quote:

Originally posted by V-Tail:
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.

Interesting tidbit: Beech built the Model 45, later known as the T-34 Mentor, as an economical replacement for the North American T-6. Later, the T-34C, affectionately known as the Turbo Weenie by many in Pensacola, replaced the North American T-28.

I think it was T-28s that were used to train foreign pilots during my stay at Keesler AFB 67-69.

They had a distinctive rak-rak-rak-rak sound and seemed to always be turning about 300 rpms.

I worked on T-28's while working in Laos. They have 3 bomb racks and a 50cal machine gun under each wing. Flown by Thai pilots that were trained at Udorn AF base in Thailand. This picture was taken in 1969.

I would love to have some of you with actual experience and knowledge of aviation history elaborate on this:
Was the quality of our training planes (AT-6/SJN/Harvard and following) to some degree responsible for the success of American pilots and aircraft in combat?
I hear very high praise for planes such as the T-28, and for sure the AT-6 variants: powerful, easy to fly, tough.
Did that make it easier and safer to get US and allied pilots up to speed in high-performance fighters?
Just curious.