Appears to be a trainer of some sort.

Sorry for picture quality, it's a screen capture from a video I'm watching.

Skyraider?

Looks like a T-28 Trojan

T-28 Trojan, as mentioned.

I looked at that but the distortion in the video threw me off. Looking at the details, thats just what it is.

Thanks.

That brings back memories of a childhood in deep south Texas. My dad was a maintenance chief with the ATC. T-28's, T-34's, T-37's.

RMD

So is the T-28 a Trainer ? And what exactly are the primary differences between Trainers and "regular" airplanes ? Is it related to stability/forgiveness vs performance, or is there more to it ?

quote:

Originally posted by wrightd:
So is the T-28 a Trainer ? And what exactly are the primary differences between Trainers and "regular" airplanes ? Is it related to stability/forgiveness vs performance, or is there more to it ?

The primary role of a trainer is to be used to train pilots. Fighters are used to fight, bombers to bomb, etc. The T-28 was an advanced trainer. I'd bet that some third world countries have armed them up and used them as fighters, but that is not what they were designed for initially, nor what they were primarily used for in the US. (They may have had other uses here, but training was the primary).

Trainers would have two sets of controls and would be setup so that an instructor could instruct the student, keep an eye on what was going on, and if necessary take control.

Also if an airplane was designed specifically to be a trainer, it would have some of the stability/forgiveness properties that wrightd was asking about.

The perfect example is the T-37 Tweet. That thing was almost indestructible. It had the highest G-onset rate of any airplane in the Air Force, yet every ham-fisted student could yank that stick around for all he was worth and only hurt himself. Want to get into a spin? Those poor Tweets were thrown into spins almost every day of their lives, and again had panicked students slamming rudder pedals and yanking controls to every physical stop available.

And yes, even the US converted the mighty Tweet into a combat aircraft - the A-37. Many Central and South American countries also bought the A-37 as a cheap bomb-dropper.

I think I remember that the US put T-38 motors in the A-37s. Without the afterburners, of course. The stock T-37 motors were centrifugal compressors, which not only made that high-pitched squeal but also made them damn near bulletproof. To this day I am convinced that I could walk up to a running Tweet with a 2x4 and just start feeding it into the engine and with no issues at all have a bunch of burnt sawdust come out of the back.

quote:

Originally posted by slosig:
I'd bet that some third world countries have armed them up and used them as fighters, but that is not what they were designed for initially, nor what they were primarily used for in the US.

The French did just that. Take a look at the T-28 Fennec. After the French were done with them, they sold them off to other air forces.

quote:

Originally posted by slosig:
I'd bet that some third world countries have armed them up and used them as fighters . . .

So you are calling the United States a third world country?

http://www.nationalmuseum.af.m...erican-t-28a-trojan/

http://www.nationalmuseum.af.m...ssna-a-37-dragonfly/

quote:

Originally posted by DMF:

quote:

Originally posted by slosig:
I'd bet that some third world countries have armed them up and used them as fighters . . .

So you are calling the United States a third world country?

Well, the LibTurds are doing their best, but I don't think we're there yet.

quote:

http://www.nationalmuseum.af.m...erican-t-28a-trojan/

http://www.nationalmuseum.af.m...ssna-a-37-dragonfly/

Thanks, I didn't know about the Deltas!

T- = Trainer

P- = Pursuit

F- = Fighter

B- = Bombers.

Simples.

tac

Interesting comments, thanks!

First thing I thought when I saw that bird is "I bet that thing is tougher than a baked owl. And with that big ol' radial on the front, I bet it goes like a streak too!"

Based entirely on appearances and a staggering lack of knowledge of airplanes.

Brian Shul, a former SR-71 pilot who wrote "Sled Driver, was shot down in an attack model over Viet Nam.

https://www.amazon.com/Sled-Dr...orld%27s+fastest+jet

Wiki calls it an AT-28, T-28D might be more accurate.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Shul

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Sigmund,

What bird has replaced the mission of the SR-71 ? Satellites ? And do we need a plane that can travel that fast ? If we do, what plane is it ?

And this is what it looks like when you run your freshly restored beauty out of fuel on its maiden voyage. Interestingly, it shares many of the same systems with the beech bonanza, such as wings and landing gear.

No, it doesn't. You are thinking of the T-34 Mentor. The T-28 is considerbly larger.

rscalzo is correct. The T-34 up to the 'B' model even shared the same Continental engine series as the Bonanza. The 'C' model used a turbine engine and drank kerosene instead of gasoline.

As far as I know, all T-28 models used a radial engine. The T-34 piston engines were opposed, not radial.

quote:

Originally posted by rscalzo:
No, it doesn't. You are thinking of the T-34 Mentor. The T-28 is considerbly larger.

You are correct, my mistake.