MoD Tucano Sell Off

[RAFAT]

Having heard rumours of the MoD selling off some of their stored Tucs for some time, and read it recently in March's Flyer magazine, I'm surprised this hasn't created more of a buzz in this section.

I for one can't wait for these machines to enter the GA arena, and will be looking to buy into a syndicate when they do. Would anybody like to have a stab at the price they'd likely go for when it happens.

:ok:

[360BakTrak]

The ones I've seen are missing one minor component.....in the form of an engine. Not a cheap part to replace by any stretch of the imagination!!

[Genghis the Engineer]

There are 5 for sale, all have been on the ground for 10ish years, all missing engine, prop and seatpack, all also robbed in part for spares - so a random assortment of panels, control surfaces, instruments, etc. are missing.

G

[muggins]

There are apparently a new batch of 15 flyers which will be civilianised and sold off

[Notoc]

Here's the link for anyone interestered:

http://www.edisposals.com

Click: Aircraft

[G-APDK]

The first has just been registered with the CAA, G-CEHJ ex ZF373, to an owner from Chester

When I visited Harwarden about 6 years ago there was an unmarked Tucano hangared, which was apparently was damaged when being built by Shorts and never passed to the RAF. It was substantially complete, so a potential source of spares perhaps?

G-APDK

[360BakTrak]

I better start saving my pennies for when these new owners get bored and sell them on!!! (Would love to know how much that one went for........!)

[Genghis the Engineer]

ZF373 isn't on the current auction list, which is ZF265, ZF267, ZF285, ZF340, ZF415.

G

[360BakTrak]

Thats because, presumably, it's already been sold. Here - http://www.caa.co.uk/application.aspx?categoryid=60&pagetype=65&applicationid=1&mode=detailnosummary&fullregmark=G-CEHJ

[hobbit1983]

Can't help but notice that the llink states that the aircraft in question was built in 1992..... It strikes me that the MoD may not have gotten full usage out of that particular piece of defense hardware?

[niknak]

Oh Goody!
Another batch of ex - mil aircraft which fly 50kts faster than the civilian pilots flying them!:rolleyes: :ugh:

[RAFAT]

Genghis - where is the auction list located? and how did Mr Butt get his hands on one before anyone else?

[englishal]

Another batch of ex - mil aircraft which fly 50kts faster than the civilian pilots flying them
Yawn. Better make sure I never fly a G5 then.......

[Genghis the Engineer]

here (http://www.edisposals.com/is-bin/INTERSHOP.enfinity/WFS/Disposals-Public-Site/en_US/-/GBP/ViewStandardCatalog-Browse;pgid=MieqQ4wkQg8000ArvQ_8K1sp0000Ais7XdRv?CatalogCate goryID=uW7AqBELbsEAAAD_vUBpc4dn) - as for the second question, I've no idea.

I confess, I'm looking at buying one - but as an instructional airframe for engineers, not a personal toy.

G

[360BakTrak]

Actually, thinking about it and re-reading G-INFO......because it's on there doesn't necessarily make it airworthy. He may have bought an airframe in bits similar to those being auctioned and stuck it on the register. No idea why unless it has the potential to be restored, who knows? Just a thought.

[Genghis the Engineer]

So long as I don't mind paying the fees, CAA registrations would allow me to put a G-regi on my garden shed. As you say, it doesn't imply airworthiness.

G

[360BakTrak]

You mean the CAA will take your money for nothing?!?!?! Thats an outrageous thing to say!!!:} ;) :E

[Genghis the Engineer]

Ah, but uniquely in this case, you aren't actually required to give it to them unless you want to fly.

G

[360BakTrak]

I see, never knew that. So they only charge for an out-of-sequence reg then? Or does the same rule apply there too?

[Genghis the Engineer]

No, they charge for a reg, and extra for an out of sequence. I forget how much, but it'll be on their website somewhere - £1-200 or thereabouts I think.

G

[RAFAT]

Genghis - thanks very much for that useful link, I had no idea that they were also selling non-airworthy examples, I do now though! :ok:

[360BakTrak]

They charge for a reg? But you just said they don't unless you want to fly??!!:confused:

[Feck]

Back to the thread...

Having flown a Tucano today for the first time in a few years, I think you'd be mad to buy one. Fun, granted, but for fast A to B you'd be better off in something a little more comfortable. That would be pretty much anything. For general looning around in, buy a Yak / Extra / Sukhoi and you'd have plenty of money left over to run it.

But it's your money!

[IO540]

I know nothing about these, but aren't there quite a few other turboprops of similar performance (e.g. Pilatus) and with a more modern engine?

[RAFAT]

**** - is that so? why? the article in Flyer magazine spoke quite highly of the Tuc. Of course the reporter may not have the comparative experience that you have.

[greeners]

I believe that the reporter (who has flown or owned all of the types mentioned above) specifically stated that he was unlikely to be able to afford to run one on his fleet.

[Feck]

RAFAT,

What's it for? A to B at 240 kt can be achieved in other turboprops without the hassle of protective clothing / uncomfortable bang-seats. The oil system places restrictive time limits on less-than-1g flight, which coupled with monstrous torque and heavy controls means aeros are less fun than in a dedicated steed. I guess people will want them for the best of both worlds...to be able to go places and aerobat if the mood takes. I confess I have no idea what they'll be selling for (and hence how desirable compared with other ac), but maintenance is not likely to be cheap. Furthermore they're not as solid as most other military ac, need tarmac and turboprops are noisy.

If it was my money I'd look elsewhere, but I appreciate the novelty / prestige factor may be alluring.

[RAFAT]

Thanks for the advice. I've done enough aeros to last me more than a few lifetimes so it wouldn't be for that, simply the appeal of a reasonably respectable touring distance, 240 kts, FL250, and a bit of novelty value thrown in as you point out.

[Genghis the Engineer]

Don't forget, the type has no civil CofA, so you'd have to go through a lot of work to get it into a PtF, then still be restricted to day VMC, and need permission to fly it outside of the UK.

I believe it's possible to get a Pilatus PC7 Mk.1 with an EASA CofA, that would not have those restrictions, and probably be a better aircraft anyway. (Having done quite a lot of flight testing on the Tucano early in it's RAF career, I'd agree with most of ****'s criticisms, and could add a few dozen of my own).

But, I still hope that I can buy one, it'll make a great engineering teaching airframe!

G

[Gingerbread Man]

PC7 for sale here (http://www.sintrade.ch/pc7mk2.html). I want that!!! Ejection seats, HUD, anti-g system, etc. One hell of a toy for a 'I-couldn't-join-the-RAF' type like myself. Are you allowed furniture removal on a civvy aircraft?

I shudder to think what the asking price is though :(

Ginger ;)

[flyingfemme]

I shudder to think what the asking price is though
Available in the US for between $1M and $2M, depending on spec, times etc.

Nice to travel in - good range with drop tanks and generous luggage space.

[IO540]

Is the Pilatus pressurised?

Looks nice.

[Gingerbread Man]

between $1M and $2M, depending on spec

That doesn't sound too unreasonable, in a relative sense. It's not like i'm going to go out and buy one now, but if I stumbled across an oil field, who knows?

(I'd probably become a victim of 'regime change' I suppose :} )

Ginger ;)

[RAFAT]

Genghis - did they ever mod the capton wiring? that stuff was an absolute nightmare for the Engineers.

[flyingfemme]

PC7s are not pressurised - you get to wear a bone dome and oxygen mask. Very Top Gun :cool:

[englishal]

Available in the US for between $1M and $2M, depending on spec
I'd get a D-Jet in that case ;)

[IO540]

I wonder what the oxygen system endurance is at FL250?

Most non-P piston planes have an o2 endurance (assuming say 3 people, FL250) substantially shorter than their fuel endurance. The sales brochure doesn't tell you this of course, yet they do base their speed figures on the FL250 TAS ;)

[Genghis the Engineer]

Genghis - did they ever mod the capton wiring? that stuff was an absolute nightmare for the Engineers.
Was the Tucano Capton wired? I can't recall ever hearing mention of it.


Incidentally the Tucano is also unpressurised with a helmet/mask system. My very vague memory thinks that on 100% O2 you had about 2 hours, but I could be miles out.

G

[RAFAT]

Yes it was Genghis. Additionally, a lot of the wiring looms were apparently fitted before the skin was, so cable replacement was at times impossible without returning the airframe to the Acceptance hangar at Scampton and removing the skin from the relevant areas! Some cables needed to be replaced as soon as the airframe arrived from Shorts as they were tie-wrapped too tightly causing a breakdown in the integrity of the cable. This was commonplace when it came to the co-axial cables feeding various avionics equipment.

I would assume that the Engineers ironed out these problems over time though so my level of interest remains high.

[Genghis the Engineer]

My involvement with the Tucano was primarily on handling qualities assessments, so I'm unsurprised I didn't know. But, a little surprising - not an aeroplane I'd have expected a major weight issue on, and it's not that plenty of other cost saving measures weren't made elsewhere on the aircraft!

G

[Dan Winterland]

Is it Kapton wired? It certainly Is! As Kapton gives off copious volumes of carbon monoxide as it heats up, and as a lot of the electrical terminals were behind a panel which was right next to the airmix hole of the oxy regulator, the first action if there is any electrical problem is to select 100%. Kapton wiring is what led to some of the aircraft having to be re-wired as a reault of the aforementioned too tight loom securing.

Oxy endurance could be less than aircraft endurance in some situations. If you used a whole fuel load of 550kg at low level where oxy consumption was highest, you would get an oxy master warning before you got to your destination. As only two thing set off the master warning, oxy and a fire warning, it certainly got your attention!

As to the PC7 versus the Tucano, the Tuc would win hands down IMHO. The PC7 has about half the power of the Tuc. It's the PC9 which is the Pilatus equivalent of the Tucano. A lot has been mentioned about the comparisons, but they are essentially very similar aircraft. I've flown both and there is little to differetiate them.

[Gingerbread Man]

If I remember correctly, the PC7 is 750shp and the PC9 is 1150shp - sound right? Can you actually purchase the PC9 as a civilian aircraft? That would be fun.

Ginger ;)

[Genghis the Engineer]

As to the PC7 versus the Tucano, the Tuc would win hands down IMHO. The PC7 has about half the power of the Tuc. It's the PC9 which is the Pilatus equivalent of the Tucano. A lot has been mentioned about the comparisons, but they are essentially very similar aircraft. I've flown both and there is little to differetiate them.

I'd argue that power is a fairly small part of the equation defining the quality of a military training aeroplane.

G

[flyingfemme]

If I remember correctly, the PC7 is 750shp and the PC9 is 1150shp - sound right?

PC7s are varied - depends on the model of PT6 up front......I think they start at 550shp.

The ones that I have been acquainted with had a demand O2 system with enough for a single pilot to empty the drop tanks and adequate for two under about 20,00 feet. We did some serious touring.....

[RAFAT]

flyingfemme -

The ones that I have been acquainted with had a demand O2 system with enough for a single pilot to empty the drop tanks and adequate for two under about 20,00 feet. We did some serious touring.....

Is that the Tuc you're referring to or the Pilatus? My own acquaintance with the Tuc never extended to seeing any with drops tanks. On your "serious touring" comment, can you expand at all? I ask because this would be my main usage if I ever bought into one.

[flyingfemme]

Sorry RAFAT....PC7s. We've moved three across the pond and I was lucky enough to go in one of them. We use factory drop tanks and had enough for the usual North Atlantic route.

Capacity (as I remember) is 123usg plus 80usg in the drops. Range at about 210kts is 1,000nm dead stop.

Good luggage space in the boot and spacious cockpit. :ok:

[RAFAT]

Thanks flyingfemme, good range indeed.

[moggiee]

I wouldn't touch a Tucano with a bargepole.

My father in law spent many (un)happy hours repairing cracked rudders, flaps and worst of all MAIN SPARS on airframes with just over 400 hours on them.

I'd fly one if the RAF told me I had to, but not from choice, nor at my own expense.

[Ian Corrigible]

From today's NBAA show daily in Orlando:

Tucano trainers for sale in Phoenix

"The queen is downsizing like everyone else," says Ms. Rowe, wife of Tom Rowe, principle of Warbirds LLC. Rowe, who has 22 Shorts Tucano T.Mk1s for sale, concluded an exclusive deal for first right of refusal for all Tucanos being mustered out of the RAF. He adds, "I do not expect any additional Tucanos to be released from the RAF anytime soon."

Warbirds LLC, based in Phoenix, provides the training for the required type rating. Price starts at $1 million.

(Ex-ZF200 was displayed in the static park at Orlando this week)

I/C

[Human Factor]

Price starts at $1 million.

With a nose to tail warranty included hopefully. Sounds like it could be needed.:hmm:

I'd be interested if it was.







.... and if I had $1 million. :(

[shadow57]

In the rear cockpit floor behind the lower ejection gun mounting bracket there used to be a whole bundle of kapton cable disappearing into the bulkhead. It was covered by a leather velcro cover to stop debris passing through. Where exactly does this lead too? I always though it may be control linkages or something...Just curious

Cheers ex Plummer John

[Dan Winterland]

I think if you bought one of these, you would be buying a whole lot of trouble. The Tuc is a great aircraft but it had a lot of maintenance issues when I flew them - and when they were new. And since then, they have been flow hard - very hard.

[gasax]

It is also worth remembering that in a great British tradition these ariframes were 'hand built'. Although there was a production line, there was minimal machine tooling for the airframe parts.

From memorry this meant that even principal dimension like length and span differed but 20 to 30mm. At a more practical level this meant that panels, hatches etc were alsmost bespoke. So when parts were being robbed it was necessary to find the biggest part and then trim it down to fit. In practice this would mean that any airframe panelling would have to be made from scratch - unless you have access to a variety of airframes!!

[MichaelJP59]

It is also worth remembering that in a great British tradition these ariframes were 'hand built'. Although there was a production line, there was minimal machine tooling for the airframe parts.

Interesting - it was built under licence in the UK wasn't it? I have this image now of men in brown coats measuring the sample airframe with tape measures before getting busy with the tinsnips on aluminium sheet:)

[gasax]

In the UK defense industry it has always been like this up until the extensive use of CNC machinery - which is very recent.

Recall the Nimrod MR4 upgrade programme where the new centre sections (all made largely identically using modern processes) would not fit the existing airframes..

[Genghis the Engineer]

The Shorts Tucano is substantially re-engineered from the original Embraer Super Tucano - but it's absolutely true about hand-building. Airframe length can vary by something like 200mm between airframes and cockpit height by perhaps 100mm.

Handling qualities are occasionally somewhat variable between aircraft - at one point it was found that about one airframe in 10 would roll inverted if you stalled them in the landing configuration. Arguably an undesirable characteristic in a training aeroplane.

That said, this is true to some extent of most aeroplanes - carlike mass production rarely applies in the aircraft industry where aeroplanes are made in the tens to hundreds per years, not the tens of thousands.

G

[IO540]

Airframe length can vary by something like 200mm between airframes and cockpit height by perhaps 100mm.

Are these figures right? That is utterly unbelievable. My 13 year old who builds model planes, without drawings, would have got the airframe lengths within a few mm. A 200mm variation on an airframe which is GA-sized points to an astonishing Fawlty Towers operation.

Having been peripherally involved in "defence procurement" projects many years ago I have seen some awful wastage go on, but a 200mm variation is beyond the appalling. It's a total micky-take.

Handling qualities are occasionally somewhat variable between aircraft - at one point it was found that about one airframe in 10 would roll inverted if you stalled them in the landing configuration.

I am not suprised. Why did the RAF accept this kind of garbage, for risking servicemens' lives?

Having seen a PC12 close up, I don't think Pilatus build their stuff in this way.

[S-Works]

Why did the RAF accept this kind of garbage, for risking servicemens' lives?

Politics. It was to keep the Short's factory in Belfast open as I recall.

[Genghis the Engineer]

Ignoring the outliers, the competition was between BAe/Pilatus to licence build the PC9 at Warton, the Shorts/Embraer to build the Tucano in Belfast.

The UK government at the time had a tiny majority and were being propped up by the Ulster Unionists. So, despite the PC9 being the better aircraft, the contract went to Shorts - but then the RAF made things worse by demanding various major changes from a pretty capable Brazilian aeroplane - the most significant being the engine change, but also they tried to cut costs by putting a lower standard ejection seat in it.

And so the RAF was landed with a training aeroplane that needed 150lb rudder pressure and 100lb stick force to recover it from the spin, with occasional differences in handling qualities between airframes, only limited interchangeability of parts, a disfunctional ejection system which wouldn't allow ejection on the ground or canopy jettison in the air, a gear selection mechanism which didn't readily allow the instructor to override his student, a pitch trimmer which regularly ran away, and running costs around four times what were contracted.

Much of this might have been sorted out if the aircraft had been handed over early to Boscombe Down and they were resourced to analyse it quickly and force rectification. This didn't happen because the aircraft came on line just before the Gulf War, and for entirely good reasons all available resources were diverted to war-tasks. Much of the reporting of the Tucano flight trials only happened 4 years after they were actually flown - by which time the RAF training system had just bedded in to make the best of a poor aeroplane.

Personally, I'd recommend that anybody wanting a civilian aeroplane in this class bought a PC7, not a Tucano. Or at-least, not an ex-RAF Tucano.

G

[skua]

presumably all coincidental that the machine came from a factory where workers had developed their engineering skills building the Titanic, and honed them further, in an aviation direction, in building the Skyvan, not known for nothing as the Shed... :hmm:

[wileydog3]

That's my piece. I spoke with the owner and his wife. They said they went through the entire airframe and rebuilt/replaced anything that was suspect. They were/are aware of the beating the airframes absorbed as trainers and are also aware of the litigious environment in the US.

[KiloDeltaYankee]

I saw an ex-RAF Tucano at Reno. I have a picture somewhere, it looked in great condition. But for me I would prefer an SF.260, a lot cheaper, lot less hassle and just as fun.

[Dan Winterland]

I would say that a SF260 doesn't come anywhere near a Tuc for fun. I've flown both, they're both great aircraft but very different in performance.


The Tucano was built at a new facility by mostly ex Harland nad Wolf shipworkers. The first ten airframes were good as they were put together from kits supplied by Embraer. After that, the airframes showed signs of being built to shipbuiling standards - some of the things we found were horrifying and it took the engineering facility at Scampton a long time to put each one right as it came out of the factory.

The later ones were much much better. But one thing that did amuse me was that when they were delivered, they were parked on a remote part of the airfield and left for a month in case the Irish Cathololic workforce at Shorts had built a bomb into the airframe!

[IO540]

they were parked on a remote part of the airfield and left for a month in case the Irish Cathololic workforce at Shorts had built a bomb into the airframe!

Presumably the Irish were not capable of building an electronic timer which would run for more than a month. This is the 1970s, I believe.....

Evidently, there were really smart people involved, all around this project :yuk:

[False Capture]

KiloDeltaYankee, you're absolutley correct. Here's a photo from another web-site of ZF200 now registered in the US as N822RS:

Please resize to 1024 x 768 or less. Thanks.

I think Genghis is correct .... if you want an aeroplane in this class then get a PC-7.

[NigelOnDraft]

Unless I am much mistaken, and not really mentioned on this thread so far...

Operating an ex-RAF Tucano in the UK would be best compared to operating it's predecessor, the JP :ooh: CAP632 gives the info you need. Fuel burn will clearly be far less, but if getting it approved via CAP632, and then maintaining it, are anything like as alluded to above, then the JP costs would be cheaper overall :{

Anyone considering it needs to look primarily at a supporting engineering organisation, and what it would take to get it on a Permit. If those proved satisfactory, it would be a great machine. Until then, JPs are cheap to buy, maintenance is not cheap, but likely far cheaper than a Tincan, and they are faster (and noisier) :eek:

NoD

[NigelOnDraft]

if you want an aeroplane in this class then get a PC-7I suspect, given the UK knowledge of the (RAF) Tucano, the publications available, and the numbers that will (eventually) be sold off, the Tucano might be better... :ok: As before, see CAP632

[Genghis the Engineer]

I suspect, given the UK knowledge of the (RAF) Tucano, the publications available, and the numbers that will (eventually) be sold off, the Tucano might be better... :ok: As before, see CAP632

I hate to claim I know more, especially in this esteemed company, but...

I worked at one point in the Tucano project office, and later on managed (and flew on board) quite a lot of the later Tucano flight testing.

Later on again, I was on the committee that wrote CAP632.

And I'd still buy a PC7 if I had that sort of money and a desire for such an aeroplane.

G

[k12479]

...the Tucano might be better... http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/thumbs.gif As before, see CAP632

However, the PC7 is certified isn't it?

[Genghis the Engineer]

However, the PC7 is certified isn't it?

One of many reasons for my posts above. The aircraft can be flown for remunerated flying training, at night, in IMC, and over built-up areas; none of these are possible (in the UK) in a PtF ex-military aircraft under the procedures outlined in CAP 632. I'd also not at-all relish the work of putting together an airworthiness management plan for it acceptable to the CAA, when with a PC7 operating under an EASA CofA I can just take standard material off the shelf.

G

[moggiee]

I'm an ex-RAF pilot who knows plenty of people who had to try to keep these badly built heaps in one piece. I wouldn't fly one if it was given to me.

One simple example: my father in law (who had the misfortune to work int he structures bay at Linton on Ouse) was repairing main spars on aircraft that had done just 400 hours. He was an aircraft engineer for 40 years+ and said it was the most appallingly badly assembled aeroplane he'd ever seen. Enough said for me!

Are these figures right? That is utterly unbelievable. My 13 year old who builds model planes, without drawings, would have got the airframe lengths within a few mm. A 200mm variation on an airframe which is GA-sized points to an astonishing Fawlty Towers operation. I don't know about 200mm, but my father in law did find one with a significant difference in length between the left wing and the right. Not surprisingly, they never could get that one rigged properly for straight and level flight!

[ShyTorque]

I recall one brand new "hangar queen" Tincano at Scampton. I was told that the ejection seats had been removed for servicing and then they wouldn't fit back in because there was something very wrong with the alignment of the bulkhead in the airframe.

[Fake Sealion]

Careful about all this negative stuff with the Tucano . . .wouldn't want to drive down the tender/auction values would we? :ok:

[Noah Zark.]

It's a pity, innit, because the Tuc, especially with the black paint scheme, absolutely looks the mutts nuts!

[moggiee]

All style and no substance.

[Oldpilot55]

well it wouldn't be a brasilan if it couldn't be arsed to do the job properly

[youngskywalker]

I think Embraer built a pretty good aeroplane, it was us Brits and Shorts of Belfast that made it a crap one!

[Oldpilot55]

Ysw, I apologise. My point was incorrect.

[Dan Winterland]

Except that the Shorts version has more than a third more power and a lot more performance. The French flew the RAF Tucs and told their Government that's what they wanted to replace the Fouga Magister. The French Government looked a the cost of the Shorts compared with the Embraer and chose the latter. So the Armee De La Air ended up with an intermeditate trainer which would do 180 knots at low level which followed on from their basic trainer, the Epsilon which did, er.... 180 knots at low level!

I've flown a French Embraer Tuc and it's gutless compared with the Shorts. they're different animals.

[Arclite01]

Actually, if you think about it - it did both.

A real 'win - win' (ha)

Arc

[gasax]

I suspect we are 'forgetting' the situation in N.Ireland at the time. Maggie's lot actually poured quite a bit of money into the province (other than security spend) as it was thought that if the majority of people were gainfully employed they would have less inclination to march and shoot and bomb each other.

But as in all Gover'mint acts it just did not work out - hence the Delorean fiasco and these poor irregularly shaped aircraft. And the Skyvan derivatives and a lot of very forgettable ships......

[IO540]

I think the govt of the day was a bunch of hopeless people who got taken for a ride by DeLorean and a few other crooks. If you pour money into something, with few or no strings attached, you will drag out all kinds of worms out of the woodwork. I remember the DL stuff and how he set up a marketing company in the USA which had sole marketing rights, etc. Such an obvious stitch-up of the financiers.

[Genghis the Engineer]

I suspect we are 'forgetting' the situation in N.Ireland at the time. Maggie's lot actually poured quite a bit of money into the province (other than security spend) as it was thought that if the majority of people were gainfully employed they would have less inclination to march and shoot and bomb each other.

But as in all Gover'mint acts it just did not work out - hence the Delorean fiasco and these poor irregularly shaped aircraft. And the Skyvan derivatives and a lot of very forgettable ships......

Nothing at-all to do with maintaining the Ulster Unionists' votes to prop up a tiny parliamentary majority then?

G

[gasax]

Purely incidental although technically perhaps a win, win, win?

[Genghis the Engineer]

Purely incidental although technically perhaps a win, win, win?

For just about everybody but the RAF?

G

[gasax]

Possibly it is a shame for the RAF. But remember that we never buy what the armed services think they need (because they are always preparing for the last war - Eurofighter anyone?).

And we can never have anything that looks like what we might need - because all military procurement has to take at least 10 years and all equipment has to be so specialised that it is completely unique (and dissimilar from whatever it was modified from).

So on that basis the only real benefit is in where the procurement puts the jobs - regardless of whether those jobs produce useable or reliable equipment.

And then there is the idea that you can split the procurement across companies and even countries to ensure the jam can go almost anywhere......

Any wonder we have the present situation?

[Arclite01]

gasax

I think your post is nice and succinct - and obviously reflects my own thinking.

I am pretty sure we could design and build our own good aeroplanes - if we were allowed, and shock horror, we could always just buy some stuff 'off the shelf' if it did what we needed it to do (fast and flexible). Mind you that would do away with a mountain of people in various Government departments and QUANGOs who are all allowed to have a tinker with requirements for something they will never use, never have to use and are usually unqualified to comment on anyway................. and therefore raises the cost and turns a 'standard item' into a 'non standard' one. All this assumes we have an engineering and manufacturing capability - oh hang on a minute.............

I am always reminded of that cartoon 'What the customer wanted...........' whenever I think about this stuff...................

Arc

[k12479]

I am pretty sure we could design and build our own good aeroplanes - if we were allowed...

Indeed, the Norman NDN-1 Firecracker was a British design in the running for this.

Genghis, do you have any experience of the Norman?

[Genghis the Engineer]

Only fairly indirectly. As I understand it, the Firecracker was a small underfunded project which didn't compare well to either the PC9 or the Tucano.

The prototype is still flying as a training aircraft at the National Test Pilot School in Mojave. That in itself is probably no recommendation - a good TPS aeroplane is usually one with a lot of 'interesting' characteristics.

G

[Fake Sealion]

Whilst a stude at RNEFTS in 1978/9 the Firecracker was being evaluated by CFS staff at Leeming.
Recall Bob Cole pitching up in it at Topcliffe one day and organising a "draw" to select a stude to fly with him back to Leeming in it. Wasn't me.

It was a sleek looking machine - painted in camouflage - I think.

[Oldpilot55]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e5/Ntps-firecracker-N182FR-090107-01-cr8.jpg

[Oldpilot55]

http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviation-photos/middle/6/2/6/0562626.jpg

[Oldpilot55]

More info in this forum....
Is the NDN Firecracker historic yet?? - Key Publishing Ltd Aviation Forums (http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?t=42725)

[Dan Winterland]

The Firecracker contending for the RAF trainer was a much modified turboprop version. A nice idea, but it didn't meet the specifications.

http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/attachment.php?attachmentid=81584&d=1116195261

Some of my clips of a Tucano flight on You Tube if anyone's interested.

YouTube - Tucano Formation.wmv (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OQ-QIer3TFA)

YouTube - Tucano Tailchase.wmv (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-2C1mYx6j4)

YouTube - Tucano Low Level (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2wR7NqgUcfM)

[Dan Winterland]

The afore mentioned XF200 is the aircraft the composer James Horner lost his life in.

[chevvron]

The Firecracker contending for the RAF trainer was a much modified turboprop version. A nice idea, but it didn't meet the specifications.

http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/attachment.php?attachmentid=81584&d=1116195261

Some of my clips of a Tucano flight on You Tube if anyone's interested.

YouTube - Tucano Formation.wmv (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OQ-QIer3TFA)

YouTube - Tucano Tailchase.wmv (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-2C1mYx6j4)

YouTube - Tucano Low Level (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2wR7NqgUcfM)
The Firecracker turbo was demonstrated to the RAAF at Fairoaks in about '86 and easily operated off its 813m runway; wonder if the Tucano could do that.
Des Norman came up the tower and I chatted to him (very nice guy) and he told me the Shorts Tucano had to be re-engined from the original Embraer version (which necessitated something of a re-design) as it otherwise could not meet the RAF requirement of 250 kt ias at low level.
I owned a Monnet Moni at the time which, as with the Firecracker, had a ventral airbrake and we discovered the nose up pitch change on extending the airbrake was common to both types!