Military AircrewA forum for the professionals who fly the non-civilian hardware, and the backroom boys and girls without whom nothing would leave the ground. Army, Navy and Airforces of the World, all equally welcome here.
'bloke-who-remembers-the-Tucano-coming-into-service' perspective, but are they knackered already?
I mean, they still look nice and shiny, and people seem to like flying them. Wasn't the JP in service for much longer? Or am I getting old? Correction, I AM getting old.
It's coz the politicians insisted on buying the wrong aircraft (South American interests) which subsequently had to be modified, making it heavier than the original machine.
Perhaps the RAF should have bought the PC-9 in the first place (as recommended by CFS)?
After all, look at what's replaced each generation of Hawk - new Hawks!
Which will almost certainly continue for as long as a human being needs to be in the cockpit. The Hawk fuselage optimises the training aircraft, and in Sydney Camms words "Looks right". Everything else including wings, engines and avionics can be updated, but the basic shape is timeless. Though to contradict myself a little, the long snout on the 128 version looks like a bodge, and probably could have been manafactured a little cleaner.
Indeed - if the basic design is right there's no need to chuck it away each time.
I don't recall there being a huge amount wrong with the fundamental deign of the JP. The bolt on bits are an easy upgrade and surely cheaper in the long run than taking a punt on an unknown quantity.
Ten Tucano airframes have been through the "Spares Recovery" process and the remains carted away on low loaders. Still plenty more sitting in the hangars. Is there any truth in the rumour that one airframe is a bit longer than all the rest?
Interesting - I had heard that the clincher had been that the Tucano would be built by Shorts in Belfast rather than the PC-9(UK) being built somewhere else, and it was considered politically important to pump money into NI at the time.
Aussies don't seem to want to bin thier PC-9s bought at about the same time!
The RAF got the Tucano because Hezza had a rush of blood to the head. The two contenders in the final RAF evaluation were the PC9 and the Tucano, and before the evaluation was complete Hezza woke up from one of his long spells of inactivity and just chose the Tucano out of the blue
At that time the stated MOD policy was to buy a trainer off the shelf that required no further development. The PC9 met this criteria, the Tucano did not, having to go through a long post-contract development.
The real reason IMHO, for the Tucano buy was to put money into NI through Shorts, plus a feeling that BAe had too much of the cake already.
So a Minister with his hair standing on end and his eyes revolving pre-empted the evaluation his own Ministry had asked for and bought an aircraft that did not met his own Ministry's published criteria. Nothing new there, then.
Is there any truth in the rumour that one airframe is a bit longer than all the rest?
Yes, in a word. The airframes were built by hand, and in most cases they vary slightly. I recal that the difference in length across the fleet is in the order of 6 inches. In fact, the panels for each aircraft are more-or-less completely unique to that airframe. You can't pull an access panel off one and fit it to another, they're all different sizes!
As a student pilot, I recall that certain aircraft flew noticably better than others. ZF243 was a partictular favourite of mine, it seemed very easy to fly accurately. Others had their own foibles, such as refusing to trim or being less stable than others.
Why is the Tucano fleet knackered? I can't speak for them all, but if you were to find the aircraft I learned Glide Circuits in, then I'll take responsibility for that one!
Location: [loh-key-shuhn] 1. a place of settlement, activity, or residence 2. a place or situation occupied
Age: 41
Posts: 227
Quote:
Is there any truth in the rumour that one airframe is a bit longer than all the rest?
Heard a number of tales about this - lining up all the spinners on the line for a VIP visit and the tails were all over the shop. Personal favorite is the one that they couldn't get to fly straight so sent to Boscombe to play with. Apparently it had an extra rib in one wing. Sounds a bit far fetched to me, but don't let that get in the way of a good story
The most apparent way to see the difference is lookng at the aerial on the spine behind the canopy - UHF if I remember correctly (no doubt some A2 will be along to correct me soon? ) - the different positions are quite apparent.
Heard a number of tales about this - lining up all the spinners on the line for a VIP visit and the tails were all over the shop.
Personal favorite is the one that they couldn't get to fly straight so sent to Boscombe to play with. Apparently it had an extra rib in one wing. Sounds a bit far fetched to me, but don't let that get in the way of a good story
My father in law was working on one that just would not fly right - despite numerous re-rigging sessions on the flight control surfaces.
A quick check with the tape measure revealed one wing about 1" longer than the other. I have no reason to doubt him as this was first hand experience.
No two airframes are the same - as said above, access panels from one won't fit another and repair parts made in accordance with the tech drawings NEVER fitted without major modification.
Isn't having a bespoke aircraft far nicer than having a horrid production line special anyway? I seem to recall Vulcans were erm, coachbuilt. Just like a Veyron.
(Incidentally, I was so impressed with Stiff Needle's test drive of one on 5th Gear last night, I'm that little bit closer to ordering mine now).
If you're one of the favoured few who have the pedals wound all the way to the stops, the "coach built" effect is particularly noticeable! The difference between comfort and annoyance is certainly there within the fleet...
Dick W is absolutely right. The PC9 was at least head and shoulders above the Tucano in every department (and don't even mention the Firecracker which was supposed to be in the final fly off. It was but didn't complete the required 25 hours testing before being binned). One example - the spec called for the ability to carry out linked aeros at FL150. Tucano couldn't but had to throttle back to avoid gaining height in the PC9. PC9 could outmaneuver a Mk5 JP and had caught it up by the end of the Boscombe runway on a 5 sec stream take off. All it could not do was outrun the JP in a dive. I was very sad when the political decision was made to buy the Tucano. Having said that I can quite understand that political and diplomatic considerations must be taken into account in the overall national interest when multi million pound projects are involved.
) - the different positions are quite apparent.
