of fun vs risk factors.  It's an expensive venture from the costs quoted by Air Combat USA.  However I do see the stop in Lancaster PA in early April 2014 and my wheels are spinning.  I know the insurance costs must be very high.

 

Are there any mock dogfight outfits or business besides the three listed above? 

 

Thanks,

 

-Seth

[fantom]

http://www.incredible-adventures.com/air_combat_adventures.html

 

SF-260's are the way to go. May not be more fun than sex, but it usually lasts longer and is much cheaper....in the long run.

 

[mcpilot]

I'm a former T34 owner... I bought my plane on December 4th 2004 and the fleet was grounded on December 10th as a result of the dog fighting accidents.  I didn't get to fly my new plane for over 6 months as a result... 

 

They no longer use T34s for this operation.   The FAA is very concerned with the aging aircraft fleet and afaik they keep a pretty close watch on such activities now....

[M016576]

http://www.incredible-adventures.com/air_combat_adventures.html

 

SF-260's are the way to go. May not be more fun than sex, but it usually lasts longer and is much cheaper....in the long run.

 

I agree with Fantom. Air Combat USA puts on a good program: I did it in 1996 before I went to USNA (and they were flying the SF260 then)... A whole summers savings to see if trying to be a fighter pilot would be a good idea- turned out to be a good investment for me!

From what I remember, The SF-260 is a great aircraft for this sort of flying (basic formation, high aspect BFM). I was completely blown away by the experience.

I flew T-34C's in primary flight training, and flew T-34B's a couple times at the Naval Academy. It's a great aircraft, fun: particularly with the turboprop, but I think the 260 is a "hotter" aircraft with a better roll rate and more pitch authority. The T-34B/C was g-limited to somewhere in the 4.5 region if I remember correctly; I think the SF-260 can pull ~6ish. Could be wrong on that. If your goal is the warbird type look, then the T-34 is a good choice (felt like I was in a (slower) P-51 on my solo flights), but for performance, I think an extra or SF260 would be more fun. Just my 2 cents...

T-34 wing / gear system is the same as the Bonanza.... Just a fun fact!

[M016576]

I always thought that the T-34 would be the ultimate poor man's warbird. I was aware of the in flight break ups and grounding of the fleet almost a decade ago, but really haven't kept up with the solution or it's impact on these aircrafts' airworthiness or operating expenses. Can you comment on this, mcpilot? How onerous was the solution? What does it entail? Are T-34s viable to be owner-operated at a level of expense that is somewhat commiserate with that of a similarly-powered a Bonanza?

Thanks!

Jim

Those in flight break ups were due to a wooden spar- there was an AD that solved this problem. The T-34B is basically a tandem bonanza, so ownership costs are similar to that.

[aviatoreb]

The purpose of this post is to learn of all flight operations currently offereing simulated air combat - moch dogfighting.

 

I've been reading up a lot of what happned in Georiga with Sky Warriors and their T-34's in 1999.  In addition, Texas Air Aces operation that had similar issues with two aircraft (2003 and 2004).  Also, I've been looking at the businesses that still provide this hoot of a time to most of us non actualy fighter pilots.  I have read a lot about the T-34 AD and the amount of lifetime stress that can build up on an airframe that can cause failure multiples sooner than normal flight parameters (6000 hours vs 50,000+ hours).  High G flights continuously very much add up over time, espeically when rolling at the same time.  Frankly, it makes me wonder a bit about my own Missille and of course Rocket STC conversions if not smart with turbulance and the green/yellow arc location.

 

I know we have some fighter pilots on the board, and thus their opinions on this would be very much welcomed.  This thread is not meant to start a discussion on these moch dogfight operations, but mainly to find out if and where they are located besides the three I'll list below.  I may start another thread for true opinions.  Without proper training and even with, air combat is phenominally dangerous.

 

I've only been able to find three companies that still conduct real mock dogfighting in piston aircraft.

 

-Air Combat USA based in CA with a nationwide tour during the year (SF 260 and Extra 300 aircraft)

-Sky Combat Ace is located in Las Vegas with Extra 300 aircraft

-I think there still may be an outfit in Texas with unknown aircraft

 

Does anyone use T-34's anymore after the three incidents of wing separation?

Did Air Combat USA use T-34's in the past or only the SF-260 and now Extra?

 

I know Gauntlet Warbirds does have upset recovery training, but not dogfighting.

 

I remember seeing an outfit a few years ago that used Bulldogs.

 

I've read a lot and see both sides of the equation.  Safety vs a whole lot of fun vs risk factors.  It's an expensive venture from the costs quoted by Air Combat USA.  However I do see the stop in Lancaster PA in early April 2014 and my wheels are spinning.  I know the insurance costs must be very high.

 

Are there any mock dogfight outfits or business besides the three listed above? 

 

Thanks,

 

-Seth

Hi Seth,  Why are you worried specifically about the Missile and Rocket? Other than slightly more weight, but yes more speed on average, there is not significantly more stress on the airframe than the original 201/231 setup.  I would think the biggest extra stress would be the tail feathers levering against the greater nose weight.  One does need to be careful in these airplanes not to get too excited with a power descent since indicated airspeed can get huge - but that is pilotage.  As long as we respect the original V-speeds I should think that we still have the original airframe.  Like I said, the weight difference is small compared to the loads an aerobatic pulls which is several G's.

 

I hear you though - I was watching a documentary recently about all the DC3s still flying.  75 year old airplanes - and who knows what was the quality of the metullargy then?  Eventually when >100k hours, one gets the heebie-geebies.

[Seth]

Hi Seth,  Why are you worried specifically about the Missile and Rocket? Other than slightly more weight, but yes more speed on average, there is not significantly more stress on the airframe than the original 201/231 setup.  I would think the biggest extra stress would be the tail feathers levering against the greater nose weight.  One does need to be careful in these airplanes not to get too excited with a power descent since indicated airspeed can get huge - but that is pilotage.  As long as we respect the original V-speeds I should think that we still have the original airframe.  Like I said, the weight difference is small compared to the loads an aerobatic pulls which is several G's.

 

I hear you though - I was watching a documentary recently about all the DC3s still flying.  75 year old airplanes - and who knows what was the quality of the metullargy then?  Eventually when >100k hours, one gets the heebie-geebies.

 

Exactly.  We should be fine, but if a typical Mooney can make it to lets say 50,000 hours (and ours are way less - mine is in the 3500 to 4000 range), with slightly higher speeds cruising, then that's slightly more loads than the rest of the Mooney fleet that was built with our airframe. 

 

With the T-34's failure was calculated with the crazy G-loads around 6000 to 7000 hours, not 50,000.  So, if we are slightly heavier and faster, then maybe we should hang up the wings at 40,000 hours not 50,000 hours.  Not something to worry about now, but in those 75 year old DC3s with 100k flight hours . . .

 

Also, I spoke with Air Combat USA.  Evidently they rebuild their SF 260 Wings every 7000 hours.  The remove the wings and have them rebuilt to new standards.  That way any fatigue that may be in there is "erased."  That's good to know - they operate 9 of them and have never had a crash in their 20+ years of operation.

 

-Seth

[M016576]

A wooden spar? That is news to me. Can you provide additional detail on that?

I think that the FAA approved a few alternate methods of compliance for the wing spar AD. I was just curious as to which was best, least expensive, least destructive, etc., etc., and I wondered if the cost of compliance was enough to materially differentiate the cost of operating a T-34 from that of a similarly powered Bo.

Jim

I looked into it some more- not a wooden spar- don't know where I got that from. The break ups were due to spar failure though, and the AD calls for periodic inspections and a reinforcement of the original spar (or replacement)

[mcpilot]

The problems associated with the inflight breakups have been remedied.  There is a wing spar amoc, center station amoc, and wing station 66 amoc.  Most of the fleet has had these taken care of.  It is a sellers market now for these particular planes.  The ones with IO520/550 conversions can fetch well north of 200K-300K depending on airframe condition.  My good friend Dan Blackwell restores T34s and they have been selling quickly.  The great thing about them is that they are certified aircraft and the handing characteristics are superb.  They have very strong airframes compared to the other Beech models....  

I always thought that the T-34 would be the ultimate poor man's warbird. I was aware of the in flight break ups and grounding of the fleet almost a decade ago, but really haven't kept up with the solution or it's impact on these aircrafts' airworthiness or operating expenses. Can you comment on this, mcpilot? How onerous was the solution? What does it entail? Are T-34s viable to be owner-operated at a level of expense that is somewhat commiserate with that of a similarly-powered a Bonanza?

Thanks!

Jim

 

 

 

[mcpilot]

Those in flight break ups were due to a wooden spar- there was an AD that solved this problem. The T-34B is basically a tandem bonanza, so ownership costs are similar to that.

 

 

T34s do not have nor did they ever have wooden spars.... Not sure where that came from...  The T34 may look like a tandem Bonanza but believe me it's not.  Some parts/surfaces may be interchangeable but the T34 has a much more beefed up airframe....

[triple8s]

I looked into it some more- not a wooden spar- don't know where I got that from. The break ups were due to spar failure though, and the AD calls for periodic inspections and a reinforcement of the original spar (or replacement)

We'll they (the govt) had their chance to buy the Mooney submission and chose the Beech. Wonder how long the Mooney wing would take high g loads over time.

[mulro767]

Nothing beats simulated air combat like Sky Combat Ace in Las Vegas. Using brand spanking new Extra 330 LC's with state of the art cameras and laser tag type kills, these guys put on quite the adrenaline rush. I've flown simulated combat in T-34's in Atlanta and was thrilled. But the guys at SCA actually pushed me to my limits. Both phyiscally and mentally. I was scared! The ground schools and briefings were very thurough and informational. The pilots are all formal fighter pilots and they love what they do. They have cameras on every angle of the airplane and you end up with lots of HD pics and a professional DVD of your kills. Seriously one of the greatest thrills of my flying career.

Then I went to the casino and lost my ass.