T34A vs T34B

[PF Flyer]

I believe the differences are few between these aircraft. Which is more desirable to own.....and why? Thanks!

[Bill Greenwood]

Obviously either plane will do acro very well, but it is only legal to do airshow acro, i e Julie Clark in the A model. I think this is because when the military was testing these planes years ago, they found that only the A model would meet FAA spin recovery standards in all situations. The B does it ok, until you get the cg loading rear of center even if still within limits. So I think the restriction from way back in those days still legally applies to the B.
I think, not sure, that the B actually has a slightly different wing, maybe less dihedreal or washout than the A which accounts for the spin recovery difference.

Some years back a group of B owners got a program to try to overcome this restriction on B acro. They went through a whole test program for spins and recoveries. All went well when they started at the forward cg limit, and as they moved aft. However, just as in the old days, as they got near the aft cg limit the problem began just as it was years before, so they only confirmed this fact.

So just on this fact the A may be more desirable. The A has adjustable seats, that I prefer and fixed rudder pedals. B has fixed seats and adjustable pedals. B has a pressure blow off emergency canopy, which in unlikely to be needed, but may be sightly better. A has a normal cable release for the canopy. It seem the B has a little more room in the panel, can't recall why.

They are almost the same plane. Both are amazingly easy to fly, look good, do nice acro, and can serve ok for cross country. If I had to choose one plane for a forced or emergency landing it would be T-34. With the stall about 48 knots they can be landed slow and on a short runway. They are not fire breathing on performance, being heavy, and with no supercharger. The A, I owned for 10 years cruised at about 140 knots burning 13 gph, holds 50 gallons. It is common to put in larger engines than the 225 hp, either 285 or 300. The 225 hp will climb about 1000 feet at sea level, but requires patience to get much above 12,000 '.It will cruise with a T-6 as long as you are down low, but there is not substitute for a supercharger up high.
If anyone is looking to buy one or get some tips, I can help. Also there is a very active T-34 association and good formation clinics.

[sbirchill]

I couldn't resist a T-34B story. In 1969 I was stationed at Subic Bay in the Philippines. I belonged to the flying club at Cubi Point. They had two T34B models that had been surveyed out of the Navy and I used to rent one, as a 20 year old for the huge sum of $9.00 and hour - wet. Gas was 16 Cents a gallon so at 14 gallons an hour that was $2.25 an hour for fuel. Even on my E-4 pay of $234.00 a month it was still a pretty good deal.

[Mike M]

Which is more desirable to own.....and why?

the B. because it's painted Navy on the side.

[PF Flyer]

Go Navy.....but I think I want to do some acro! Hard to imagine you can't in the B.

[Mike M]

Go Navy.....but I think I want to do some acro! Hard to imagine you can't in the B.

i have the documentation that i did. including inverted spins, which my instructor wasn't supposed to teach me but he wanted to practice so we did. but that was in my uncle's airplane. hard to imagine YOU can't in the B. thanks for paying for the flight!

[Frank Giger]

I haven't been around aviation long enough. Reading the title of the thread I immediately thought "why are they discussing WWII tanks?"

[rosiejerryrosie]

I haven't been around aviation long enough. Reading the title of the thread I immediately thought "why are they discussing WWII tanks?"

To figure out which is the best airplane with which to attack them????

[Frank Giger]

I'd go with the IL-2 Sturmovik.

[Fast Aircraft]

I believe the differences are few between these aircraft. Which is more desirable to own.....and why? Thanks!

I wrote a 2 part article regarding the T-34 that appeared in EAA Warbird Briefing.

Part 1: http://www.eaa.org/warbirdsbriefing/articles/1110_t34.asp

Part 2: http://www.eaa.org/warbirdsbriefing/articles/1111_t34.asp

If you have any specific questions I would be happy to answer them.

The T-34 Association is located here: www.t-34.com

Best of luck!

[Bill Greenwood]

A few differnces to what Todd wrote about flying the T-34, based on my 10 years of owning an A model.
He writes of touching down at 75 knots, and as I recall that seems way too fast. You can get away with it since the 34 lands so easily, but why land faster than needed? As I recall, stall, gear and full flaps is 48 knots, so you ought to touchdown at that speed or close to it. 75 knots is 156 % above stall speed, and this really is faster than is even needed on downwind. Normal final approach speed for most planes is 1.3 Vso , slowing to 1.2 near the runway, or 62 knots and 57 knots. I could be wrong about these figures, but I flew mine for about 600 hours all over the U S and to the Bahamas and I am pretty sure I was under 70 knots on final.
I think the pilots manual , the dash something gives a "minimum roll landing" ( ie short field) approach speed of 55 knots. I tried this a few time and it works with a little power on and the plane really settles in when you close the throttle. I can't find my 34 manual just now, but do have the Joe Christy book on Beechcrafts, including the 34 and he says the Air Force said 60 knots at touchdown, and to him, like me, this seems on the fast side. One thing the book list is a service ceiling at 19, 500 feet! and that is a fantasy,unless they found a runway at 20,000 feet for takeoff. Christy did not verify this on his flights, like he did the other figures.
Todd gives some pretty good fuel consumption figures, and although I have flown a few of the 285 and 300 reeinged ones, I can't recall any figures. My stock A burned 13 gph in cruise at about 140-145 knots TAS.

Also Todd says that they don't have inverted fuel and oil systems. Well, the A model came with inverted oil system and mine still had it. Many, if not most planes, have been fancied up a lot and thus may have been changed. I liked that mine still had original panels and instruments, and thus retained its military look inside. Probably most T-34 owners do not share my feelings, but to me one of the major experiences of owning a military type plane is the aura and and the look and feel of the cockpit. When you make a 34 or a T-6 or a P-51 or a P-40 look like a Cessna or a Lear inside, it changes the experience. It's kind of like a beautiful victorian home that looks classic outside and but has been gutted and is modern inside. Besides I wouldn't know how to operate all that techno stuff anyway.