T-6 Texan info

[Riddller]

Instead of a "glass cockpit" with a couple large LCD screens (a la T-38), there are 10 (including RMU and GPS). Still glass, just different.

Yeah, I think that's as good a reason as any. I thought about my post later and realized that it was a totally subjective statement. To me, a glass cockpit is one where any display can show you whatever you want. It seems like they just took the old steam gauges out of the T-6 and replaced them with LCD screens that do EXACTLY the same thing, it just doesn't seem like that much of an upgrade to me.

Just my opinion, I don't claim to be an expert.

[Wolf424]

It seems like they just took the old steam gauges out of the T-6 and replaced them with LCD screens that do EXACTLY the same thing, it just doesn't seem like that much of an upgrade to me.

That's what they did for the most part. The EADI and EHSI have some options as far as going into map mode, arc mode, bring up and turn off certain needles, composite the HSI and ADI onto one screen, etc. and the VSI changes to the TAS view or NACWS view when you pull the trigger. Other than that, there aren't many options on the other screens.

edit: I wasn't explaining this for you Riddller, it was for SEP. I wasn't trying in insult your intelligence

Edited April 2, 2009 by TheWolf424

[Guest CmbtWmbt]

That's what they did for the most part. The EADI and EHSI have some options as far as going into map mode, arc mode, bring up and turn off certain needles, composite the HSI and ADI onto one screen, etc. and the VSI changes to the TAS view or NACWS view when you pull the trigger. Other than that, there aren't many options on the other screens.

edit: I wasn't explaining this for you Riddller, it was for SEP. I wasn't trying in insult your intelligence

If it's not a steam gauge, it's fvcking glass duder. If you've flown with steam gauges then you would agree, IMHO.

[Guest SEP]

thanks fellas, i've got a good start with this.

keep it comin if you have anything else.

[Riddller]

If it's not a steam gauge, it's fvcking glass duder. If you've flown with steam gauges then you would agree, IMHO.

I don't know if you were talking to me or TheWolf specifically, but I'll answer: I have flown with steam gauges, more than most people here. Yes, I will agree that the little LCDs in the T-6As, as far as all weather and night/day usability, they are generally easier to read, but it's still just a digital picture of an analog steam gauge and (many of them, as TheWolf pointed out) are otherwise the same. I've gone from a C-130 accepted in 1953 to the T-6 to the T-1 to the C-17, with progressively higher levels of "glass cockpit" and even the C-17 is showing it's age compared to the newer stuff out there. Compared to the early 1990's "glass cockpit" of the the C-17, the T-6 doesn't hold a candle when you look at all the gee-wiz stuff which can be displayed.

I know, I know, two totally different missions, so the T-6A wasn't even designed with the stuff a C-17 can do in mind, and I'm in no way busting on the T-6, I thought it was perfect for it it was designed for. I just think that the concept of a "glass cockpit" has so far exceeded what the T-6 has by this point, that to say it has a glass cockpit, while technically accurate, is kind of a misnomer.

My $.02

[Wolf424]

I just think that the concept of a "glass cockpit" has so far exceeded what the T-6 has by this point, that to say it has a glass cockpit, while technically accurate, is kind of a misnomer.

2

CmbtWmbt, I'm sure just about everyone knows that a digital display is "glass". We were more or less explaining the concept and how it differs between aircraft. SEP asked about capabilities, and we explained that it probably wasn't the same type of glass cockpit as he thought.

Easy killer...

[XL0901]

Anyone know where to finds some good info about the glass cockpit in the T-6 Texan II? Such as the specs, capabilities, how the moving map works, # of screens, manual, etc?

Just curious but why do you ask? Are you T-6 bound? If so you might get some better directed info.

[Guest]

Anyone know where to finds some good info about the glass cockpit in the T-6 Texan II? Such as the specs, capabilities, how the moving map works, # of screens, manual, etc?

T-6 Gouge

a lot of good shit on there...you live and die by the gouge, but most of that stuff is tried & tested.

Edited April 3, 2009 by day man

[Guest CmbtWmbt]

I don't know if you were talking to me or TheWolf specifically, but I'll answer: I have flown with steam gauges, more than most people here. Yes, I will agree that the little LCDs in the T-6As, as far as all weather and night/day usability, they are generally easier to read, but it's still just a digital picture of an analog steam gauge and (many of them, as TheWolf pointed out) are otherwise the same. I've gone from a C-130 accepted in 1953 to the T-6 to the T-1 to the C-17, with progressively higher levels of "glass cockpit" and even the C-17 is showing it's age compared to the newer stuff out there. Compared to the early 1990's "glass cockpit" of the the C-17, the T-6 doesn't hold a candle when you look at all the gee-wiz stuff which can be displayed.

I know, I know, two totally different missions, so the T-6A wasn't even designed with the stuff a C-17 can do in mind, and I'm in no way busting on the T-6, I thought it was perfect for it it was designed for. I just think that the concept of a "glass cockpit" has so far exceeded what the T-6 has by this point, that to say it has a glass cockpit, while technically accurate, is kind of a misnomer.

My $.02

I totally agree. Like you said two different missions with completely different levels of flying going on.

I totally agree. Like you said two different missions with completely different levels of flying going on.

Wolf, I didn't mean it with hostility, you should have pictured a drunk guy standing around a keg giving one of his buddies shit....thats the context it was in.

[Guest bunk22]

The first two T-6B's for the Navy is still due this July at Whiting. True glass cockpit and HUD.

https://www.hawkerbeechcraft.com/military/t...T6b_litho07.pdf

For now, as of Nov 09, 4 T-6B's will start to be delivered monthly and VT-3 will be the first to start flying them. The T-34C is fun and all but there are a few things I wish for. One, more power....T-6 has it. Ejection seat, T-6 has it. A better view, T-6 has it. I'm actually going to Iraq then will be flying T-6A's with VT-10 when I return but will try to fly the B model at TW-5 as well. I flew the T-2C Buckeye and it was a fun jet. I hear the T-6 is even more so than that old jet.

[flyusaf83]

The first two T-6B's for the Navy is still due this July at Whiting. True glass cockpit and HUD.

https://www.hawkerbeechcraft.com/military/t...T6b_litho07.pdf

For now, as of Nov 09, 4 T-6B's will start to be delivered monthly and VT-3 will be the first to start flying them. The T-34C is fun and all but there are a few things I wish for. One, more power....T-6 has it. Ejection seat, T-6 has it. A better view, T-6 has it. I'm actually going to Iraq then will be flying T-6A's with VT-10 when I return but will try to fly the B model at TW-5 as well. I flew the T-2C Buckeye and it was a fun jet. I hear the T-6 is even more so than that old jet.

I'm headed to Whiting for UPT with a start date of 18 Nov. Any guess what I'll be flying, T-34 or T-6? Thanks.

[Guest bunk22]

I'm headed to Whiting for UPT with a start date of 18 Nov. Any guess what I'll be flying, T-34 or T-6? Thanks.

My guess is the T-34. One, the first students are not due to start training on it until March/Apr 2010....and then it's only VT-3 flying them. My guess is you're airforce and VT-3 will be your squadron though. Might be a small possibility but again, most likely, the 34.

[WheelsOff]

How come the Navy gets the B model while the AF has the A? Is it b/c they waited longer to purchase the T-6?

Sorry newb question I suppose...

[Guest bunk22]

How come the Navy gets the B model while the AF has the A? Is it b/c they waited longer to purchase the T-6?

Sorry newb question I suppose...

I haven't a clue. My good bud and fellow former COD pilots is the guy in charge of the transition up at Whiting. He has a lot of answers, I'll ask one day. I'm curious too. It's my understanding that those T-6A's in Pensacola will be convertered to the B model as well....only difference is the avionics package. Though the B is about 400lbs heavier because of it, or so I'm told.

[Guest Flyin' AF Hawaiian]

How come the Navy gets the B model while the AF has the A? Is it b/c they waited longer to purchase the T-6?

Sorry newb question I suppose...

We were told that part of the reason is that the Navy needs their version to have a reversible prop, and that by the time they got all of the negotiations worked out, Beechcraft was offering the T-6B as a standard trainer. Not sure if this is true or not, but the Navy definitely needs a replacement for the T-34. The wing commander here at Corpus said that his fleet of -34s are currently about 95% "used up," and that they typically add about another 3% of wear and tear onto the airframes every year. Not a lot of time left on those birds.

[Guest bunk22]

We were told that part of the reason is that the Navy needs their version to have a reversible prop, and that by the time they got all of the negotiations worked out, Beechcraft was offering the T-6B as a standard trainer. Not sure if this is true or not, but the Navy definitely needs a replacement for the T-34. The wing commander here at Corpus said that his fleet of -34s are currently about 95% "used up," and that they typically add about another 3% of wear and tear onto the airframes every year. Not a lot of time left on those birds.

The T-6B has no reversible prop....beta. A very bad idea IMO but I've been flying turbo props for many years and very much used to it. I've been an IP down here with VT-6 for almost 2 years now and the T-34C's are definitely getting worn out. Some of the airframes are so beat up looking up close. Old school no doubt. I hate the fact that the canopies are so scratched up that at night, very difficult to see out. Just another small problem that when added up with all its other faults, it needs a replacement. Of course there's a small cadre of IP's very much against replacing it. If it were up to them, they would never upgrade any aircraft I think. Hell, we'd still be flying the yellow peril with their reasoning.

[MCO]

Every time I see a T-34 taxi past at Corpus, I'm always waiting for them to just fall apart in front of me Blues Brothers style. They look beat to hell. i'm not sure how guys could argue to keep them, unless they want an updated T-34.

[Guest bunk22]

Every time I see a T-34 taxi past at Corpus, I'm always waiting for them to just fall apart in front of me Blues Brothers style. They look beat to hell. i'm not sure how guys could argue to keep them, unless they want an updated T-34.

This little mafia wants the exact same, just a new one. Their main gripe is it's too much for a primary student....though I thinking of a service that uses them for their primary training

[60 driver]

A very bad idea IMO

Which part, beta on a trainer?

Edited April 4, 2009 by 60 driver

[Guest bunk22]

Which part, beta on a trainer?

On any turboprop aircraft IMO. Yeah, no beta on the T-6A or B.

[60 driver]

On any turboprop aircraft IMO. Yeah, no beta on the T-6A or B.

Beta kind of seemed like a good idea on the OV-10, but maybe I'm missing your point.

[Guest bunk22]

Beta kind of seemed like a good idea on the OV-10, but maybe I'm missing your point.

Well, as you know, beta helps you slow down, more so than not having it. Might help in certain situations to stop in a shorter distance than required. Old saying, better to have and not need it than to need it and not have it. Being a prop guy for 90% of my flying career, I'm used to it and it's a more of a positive than negative. Let's see, the C-2/E-2/P-3/T-34/T-44/C-12/C-130/Tucano/PC-9 all have it, probably for a reason. Good to have for a prop I think.

[60 driver]

Well, as you know, beta helps you slow down, more so than not having it. Might help in certain situations to stop in a shorter distance than required. Old saying, better to have and not need it than to need it and not have it. Being a prop guy for 90% of my flying career, I'm used to it and it's a more of a positive than negative. Let's see, the C-2/E-2/P-3/T-34/T-44/C-12/C-130/Tucano/PC-9 all have it, probably for a reason. Good to have for a prop I think.

I think we're in violent agreement.

You like beta, or you don't?

[busdriver]

bunk22, Have any of the T-6 haters flown it? I ask since when I flew it (UPT only) it didn't seem overly complex or a hand full to fly.

[stract]

I like beta. The reason the Navy wants beta is that all their OLFs (aux fields) are 3000 ft, which is too short for a T-6 without beta to aid stopping in the event of an abort. They'd have to sink $$ into lengthening all the runways and they don't want to do that. And in some cases there might not be enough govt land to expand onto..