• Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?

    Go here:

    Edit Account Details and Profile

USN CNATRA retires TC-12's

Python1287

Well-Known Member
pilot
Contributor
And is there a long term idea for a "nextgen" multi-trainer replacement after the T-44?
 

ChuckMK23

Instructor, Flight.
pilot
IMG_0212.jpg That will will be right after the TH-57 replacement!

Given the recent avionics and autopilot upgrades, the T-44 looks like it will be around a good while.
 
Last edited:

Treetop Flyer

Well-Known Member
pilot
Well that, and a King Air should last a hell of a lot longer than 20 years.
True, but military king airs in general, and VT king airs specifically have rough lives compared to most civilian operators. Those things logged a LOT of landings, more than the designers probably anticipated. It's supposed to go from A to B and stop, not A to B, do a ton of touch and go's, swap students, and repeat.
 

zippy

Freedom!
pilot
Contributor
Well that, and a King Air should last a hell of a lot longer than 20 years.
Age isn't such a factor as is hours on airframes. 30,000hrs is standard for King Airs... there are some King Airs out there that are timing out in less than 10 years. There are some SLEP mods that apparently involve re-winging an airframe- which isn't the most cost friendly endeavor.
 

Flash

SEVAL/ECMO
None
Super Moderator
Contributor
True, but military king airs in general, and VT king airs specifically have rough lives compared to most civilian operators. Those things logged a LOT of landings, more than the designers probably anticipated. It's supposed to go from A to B and stop, not A to B, do a ton of touch and go's, swap students, and repeat.
I don't know about VT planes in particular but usually military aircraft have much lower utilization rates/hours than their civilian counterparts.
 

Treetop Flyer

Well-Known Member
pilot
I don't know about VT planes in particular but usually military aircraft have much lower utilization rates/hours than their civilian counterparts.
Most of the cost estimates I see online for king airs use 350-450 hours a year as the baseline. We flew ours 700-750 per year at a station. Anecdotally, I've never seen a mid-80's BE-200 for sale with anything close to 20,000 hours and 21,000 landings.
 

Jim123

DD-214 in hand and I'm gonna party like it's 1998
pilot
VT planes get rode pretty hard. If they're parked or in the hangar for anything more than a day then it's a pretty short list why-

Awaiting parts (spare parts contracts get screwed up every few years or so)
Phase maintenance (which actually only takes about a day when contract maintenance is doing the job)
Lengthy standdown/red stripe
Long weekend

And that's about it. 121/135 have higher flight hours per calendar day utilization because profit is king for them. Otherwise, most flight school airplanes, corporate flight departments, and partial ownership airplanes don't come close to military trainers.

In HTs it used to be common for one IP to put six hours on an aircraft and then hotseat it to the next poor schmuck to log another four or five. Nowadays a T-6 is usually used for about four hops of 1.5~2 each in a single day (T-34 had longer legs). The flight school King Airs have profiles somewhere in between those two. Any way you cut it, it's a lot.
 

Gatordev

Well-Known Member
pilot
Site Admin
Contributor

Griz882

Livin' On the Right Side of the River From Pags!
pilot
Fixed it for you. There's another thread about this already, and the whole article is a self-licking ice-cream cone. No matter how true the whole plan may be.
Failure to utilize the search function - down noted.
 
Top