T-28 VS T-6

[bipe215]

Mr. Hoover, who did some testing of the T-28 for NA, also used to do a decent airshow in one.

Steve G

[t28pilot]

Apples and Oranges.
I have one of each. They are different animals. T-28 consumes twice the gas, yet at more that 3 times the fun. SNJ/T-6 is like a cement truck. My C310 will out perform it, have flown Formation with a 6.
Would you rather drive the station wagon with wood trim or take the ferrari ??? You probably wouldn't take the Ferrari to the camp ground, and you definitly wouldn't take the wagon to the autocross course.
Why don't you compare a BT-13 to a T6, or a P-51 to a T-28. Oh wait, thats been beatup to many times!
Oh and for the comment about T-6 is harder to fly in formation. Yea right.(NOT!) Can you spell MASS IN MOTION ?
And as far as maint goes, yes most T-28s are maint hogs, why you ask. Because they have not been thru GROUND UP restorations. I don't mean just dusting off panels in the cockpit and shakercaning them, I mean take it ALL apart, Rehyd, rewire, new etc etc. Stockrs in almost anything tend to be worn out and need lots of TLC. I'm not saying my T-28C is maint free, just very little since it was taken apart. 230 hours ago.

Back to the shop...WHY ?? cause I don't hang out in the bars !(although the Bars might be, no, they definitly are, cheaper!)
Chuck

[Bill Greenwood]

Chuck, I think you misread my post. It is easier for me to fly formation NEXT TO a T-28 photo plane because it is faster than a T-6. Nothing hard about being the T-6 pilot in formation that I found. I never flew a 28 in formation, only NEXT to them.

[t28pilot]

Bill,
Yea your right, I did read your post wrong. My mistake. I see how you ment that now.
Either way it's all in good fun.
Chuck

[valdez25]

The T-28 has 1 Curtiss Wright engine, and the T-6 has 1 Pratt Whitney engine. Which engine would you prefer to be sitting behind?

[EDowning]

Valdez25 wrote:

The T-28 has 1 Curtiss Wright engine, and the T-6 has 1 Pratt Whitney engine. Which engine would you prefer to be sitting behind?

I have some of both and I feel quite comfortable sitting behind both. I think the real answer lies in how they are maintained. I would much rather sit behind a well maintained Wright than a run out Pratt, and vice versa.

I met a guy here in Santa Barbara who owns a T-28, I don't know his name, just talked to him for a few minutes once. I asked him if it was fun to fly his T-28, he said "yes, why? ... you want to buy it?" .... what does that mean? ... lololol

[maradamx3]

My valuable opinion...

T-28:
Faster - PRO
Uglier - CON
Nosewheel - CON
Larger carbon footprint (did I just type that?) - CON
Lots more maintenance - CON
Flies like a Piper Cherokee/no challenge - CON
Engines fail frequently - CON
Need a big head and a formation certificate to fly - CON
Fly this and you aren't automatically qualified to fly a T-6 - CON

T-6:
Slower - CON
Classic - PRO
More history - PRO
Tailwheel - PRO
Lower fuel consumption - PRO
Far lower maintenance cost - PRO
Owners are friendlier - PRO
Go air racing! - PRO
Fly this well and you are qualified to fly ANY piston fighter AND the T-28 - PRO
The average T-6 is slightly cheaper than the average T-28 - PRO

So, using that rationale, is your valuable opinion also....

P-38:
Nosewheel - CON

???

Tommy

[bdk]

So, using that rationale, is your valuable opinion also....

P-38:
Nosewheel - CON

Not all nosewheels are bad...

Looks like someone converted this T-28 to a taildragger:



http://www.edcoatescollection.com/ac6/N ... N2J-1.html

[Bill Greenwood]

If you want to stay with a trainer, or move up to only aiplanes like most jets that have a nosewheel, then learning in a T-28 or perhaps T-34 would not be a "con". However if one is intereseted in flaying many of the historic warbirds from Mustang to B-17, or many great vintage planes one needs tailwheel traininglike Chipmunk, Stearman, T-6. It is not really hard, but it is different and requires more care and planning as to runways and wind.

[snj5]

Well, I've owned both. I had an SNJ-5 for 9 years and have just bought a T-28A.
I like both a great deal, and both have pros and cons, but respectfully I'll take a different position than some others.
Yes, I got an A model. If you do a bit of research though, you will find that almost all A models have now gone to a Hydromatic 3 blade and removing the original avionics, inverters and associated crud loses about 600 pounds improving performance. Putting these together, it adds up to a 170 - 180 KNOT cruise at 36 gallons per hour. A wee bit higher fuel burn than a T-6, but about the same miles per gallon and the extra speed and more comfortable cockpit makes X-C a lot nicer. As to the 'conventional wisdom' of sluggish performance, the T-28A I have will do at least as well as the SNJ did - maybe because of the lighter weight and 3 blade prop, but it just does. I've been there, seen it myself. It's reality.
Flame suit on here: The T-6 flies great with wonderful control responses (I had the fast aileron cranks). With 10+ years more of technology, the T-28 simply flies better: light control pressures and the most amazing balance I've ever flown save for some jets. There it is, they both fly great but the T-28 simply flies better. And, I don't need to prove myself anymore that I can fly a taildragger... Maybe I'm just old.
Upkeep I do believe ON THE AVERAGE will be lower on a T-6; that said, a well sorted T-28 will cost less than a middle of the pack T-6 to maintain. The T-6 is just an older plane, has more corrosion problems and things just wearing out. The T-28 does have more things to break, though, especially if you keep the original electrical system (mine doesn't). Interestingly, the T-28A seems to have fewer ADs than a T-6.

So, I started out looking to buy another T-6 and ended up paying MORE money for a T-28A based on side-to-side fly-off comparison. Maybe I will change my mind later, I do not know. I think the A model is a much better buy than most BCD Trojans and with T-6 price escalations, a better value for the money than the T-6. It surprised me as I had all of the previously here stated preconceptions about the T-28 as well - however - when you fly them back-to-back and assess for yourself with talking to folks in the NATA objectively (who are the knowledge) the story changes dramatically in reality. Well, That's just me, and I put my hard earned money behind it.

If you are buying the airplane for the love of flying, you cannot go wrong with either.
YMMV

[ArtS]

Russ,

Someone mentioned old Ferraris earlier in the thread. I think both the T-6 and the T-28A cheaper to maintain than an old Ferrari . How is the prop seal coming along?

Regards,

Art S.

[Obergrafeter]

Russ just thinks he has a T-28A! He parked it in my hangar and I never said anything to him about getting a key. Maybe I'll let him come visit it every once in a while when I get tired of flying it. He will also have to keep it full of gas.

[LadyO2Pilot]

Russ just thinks he has a T-28A! He parked it in my hangar and I never said anything to him about getting a key. Maybe I'll let him come visit it every once in a while when I get tired of flying it. He will also have to keep it full of gas.

hmmm maybe i outta come out to the hangar more often. LOL

but I distressed with the red stuff leaking from my prop. (Ober,,,,I promise I'm coming to fix it soon)

[snj5]

Someone mentioned old Ferraris earlier in the thread. I think both the T-6 and the T-28A cheaper to maintain than an old Ferrari . How is the prop seal coming along?
.

They're hanging the prop on Tuesday or so. These guys seem pretty good.

I am also happy to validate that a Ferrari can cost WAY WAY more than T-6 or T-28 upkeep!

And...warbirds are best enjoyed when shared (but you'll buy your own gas and oil) !