RAF to retire Tucano

[possel]

The BBC report that the Tucano is soon to be retired: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-y ... e-49579220 (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-york-north-yorkshire-49579220)

I'm sure there are still some people who will say "good" but I have a different view. I was on the MOD(PE) Tucano desk in 1988-91 and, for what was being paid (£1.25M each IIRC, but it may have been less), the RAF got a bargain. The performance was excellent compared to the Jet Provost and from the safety point of view, while the JP fleet used to lose an aircraft or two each year in the 60s and 70s, the Tucano fleet lost only 5 aircraft (of 130) in 30 years service.

There were all sorts of PR issues with RAF people complaining about it before the first aircraft was delivered and inventing issues, such as the ejection system ("cut you to ribbons" - simply not true) and so on. We always took a positive view and worked to get the aircraft delivered and released to service. I recall attending the passing out of the first student course at Church Fenton - a JP did a display which consisted of rolling past and disappearing from sight, to reappear a minute later and do the same thing; the Tucano did aeros right in front of us without ever going out of sight! I only flew in one twice and can vouch for the rate of climb (which was a major specification point).

There was a saying within MOD(PE) that "Embraer designed a Skoda, the RAF are paying for a Ford, Shorts are making a Jaguar and the RAF expects a Rolls-Royce". (No disrespect to Skoda, but they weren't as good in the 80s as they are now.)

[reds & greens]

Sadly, I saw the opposing side as groundcrew on both CFS and Rects at Scampton, throughout their introduction.
Absolute disaster in terms of interchangeability of parts and servicing.
it wasn't long before we had a number in the corner of the hangar awaiting panels and flying surfaces which (due to their manufacture and figment), just could not be swapped in the regular mode.
Always good to see them arrive on a Friday from Shorts and be parked for the weekend alone, on the far side of the airfield for 72hrs...
got to say, they did get better though...

[VX275]

When I arrived at A&AEE the Tucano was there on its initial assessment and I remember one of the hangar personnel telling me it was the best aircraft they had ever had...…….for overtime.

[ShyTorque]

I remember one parked in the Scampton CFS hangar. It had been there so long that at Christmas it was bedecked with fairy lights.

[ivor toolbox]

Sadly, I saw the opposing side as groundcrew on both CFS and Rects at Scampton, throughout their introduction.
Absolute disaster in terms of interchangeability of parts and servicing.
it wasn't long before we had a number in the corner of the hangar awaiting panels and flying surfaces which (due to their manufacture and figment), just could not be swapped in the regular mode.
Always good to see them arrive on a Friday from Shorts and be parked for the weekend alone, on the far side of the airfield for 72hrs...
got to say, they did get better though...

No different to the Phantom in that respect, they were built in batches with no interchangeability of panels or flying controls surfaces.. . they were all 'fettled' to fit, certainly kept us riggers busy.

Ttfn

[Rigga]

Farewell to the ...wassisname?

[Captain Spam Can]

When I arrived at A&AEE the Tucano was there on its initial assessment and I remember one of the hangar personnel telling me it was the best aircraft they had ever had...…….for overtime.

One of the funniest comments I have ever read on here!

[Old-Duffer]

I seem to recall that the aircraft was 'marketed' as being essentially off the shelf. I then heard rumours that the RAF had spent something like IIRC £30+M, either in getting it into service or adding/changing bits and pieces.

Old Duffer

[just another jocky]

At the time of their introduction into service, I was going out with the daughter of a WO engineer who worked with them at delivery; a woeful tale of ejection seats with hammer marks on the top where they had to hammer them onto the rails to get them to fit and large gaps between the bulkhead and the sides of the engine compartment. It may have been a Jag Shorts tried to deliver, but it was assembled by navvies.

I also heard that when they lined them up outside, they were of different lengths too.

Completed a stellar service though, so fair do's.

[Dan Winterland]

Any aircraft has it's teething issues. The fact Shorts opened a new production line with newly recruited labour more used to building ships didn't help. The first ten aircraft were fine as the airframes were built by Embraer in Brazil. The firs batch of Shorts built aircraft were woeful. By the end of the production, they were really good. As for the aircraft itself, it got lots of "it's not a jet" criticism. So what? It was streets ahead of the JP and an excellent training platform. The handling, rate of climb, endurance and flexibility meant we could get so much more out of the training sorties. I loved it and I suspect it will be missed by most who instructed on it.

[BEagle]

At least the Tucano had ejector seats, unlike the Prefect...:rolleyes: I gather that the RAF is the only air force which hasn't specified such life saving devices, which were available as an option. Should there ever be a Prefect fatal, I hope whoever made the daft decision will be required to face the relatives of the deceased to explain the decision... .:mad:

Anyway, rather than Prefect / Texan, the PC21 should have been acquired.

[Just This Once...]

As has been covered repeatedly, the RAF / MoD did not select this current crop of training aircraft.

Regarding the Prefect, finding a seating position and posture where you can both move your head and achieve full left/right stick is a challenge as it is. Blessed with space it is not.

After decades of people moaning as to why Boscombe test pilots used to evaluate aircraft pre-service we are now trying it with accountants and shareholders instead.

[Bob Viking]

I’m afraid I must disagree with you on one aspect of what you said.

Bearing in mind the Hawk T2 was already a done deal the PC-21 was not needed. The T6 is perfectly adequate for the job.

As for the Prefect I have no opinion. It’s not my area of expertise.

BV

[BEagle]

Having seen videos of Martin-Baker's lightweight seat fitted to other Prefects, space was not a significant issue.

I note your point regarding the Texan, but wonder whether there was actually any real need for the Prefect at all?

[pontifex]

I flew all three contenders. The Tucano was not the best and required a more powerful engine before it could meet the required performance issues. Apart from that its handling charactistics were fine (but not quite up to those of the best). I was impressed by the handling in an inverted spin. (one of the requirements!).

Why did we not buy the best? Thats another story.

[Dan Winterland]

Regarding the Prefect, finding a seating position and posture where you can both move your head and achieve full left/right stick is a challenge as it is. Blessed with space it is not.

I was interviewed for the EFTS job. It was all going well until I sat in the aircraft. I'm quite tall, but not overly. However, I couldn't sit in the Prefect without the helmet touching the canopy. I never had an issue with the Chipmunk/Bulldog/G115/JP/Tucano/Hawk. This is a major limitation of this aircraft. I gather it's something to do with the vertical shock absorption of the seats for civil certification.

[chevvron]

Sadly, I saw the opposing side as groundcrew on both CFS and Rects at Scampton, throughout their introduction.
Absolute disaster in terms of interchangeability of parts and servicing.
it wasn't long before we had a number in the corner of the hangar awaiting panels and flying surfaces which (due to their manufacture and figment), just could not be swapped in the regular mode.
Always good to see them arrive on a Friday from Shorts and be parked for the weekend alone, on the far side of the airfield for 72hrs...
got to say, they did get better though...
When the short lived Beagle Basset was introduced into service, a friend of mine who worked for Shorts at Bovingdon ( who supplied ground services there) told me each one had to have its prop blades shortened as it was found that under heavy braking, the prop tips hit the ground.

[teeteringhead]

I also heard that when they lined them up outside, they were of different lengths too. Indeed so.

Apparently when the first tranche arrived, they were all lined up at Linton (?) for a publicity photo. Much to the photog's dismay (and I guess the engineers too, not to mention the pilots) you could line up the noses OR the tails, but not both!

[ShyTorque]

They should smelled a rat when Shorts put up scaffolding at the start of the build.....

[Lima Juliet]

Tucano saw the end of the 300kts Navex that the JP5 could do with ease. Also, if you wanted 240-270kts in the Tucano on a sunny day you were going to get hot (as the cockpit conditioning needed to be turned off!). Another aircraft procurement thanks to political meddling for truly the wrong aircraft.

[Easy Street]

Tucano saw the end of the 300kts Navex that the JP5 could do with ease. Also, if you wanted 240-270kts in the Tucano on a sunny day you were going to get hot (as the cockpit conditioning needed to be turned off!). Another aircraft procurement thanks to political meddling for truly the wrong aircraft.

Was there an appreciable knock-on effect at AFT or beyond from doing navexes at 240kts instead of 300? Although I have nothing to compare it to, personally I found the Tucano a very good platform on which to learn the ropes of FJ flying. The acid test was the step up to the Hawk, which I remember being no more difficult than the step up from the Bulldog, perhaps even less so. To me there’s nothing obvious that says the FJ cadre of the past 30 years has struggled as a result of Tucano’s selection. It’s impossible to completely decouple politics from public expenditure, so if a politically-expedient choice gets the job done to an acceptable standard then we should consider it a good deal for all concerned.

[BEagle]

I recall when the 300 KIAS LL navex was first introduced. It was hard on pilots and airframe as the ride comfort was far worse than at 240KIAS and the controls were also much heavier. Also a standard 60 deg AoB turn would lose so much speed even with full throttle that it took an age to regain the correct speed. Another point was that the standard method of timing correction (add n knots for n sec late for TAS in nm/min) meant that being anything more than 5 sec late at a turning point would often mean exceeding max continuous rpm....

I didn't really see the point of the 300 KIAS LL navex as it didn't gain that much and really gobbled up fuel.

[beardy]

I recall when the 300 KIAS LL navex was first introduced. It was hard on pilots and airframe as the ride comfort was far worse than at 240KIAS and the controls were also much heavier. Also a standard 60 deg AoB turn would lose so much speed even with full throttle that it took an age to regain the correct speed. Another point was that the standard method of timing correction (add n knots for n sec late for TAS in nm/min) meant that being anything more than 5 sec late at a turning point would often mean exceeding max continuous rpm....

I didn't really see the point of the 300 KIAS LL navex as it didn't gain that much and really gobbled up fuel.
Funny that, it's not how I remembered it apart from the fuel bit. But then 3 years Nav training probably gave me a different perspective.

[Lima Juliet]

Was there an appreciable knock-on effect at AFT or beyond from doing navexes at 240kts instead of 300?

Yes, the maths got harder!!! :ok:​​​​​​​

[NutLoose]

The technical term for individually built it is handmade ;) strange about the comments on the individuality of the Tucano when the wing attachments on the Grimrod could be inches out from each other.

Incidentally you should see some of the bigger Cessna twins, farmers in Witchita would farm during the summer and build aircraft during the winter and it showed, you dreaded getting new skins pre drilled because nothing would ever match, they were built in three sections, front, middle and aft and then riveted together with rivets through rivets, figure of eight rivets and I even saw three rivets all joined up and overlapping in a row.

The Ex RAF Tucano sells well in the USA with a decent Nav fit in it.

[ivor toolbox]

Incidentally you should see some of the bigger Cessna twins, farmers in Witchita would farm during the summer and build aircraft during the winter and it showed, you dreaded getting new skins pre drilled because nothing would ever match, they were built in three sections, front, middle and aft and then riveted together with rivets through rivets, figure of eight rivets and I even saw three rivets all joined up and overlapping in a row.


I've seen a couple of similar things on Citations, including a brand new one where a mis-routed aileron cable was sawing its way through a wing rib

Ttfn

[Pontius Navigator]

Meteor T14 low level navex 350
JP5 300
Tucanon 240

[PlasticCabDriver]

I also heard that when they lined them up outside, they were of different lengths too.

Completely true! They used to line them up at Cranwell (with often only the first few actually serviceable (we knew this because they used to get us studes to help out as line controllers sometimes)) with the prop spinners lined up to the millimetre, wander to the back of the aircraft and it was a wavy line of rudders all the way down.

[Blossy]

[QUOTE=Deliverance;10564371]Perhaps we just get grumpy over time, with the exception of BV who is definitely a glass half full man.
That's the right idea! One optimist is better than two pessimists.

[Bob Viking]

I will take that as a complement. It’s the closest thing I’ve ever had to one on here I think.

It is too easy to view everything as a negative. We all fear change but change needn’t be a bad thing.

For example, when I joined the choices out of training were Jag, Harrier, GR4, F3 and Sea Harrier (for Navy). Nowadays it’s F35 and Typhoon. That seems like limited choice to some but holy crap. Why would anyone complain when both choices are awesome?

As for JP vs Tucano, I never flew the former. Sure navexes were at 240 knots on Tucano but so what? As a student it felt like a proper set up in training from EFT (tandem seating for instance) and a good lead in to Hawk. Looking back now as an experienced QFI I think the steps are still correct.

Instead of constantly hankering after the past (which will always leave us unsatisfied) I find life is more fulfilling if I just embrace the current and the future. It would appear that this comes across in my posts.

Maybe I’ll change as I get older but I bloody hope not.

BV

[orca]

As much to do with the people as the aeroplane but I loved every second of BFJT at Linton flying the Tucano.
I may be alone in thinking this but I thought the ‘jump’ to Hawk - 240 to 420 - was largely over blown as the cadence of events was very similar, you just went further. Also those lovely people in ATC took you more seriously and other pragmatic reductions such as trimmers no longer insisting on full PATHASATNIE practice pan calls actually made your life easier!
Occasionally ‘stuff’ would filter back from Valley to Linton such as ‘must tighten up circuits’ and other CFS type guff that probably mattered but resulted only in a week long fad for doing your circuits first ‘when you were sharpest’.
I never understood the switch on Tucano that went from ground idle to ‘flight mode’ or similar, but was overridden by throttle being advanced anyway...why was that required? Anyone recall?

[Easy Street]

I may be alone in thinking this but I thought the ‘jump’ to Hawk - 240 to 420 - was largely over blown as the cadence of events was very similar, you just went further. Also those lovely people in ATC took you more seriously and other pragmatic reductions

Agree 100%. In hindsight, Linton is where I learned to be a professional pilot and AFT was effectively a type conversion in preparation for TWU. Maybe it didn’t feel like that at the time, but it shows what a good job 1FTS did. And I agree with others that Linton was an absolute blast: like living in university halls with daily flying and more disposable salary than I have now, especially as flying pay used to kick in 2/3 of the way through. It’s up there as a strong contender for my favourite year of service :ok: and sad to see it going :(

[possel]

Interesting set of responses. The view I took at MOD(PE) was that, for better or worse, this was the aeroplane that had been ordered and we had to make the best of it. It was quite frustrating that many people in the RAF were willing to judge it on all sorts of potential issues before it had even been delivered, but life is often like that. The fact that it was 2 years late was a simple effect of the mods that were applied to the original Embraer design to meet the ever changing and optimistic specification - engine, canopy, ejection seat, oxygen system, fatigue life requirements, ADR, cockpit layout, etc - it was a major modification to the original and so the delay was hardly surprising. NB I think that Embraer only built the first 2 or 4 fuselages, not 10.

There was also the idea of "Best and Final Offer" whereby each consortium was asked for their BAFO in turn, several times! Politicians had the idea that that you would get a lower cost whilst still getting the same end result, which is just not true. Of course, a company will cut corners as they trim their costs. I'm sure the PC9 family would have been a better aircraft for the RAF, but they (Michael Heseltine) had let politics and finances get in the way. I think the RAF (eventually) had a good aeroplane that, for the cost, had a very successful career.

[Asturias56]

Considering they served for 30 years I can't remember any great media hoo-ha about them in all teat time . Seems they were bought, did a pretty good job and are abou tto retire -without having created many ripples or fanfares

I don't think there was a single fatality ? And only a few w/o??? Must be a record for the RAF................

[H Peacock]

I never understood the switch on Tucano that went from ground idle to ‘flight mode’ or similar, but was overridden by throttle being advanced anyway...why was that required? Anyone recall?

The switch was for you to tell the EEC what rpm you wanted on the ground; 72% was somewhat quieter than the normal 100%. Provided you'd blipped the switch to 70% pre-start then the engine would start and sit at 72% (the setting of the underspeed governor) When you put the Air Con on it was pushed up to 80% for a tad more bleed air. Runway checks got you to select 100% to re-datum the underspeed governor, but if you forgot then the EEC would respond to a forward throttle movement and do it for you. The latter did cause a slight EGT spike as the increased fuel flow (throttle) exceeded that demanded by the underspend governor. You couldn't therefore try to get airborne before you had 100% rpm. The transition form 72 (or 80) to 100% was fairly rapid anyway.

Inflight the switch did nothing, then after landing you blipped it back to 70 to quieten things down again.

[Fortissimo]

I don't think it is much of a secret that the preferred option at the time was a Swiss-built trainer that has since proved very successful for other air forces. Rumour has it that following the political decision to buy Tucano instead, a meeting was called to discuss the programme and the following conversation ensued:

AVM: "Chaps, we need to come up with a new name for this aircraft. We can't just call it the Tucano, it sounds a bit too foreign."

Sqn Ldr I** Wor***d: "What about calling it the 'PC-9', Sir?"

AVM: "Get out!"

[BEagle]

That rings a chord! During the competition, some Boscombe mates pitched up in our crew room and the subject of the JP replacement cropped up. So they asked us what we thought...

"The Turbo Firecracker is a piece of junk. Nasty little thing, badly made. But British. The Australian A20 is just paper, so it's either the PC-9 or Tucano. Even if the PC-9 is the best, it'll be the Tucano for political reasons now that the Lear Fan has gone tits-up as the government will be desperate to find employment for Northern Irish workers", was what I said.

"Interesting", replied the Boscombe mate, but it seems I was proved right!

Never did fly one though.

[Maxibon]

I’ll always be happy that I was the chap in the Mastermind chair in the ejection seat video and got a flight, as a Plt Off, in the Tincan at CFS prior to me going to CF on the JP!

[Algy]

JP5A LL navex was particularly fuel-hungry if you left the airbrakes out all the way round the LL phase. Demonstrated by a solo stude at Cranwell who, after what must have been a staggeringly arse-puckering recovery, taxied in and shut down thinking he had gone away with it - in every sense. Sadly it seems the linies were required to report how much fuel they put into the jet afterwards - which worked out at shutdown fuel remaining of 29lb. To the credit of the system, the stude graduated.

[Fonsini]

Out of interest did anyone ever actually have to use one of those ejection seats ?

update - apparently there were several uses and they worked every time.

[wub]

On a visit to Linton I was offered the choice of a trip in a JP 5 or a Tucano, I chose the JP.

[H Peacock]

Out of interest did anyone ever actually have to use one of those ejection seats ?

update - apparently there were several uses and they worked every time.

I can think of 5 ejections from the T1:
Inverted spin in Scotland - 2 pob, double ejection
Prop fatigue fail near Driffield - 2 pob, double ejection
Not understanding gate heights - 1 pob, single ejection.

[minigundiplomat]

Yes, the maths got harder!!! :ok:

​​​​​​​4NM per minute - even RW mates can cope with that.

[Brain Potter]

There was a photograph published in the Support Command flight safety magazine that showed three senior officers in No 1’s stood on the wing of a Tucano peering into the front cockpit. I can”t remember whether it was intended to be a caption competition, but the line scrawled in the magazine in our crewroom was:

“Roy Turgoose (D CFI) says four people can stand on the wing of a JP”

[Davef68]

No different to the Phantom in that respect, they were built in batches with no interchangeability of panels or flying controls surfaces.. . they were all 'fettled' to fit, certainly kept us riggers busy.

Ttfn

Interesting, I've heard similar from other riggers about non-UK originated aircraft. I recall one saying that on the Harrier GR3 you could happily swap parts, but on the GR7 all the fastener/rivet holes were in slightly different places.

[Mil-26Man]

The Bulldog didn't have ejector-seats, is the Prefect not analogous to the Bulldog with the Texan taking on the role of the Tucano?

[Asturias56]

What are the relative accident rates for RAF training aircraft post WW2? A lot of complaints on here but no-one was ever killed in a Tucano as far as I can see..............

[Bob Viking]

I don’t think it’s the role that is the issue here. It is the relative performance difference between the Prefect and it’s predecessors.

Having said that, I wouldn’t fancy manually bailing out of anything.

BV

[Training Risky]

Meteor T14 low level navex 350
JP5 300
Tucanon 240
LL navex on a Squirrel (BFT) = 120 kts.
IP to target run = 60 kts (quite handy to have a mile per minute marked on the 1:50K OS map!)

[possel]

Interesting, I've heard similar from other riggers about non-UK originated aircraft. I recall one saying that on the Harrier GR3 you could happily swap parts, but on the GR7 all the fastener/rivet holes were in slightly different places.
Yes, at Wittering in the 90s we had a Pipe Bay whose job was to make replacement hydraulic pipes as each Harrier GR5/7 had the bends in a different place. I had previously heard the same story, in respect of the Phantom, from a Flt Sgt of mine who had worked at St Athan in the 60s/70s, so it was nothing new, just a bit disappointing.

[BEagle]

Me neither, BV !

There was no ejection seat option for the Bulldog; however, the Grob 120TP is available with M-B's Mk17 seats as an option:

Mk17 Ejection Seat - Martin-Baker (http://martin-baker.com/products/mk17-ejection-seat/)

But not an option which MFTS chose for RAF Prefect pilots....:mad: Why ever not?

[NutLoose]

Here you go, splash the cash and you to could own one, with a better cockpit fit I might add

https://www.platinumfighters.com/tucanozf200

https://www.platinumfighters.com/tucanozf266

Or if your REALLY feeling the need for Speed

https://www.platinumfighters.com/phantom2

[dead_pan]

Now that eveyone is coming out of the woodwork...anyone got any doubts about the Texan?

[Dan Winterland]

A lot of complaints on here but no-one was ever killed in a Tucano as far as I can see..............

A Kenyan aircraft crashed in the Irish Sea during testing. The pilot ejected, but drowned. And the composer James Horner died in his own privately owned Tucano in the USA. These aircraft have deactivated seats.

[possel]

A Kenyan aircraft crashed in the Irish Sea during testing. The pilot ejected, but drowned. And the composer James Horner died in his own privately owned Tucano in the USA. These aircraft have deactivated seats.
I remember that Kenyan Tucano well, as it was the only fatal crash of an aircraft for which I had any responsibility while I was in the RAF.

The Shorts Chief Test Pilot went to do trials in FEBRUARY over the sea near Rathlin Island (think Atlantic/Irish Sea) whilst wearing trainers and no immersion suit. The aim of the trials was to increase the permitted max speed from 270kt to 300kt whilst carrying underwing stores (only fitted to export Tucanos, not RAF ones). Essentially, the heavy stores damped oscillations in the wings and this energy had to go somewhere so it vibrated the tail which fell off at about 293kt (IIRC). Shorts had failed to spot from the recorded figures that this point had been nearly reached on the previous flight. Due to changing the PSP just before take-off, the pilot had then failed to re-attach his leg restraints, so when he ejected after the tail failed, his legs were up under the panel due to negative G. With these injuries and the cold he failed to get free of his parachute and get into his dinghy, and was found dead a short while later.

A feature of the Embraer design (not changed by Shorts) was the quite narrow rear fuselage. Although the tailplane had provision for mass balance weights in the elevator horns, these were empty and the mass balance was an awful arrangement inside the fin. My belief was that Embraer had probably found oscillation in original trials and so had moved the mass balance weights inboard to ease the problem. Hence the deficiency in the tail was probably known.

[Asturias56]

Thanks possel - that sounds bloody awful TBH

I suppose one thing we CAN be sure of is that PPrune 2039 will be full of people saying what a bloody marvelous aeroplane the Tucano was and how (insert whatever they buy going forwards) is rubbish

[Paying Guest]

Dead right about the Phantom. I recall spending many days at Gan with a couple of riggers fettling a new canopy to fit after a certain OC 41 lost his original canopy on climb out heading for Tengah to do the recce pod hot/humid trials. Got through an awful lot of files and spent more evenings than we cared for in the Blue Lagoon.

[LOMCEVAK]

Some interesting points raised here. A few thoughts from me ...

When I went through training on the JP, the Group 1/Phase 1 course was 60 hours for those going to the Gnat or Hunter and included 300 kt navexes. When the Hawk came in, the Valley course on it was 15 hours longer than for the Gnat or Hunter (due to the greater endurance) so the Group 1/Phase 1 course was reduced to 45 hours and the 300 kt navexes were taken out of the syllabus. However, the initial couple of navexes on the Hawk were then flown at 300 kts before moving on to 360 and 420 kts.

The reason why inverted spinning was cleared in the Release to Service was because if the Tucano did spin inadvertently during aerobatics (and it was not prone to do so) then it was considered to be about a 40% probability that it would be an inverted spin. During the R to S trials, the first inverted spin entered was actually by a navigator in the rear seat on a CT sortie when he attempted to fly a half Cuban 8! We then did the trial. It has to be said that this was the first RAF aircraft to be cleared for inverted spinning for a very long time. Anyone know what the previous one was - I think that it may have been the Vampire T11? On the spin trial we limited the number of spins flown per sortie to 25 for pilot fatigue reasons. The control forces in some modes tested were very high, especially full power erect spins to the left when the push force to centralise the stick after 4 turns was about 100 lbs. We flew 6 turn inverted spins as well within the 30 seconds available. It was fantastic fun on that trial! However, the Tucano did also acquire the nickname 'Shorts' Multi-Gym'.

We cleared it to fly in winds up to 40 kts and crosswinds of up to 30 kts. In fact, the highest crosswind during a landing on the trial was 42 kts; it was solid as a rock and would always have been my preferred aircraft in a strong crosswind.

The fatal accident was caused by the tail separating because the flutter analysis with the wing stores had only been done for the wings and the effect of the increased mass on the fuselage aft of the trailing and the tail had not been considered nor analysed; the relative frequencies of the flutter modes on these two parts of the airframe had changed dramatically.

Many of today's fast jet pilots have trained on the Tucano and learnt great flying skills. Therefore, it worked! As for the politics, when the competition for selection was still taking place, Margaret Thatcher visited a Farnborough Air Show and she was shown around the Shorts stand. When briefed on the Tucano she (allegedly) said "Ah yes, the aeroplane that is going to create jobs in Northern Island"!

I did not train on it, I did not instruct on it at BFTS but I have very fond memories of some fascinating flying in it over 30 years.

[ShyTorque]

It has to be said that this was the first RAF aircraft to be cleared for inverted spinning for a very long time. Anyone know what the previous one was - I think that it may have been the Vampire T11?

You might be correct but I can vouch for the fact that the JP3A would spin inverted....

[LOMCEVAK]

As would the JP5A and the Hawk T1 .....

[falcon900]

Some perspective of Tucano from the Shorts end of the Telescope. The idea was indeed to offer a cheap and cheerful aircraft for the competitive pitch being run by MoD. By offering a proven off-the-peg solution, many of the pitfalls of previous procurements could be avoided, which was attractive to the customer in terms of likely delivery and service reliability, as well as lower acquisition cost, whilst also being attractive to Shorts for similar reasons. The sense at the time was that although none of the candidates was completely perfect, Tucano was a strong contender. Throw in the fact that Shorts was government owned, and employment in the then troubled Belfast was in short supply, the scene was set. What could possibly go wrong?
The usual things basically. Change the required specification and keep on changing it as the contract progresses. Principal among the changes, and one Shorts consented to in their desperation to secure the contract, was a more powerful engine. Unbolt the old one, bolt a more powerful one in. Simples! And re-engineer some 60% of the airframe as a consequence.......
The contract was a financial disaster for Shorts, and hence for HMG. That the aircraft went on to serve for so long and so well is some consolation.

[Davef68]

There is some irony in the replacement being a derivative of the aircraft not selected originally.

[plastic_bonsai_again]

I was cursorally involved in assessing the contenders whilst at BAE. We identified the Tucano wasn't anywhere near fast enough and the wing needed to be completely re-designed for the low level flying in the first day. Those modifications would not have been accepted in the bid - it was "as -is" I believe. The quality and performance of the PC-9 was simply streets ahead ( Bob Cole taking off in the length of the threshold markings into a vertical 8 did it for me), We were just as gob-smacked by the final political decision though we were happy sticking with our choice. At the Saudi handover ceremony a 20 ship took off and ceremoniously beat up Scampton who were waiting for their first Tucano.

[Ken Scott]

I was on the first course of students to train on the Tucano. The rest of the station were on JPs & we received a great deal of 'banter' about being a 'slow prop', even from those on the JP3 which to be frank couldn't really share the circuit with the Tucano as it took an age to climb before it could turn downwind. We could clear the MATZ by the end of the runway if we really tried so could fly 2 circuits inside one of theirs. The JP5 was roughly similar in terms of climb performance & were obviously faster than us, even the JP3 could go quite fast downhill with the wind behind it, but both types had very short legs. Guys on the senior courses were always talking about how 'they'd run out of time for MRTs' on a sortie whereas the Tucano could do 2 sorties off a tank of gas. We could also do proper mixed profile sorties so in my opinion it was a better & more flexible training aircraft, helped by fairly decent avionics & the tandem seating. We were accused by our JP peers of 'not being fuel aware' in the way that they were, but as I recall a criticism of Valley's output by the TWUs was that they weren't fuel aware so what ever they'd learnt at BFTS was soon forgotten on the Hawk.

I did think at the time that it was a mistake to make the new aircraft 'Hawk-like' in its cockpit rather than give it a really modern one & upgrade the older aircraft. I had a trip in a Tucano a few years ago & my impression then was of a cramped cockpit with a really old-fashioned layout, but that's probably just in comparison to my usual mount. At the time it seemed spacious & very advanced, at least after the Bulldog. When I refreshed on the Tucano after flying the Hawk it did seem rather slow & I seemed to have loads of time to fill between events, though that could have reflected an improvement in my ability rather than anything to do with the aircraft as the only real difference is how far apart the minute marks are.

It has lasted well though & spent nearly as long in service as its predecessor. I shall be sad to see it go, it was a blast to fly as a student on BFT.

[2 TWU]

To set the scene, I have @1500 hrs JP, 2700 hrs Tucano. Which one would I take to use as an instructional aircraft, the JP any day? Why?

All JPs flew exactly the same if set up correctly (and at Linton we had an excellent UTP, Dave B, who ensured ever airframe was just right). This meant that all demos of what the aircraft would do when services were operated, power changed etc were identical. Although each Tucano was there or thereabouts, there always were small differences. As a Tucano UTP, I spent many fruitless hours trying to get every aircraft to respond in exactly the same way, some airframes were particularly bad.

[SATCOS WHIPPING BOY]

Thought I'd share this. Not many more days left to catch them in their natural habitat.

https://cimg8.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1200x610/for_pprune_72b724275890a8bb2ce6a1ad58354fd6d279104f.jpg

[Ken Scott]

Nice picture, just checked my logbook & see that I flew 239 just the once, 1:00hr solo GH on 12 Jul 90, on the FJ lead-in cse. Happy days....

[SATCOS WHIPPING BOY]

Nice picture, just checked my logbook & see that I flew 239 just the once, 1:00hr solo GH on 12 Jul 90, on the FJ lead-in cse. Happy days....

Thanks Ken
I guess it would still have been red and white back then, before getting the black paint, then the RA F camo paint job (late 2012), and then back to black (2015/16)as we see it above.

[Ken Scott]

Yes, red & white & still smelled ‘new’!

[AF03-111]

As a Nav stude in the late 90s, I loved the Tucano (but then didn't have much to compare it against). However, reading the flipping fuel gauges by your right knee whilst being bounced around by the QPNI wasn't all that easy....

[NutLoose]

You wouldn't like the Mossie then, the fuel tank selectors for that are behind the pilots seat and changed over by feel only.

[Blossy]

And the Blackburn Botha was even worse, by all accounts.

[Fonsini]

I remember feeling old when they retired the Tornado as I clearly remember the Panavia 200, the Tucano retirement is just making matters worse. Hopefully I will get to see the T-6C retire one day......

[dctyke]

Two doing some really good old fashioned dog fighting above my house as I type. If they are the very last students I’m impressed....... but very much doubt it. Will miss the sound, now all I have on a regular basis is 100 Sqn which I had the honour of being their parade WO.

The sun shines over the Yorkshire Wolds........happy days

[David Thompson]

Wednesday 16 October ; formation transit of 5 Tucanos routing Valley - Woodvale - Warton - Blackpool - Riggs Moor (Menwith Hill ?) - Linton . NOTAM here ;

H6721/19: Formation flying will take place
Q) EGTT/QWVLW/IV/M/W/000/050/5343N00257W065 (https://notaminfo.com/explain?id=1170434/0)FORMATION TRANSIT BY 5 TUCANO AIRCRAFT ROUTING:
531500N 0043200W VALLEY AD 1305
533500N 0030400W WOODVALE AD 1320
534400N 0025300W WARTON AD 1325
534600N 0030200W BLACKPOOL AD 1330
541000N 0015700W VCY RIGGS MOOR 1345
540300N 0011900W LINTON-ON-OUSE AD 1355
FORMATION PLANS TO TRANSIT AT 500-3000FT AGL. TIMINGS, HGT AND ROUTE
ARE APRX AND MAY CHANGE DUE TO WX OR OTHER REQUIREMENTS. FOR INFO TEL
01347 847511. 2019-10-0292/AS4LOWER: Surface, UPPER: 5,000 Feet AMSL
FROM: 16 Oct 2019 13:05 GMT (14:05 BST) TO: 16 Oct 2019 13:55 GMT (14:55 BST)

[JT Eagle]

Those timings have changed. It's now a 4-ship Linton-Belfast-Valley (lunch)-Woodvale-Warton-Blackpool-Linton

https://twitter.com/RAFLintonOnOuse/status/1184119511601090562

[RUCAWO]

The formation over Belfast City airport , the fifth aircraft was in loose formation probably a camera ship.
https://cimg8.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1920x1280/img_20191016_135558_6f875278b67f473a1428868585a17729a6b259f8 .jpg

[chopper2004]

At least the Tucano had ejector seats, unlike the Prefect...:rolleyes: I gather that the RAF is the only air force which hasn't specified such life saving devices, which were available as an option. Should there ever be a Prefect fatal, I hope whoever made the daft decision will be required to face the relatives of the deceased to explain the decision... .:mad:

Anyway, rather than Prefect / Texan, the PC21 should have been acquired.

You are kidding ? T-6 well our ones sans ejector seats. Hmm anyhow with QinetiQ operating the Pilatus PC-21, logic thought that RAF would...(my photo from RIAT 2018)

Cheers


https://cimg6.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/2000x1333/etps_pc21_2_58d14f736b99990bba6ee34e15387b06e2c50402.jpg

[David Thompson]

They are out and about on Thursday too routing from Linton to Cranwell and return . NOTAM here ;

H6764/19: Formation flying will take place
Q) EGTT/QWVLW/IV/M/W/000/050/5339N00157W045 (https://notaminfo.com/explain?id=1171020/0)FORMATION TRANSIT BY 5 TUCANO ACFT ROUTING:
540300N 0011500W RAF LINTON 0930
534500N 0001000W WPT 1
533500N 0002100W HUMBERSIDE AIRPORT 0949
531800N 0003300W RAF SCAMPTON 0954
531200N 0002100W WPT 4
530100N 0002900W RAF CRANWELL
531000N 0010100W WPT 6
532900N 0010000W DONCASTER SHEFFIELD 1014
534500N 0004900W WPT 8
535000N 0011200W LEEDS EAST 1125
535600N 0012500W WPT 10
541700N 0013200W RAF LEEMING 1135
540300N 0011500W RAF LINTON 1145
FORMATION PLANS TO TRANSIT AT 500-3000FT AGL. TIMINGS, HGT AND ROUTE
ARE APRX AND MAY CHANGE DUE TO WX OR OTHER REQUIREMENTS. FOR INFO
CONTACT 01347 847450. 2019-10-0313/AS4LOWER: Surface, UPPER: 5,000 Feet AMSL
FROM: 17 Oct 2019 09:30 GMT (10:30 BST) TO: 17 Oct 2019 10:45 GMT (11:45 BST)

And some 9-ship practice next week , 23rd to the 25th and then 'The End' .

[Stitchbitch]

chopper2004 The T6 has ejection seats, however it uses the US style man mounted torso harness, rather than the traditional M-B style combined harness found on all current RAF ejection seat equipped aircraft. The Prefect has static seats. As for the rather lovely PC21, this seems to be working well for a number of nations, etc, can even be flown in standard UK pilot flight equipment/Survival Equipment. Perhaps too much aircraft (£££) for the role?

[Dominator2]

Something to aspire to;

https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/2000x1399/gld_119328_939cf3b8bc471e4b667f89bbabd60531f073a486.jpg

[Thud_and_Blunder]

Dominator, allow me to be the first to say "nice Belvoir".

Don't mind what is used for training, so long as the first aircraft in any pilot's career is one where he/she sits next to the instructor. In my own experience (started on JP3a), I learned far more about watching what the instructor did and how and when he (in those days, it was always he...) did it; it also allowed the instructor to check during IF that the student wasn't going for the "a glimpse is worth a thousand scans" technique. The other adage I learned from one of the gentlemen on Standards was that an ideal trainer is an aircraft that is easy to fly, but difficult to fly well - I hope Tucano's replacement fits the bill.

[David Thompson]

From 72 Squadron ; https://twitter.com/RAFLintonOnOuse/status/1184562314663596034 .

Edit 19/10 ; I'm not sure were the rest of that post went but there will be 9-ship practice days next week on Wednesday and Thursday before the finale on Friday , 25th .

[N707ZS]

I here the fleet is to be dismantled back to parts but surely there must be some sort of market to auction airworthy aircraft.

Also herd the Texan doesn't like the salt air at Valley and corrosion is starting to attack, perhaps Linton might of been kinder to the desert airframes.

[possel]

Lovely photo of six Dominies at post #82 - I guess on their farewll, in 2008? Apart from the Tucano I worked on those for four years... All so long ago!

[chevvron]

chopper2004 The T6 has ejection seats, however it uses the US style man mounted torso harness, rather than the traditional M-B style combined harness found on all current RAF ejection seat equipped aircraft. The Prefect has static seats. As for the rather lovely PC21, this seems to be working well for a number of nations, etc, can even be flown in standard UK pilot flight equipment/Survival Equipment. Perhaps too much aircraft (£££) for the role?
The Prefect DOES have ejector seats; Martin Baker Mk 17.
The PC 21 pictured looks to only have MDC for the front seater; what does the back seater do?

[CAEBr]

Originally Posted by Stitchbitch https://www.pprune.org/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (https://www.pprune.org/military-aviation/625294-raf-retire-tucano-5.html#post10596345)

chopper2004 (https://www.pprune.org/members/131735-chopper2004) The T6 has ejection seats, however it uses the US style man mounted torso harness, rather than the traditional M-B style combined harness found on all current RAF ejection seat equipped aircraft. The Prefect has static seats. As for the rather lovely PC21, this seems to be working well for a number of nations, etc, can even be flown in standard UK pilot flight equipment/Survival Equipment. Perhaps too much aircraft (£££) for the role?

Originally posted by Chevvron
The Prefect DOES have ejector seats; Martin Baker Mk 17.
The PC 21 pictured looks to only have MDC for the front seater; what does the back seater do?

Chevvron, we're getting to the same situation as in the XX204 thread with some of these statements. I don't know where you've been looking but the Grob Prefect T1 DOES NOT HAVE EJECTION SEATS, as previously stated correctly by chopper2004. The Grob 120TP can be fitted as an option with ejection seats but Ascent, who own the aircraft did not go down that route.

To answer your question, there is some MDC over the rear seat of the Texan

CAEBr

[LOMCEVAK]

The PC-21 rear cockpit ejection seat has breakers which shatter the canopy as the seat
travels up the rail. The front cockpit needs MDC because it is thickened for bird strike protection.

As an aside, the PC-21 MDC system is called Canopy Fracturing System or CFS!

[David Thompson]

Monday 21 October : BBC Inside Out (Yorkshire and Lincolnshire) 19:30 hrs .
A feature on the Tucano bowing out of RAF service and the last BFJT course to go through Linton ;
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m0009prw .
and
https://twitter.com/RAFLintonOnOuse/status/1186200726546145280

[XN593]

For those with Sky TV, (and who don't live in the Yorkshire area) BBC Regional programs can be found in the channel range 951 to 972. Yorkshire and Lincolnshire is at 957.
The only caveat is that do have a Sky card but don't pay a subscription. Hope it helps
XN593

[Slow Biker]

Given where the Tucano was assembled, some clown in the MoD decided, in all seriousness, that each ac should be searched for IEDs post delivery. It took a lot of convincing that any search, particularly post flight, was a non starter. The plan was quietly dropped. I will miss watching a pair of Tucanos pass over my house; I used to wonder where the students would end
up. As an aside, there was a study to install the Mk 8LC seat into the Canberra PR9 and T4 - too difficult, too expensive.

[Ken Scott]

All deliveries of new aircraft from the factory to Church Fenton were parked for a day on the far side of the airfield just in case they should explode having been rigged with explosives. I assume it was believed that 24hrs was the longest fuse likely to be used as the IRA might believe that the aircraft would have had a thorough inspection in that time & any device discovered and disarmed. I don’t recall that any did explode.

[Martin the Martian]

I here the fleet is to be dismantled back to parts but surely there must be some sort of market to auction airworthy aircraft.


The MoD have done very well in selling some Tucanos on the open market, mostly in the States. I do wonder if the crash of one in the US which killed the owner and pilot, film composer James Horner, has resulted in some kind of claim or court action. If so, maybe the MoD isn't quite so keen on flogging them in airworthy condition any more.

I cannot see the reason for the RTP programme, unless the MoD is hopeful of flogging a LOT of spares to Kuwait and/or Kenya for their Tucanos.

[possel]

Given where the Tucano was assembled, some clown in the MoD decided, in all seriousness, that each ac should be searched for IEDs post delivery. It took a lot of convincing that any search, particularly post flight, was a non starter. The plan was quietly dropped.
Nope. I was in the Mod(PE) Tucano office and can categorically say that the clown was in HQRAFSC at Brampton! Not the only stupid thing he was responsible for in respect of Tucano.

[EAP86]

...as the IRA might believe that the aircraft...

IRA, Shorts?

[SATCOS WHIPPING BOY]

Hi all knowledgable peeps, this image popped up a group on FB. Someone asked what was the significance of the different colours. My thoughts were that one was for sqn pilots and the other for CFS but am not sure now. It looks like the red ones have a plaque that says OC 207 but it is hard to see. Can anyone enlighten me please.
https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1500x960/name_badges_321ffdaba930e4d945c072bffe703ea855351674.jpg

[Slow Biker]

Possel. I was wrong, and I'm sorry to tar you with a brush that Support Cmd deserved.

[Beakor]

Red ones are 1 Sqn, blue ones are 2 Sqn, before FTSs got retired Sqn numbers. The blue names are instructors from around 1996-1999. (Think that’s mine, blue, bottom left!)

[SATCOS WHIPPING BOY]

Red ones are 1 Sqn, blue ones are 2 Sqn, before FTSs got retired Sqn numbers. The blue names are instructors from around 1996-1999. (Think that’s mine, blue, bottom left!)
Thanks for that. Much appreciated.

[charliegolf]

IRA, Shorts?

I was sceptical too!:ok:

CG

[Bob Viking]

A few years back 1 FTS consisted of 1 Sqn and 2 Sqn (not real Sqns but FTS Sqns). 2 Sqn are the blue badges. I was in 1 Sqn and the badges (not shown) were blue/red/yellow.

Sometime in the 2000s these because 72 and 207 Sqns. The red and yellow badges are 207. 72 will shortly reform at Valley.

BV

[Beakor]

Wot he said, thanks BV, sorry SWB. I’d left before they got Sqn numbers. That explains the blue badges I remember being on the same board as the red ones then, and I think Keren being on both.

[DuncanDoenitz]

A couple of things from a retired Tucano EDIT Technician (the RAF's Engineering Development Team at Scampton in the early 90's). Some things only become apparent from the perspective of a new career:

The Embraer Tucano's wing and main gear were taken directly from the Piper Navajo. Embraer produced the Navajo Chieftain under licence in Brazil. (Embraer had obviously built too many Navajo wings).

More significantly; like most of the aircraft systems, Shorts undertook a complete re-design of the Tucano's hydraulic system (for some reason) using components of their own choosing. None of we technicians could ever understand why they installed a hydraulic reservoir vertically with its "suction" port at the top; it guarantees that, if there is any air in the system, that will be drawn into the pump in preference to hydraulic fluid. And why was it so big? Years later, I'm a Licensed Engineer learning the ropes on my then (Scotland's) airline's Shorts 360. I'm inspecting the hydraulic system, and there's the same reservoir, but in its intended, horizontal, orientation with the suction port at the bottom. (Shorts had obviously made too many 360 reservoirs. And it wouldn't fit in the Tucano's hole the right way up).

[Ken Scott]

IRA, Shorts

The point I was trying to make was that the aircraft were parked up for 24 hrs only on the assumption that the IRA wouldn't use a longer fuse as they would believe that the RAF would have done an inspection and discovered the bomb in that time. That was the theory anyway, seemed clear enough to me!

[Haraka]

DD's comments re the Tucano are certainly interesting and news to many I suspect. . Those of us who left the Service and worked in Industry could doubtless also make similar observations along the lines of the philosophy of " We make aeroplanes,only in order to make a profit" .
I suspected that a compendium of these tales would fill a very substantial book and raised this topic years ago with a now deceased well known test pilot.
He agreed totally and added that the subsequent series of court cases brought against the author would also make fascinating reading.

[EAP86]

The point I was trying to make was...

Sorry, I wasn't clear. Shorts, along with many other NI companies, was well known for its employment of predominantly non-republican staff.

EAP

[David Thompson]

Well this was the day the RAF retired it's Tucano fleet and the four final Tucano students of 274 BFJT course were awarded their wings by ACM Mike Wigston CAS .
Quite a bit about the day has appeared on social media and also featured on BBC Look North from Leeds again and is available to view on the BBC iPlayer from 09:20 ;
https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m0009pr9/look-north-yorkshire-evening-news-25102019
and Linton's Twitter feed ;
https://twitter.com/RAFLintonOnOuse

[ShyTorque]

I couldn’t help thinking that OC 72 Sqn would be really impressed to be captioned, as he was, merely as “Flying instructor”.

[SATCOS WHIPPING BOY]

Last man down. ZF135 taxying in to a wet welcome.
A good, if somewhat sad, day.

https://cimg4.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1200x707/pp_linton_grad_25_october_2019_1_of_1_11_7019002a2188835ea0b 2e8ec1200d9bb29f4be9a.jpg


https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1200x709/pp_linton_grad_25_october_2019_1_of_1_33_fe2eb4804525919ef46 375a981fa6f8c2e30d779.jpg

[possel]

Good old ZF135 - "T1", the first of 130!

It hardly seems like 30 years ago that the Tucano entered service but, apart from the BBMF's Chipmunk(s?), that's the last aircraft out of service that I ever had my hands on. It does still amuse me that, as an engineer, I wrote a good chunk of the CA Release. It also still annoys me that the first aircraft lost was due to runaway trim at high speed, and a certain Wg Cdr had previously refused my suggestion to put a note in the Aircrew Manual (Topic 15?) recommending to reduce speed at once if that occurred, on the grounds that "every pilot knows that"!

One lovely argument with Shorts was about sealing the airframe against water ingress. They originally used some blue compound (PX24, IIRC) which was a permanent one-time use sealant. After dowsing the aircraft with water they removed all the panels (breaking the seal) to check that no water had got in. Satisfied, they then replaced all the panels and couldn't understand why it leaked the next time it was left in the rain...

[LOMCEVAK]

It also still annoys me that the first aircraft lost was due to runaway trim at high speed, and a certain Wg Cdr had previously refused my suggestion to put a note in the Aircrew Manual (Topic 15?) recommending to reduce speed at once if that occurred, on the grounds that "every pilot knows that"!
If I may make a slight correction, it was actually an inadvertent full nose down trim application during an inverted spin and not a trim runaway at high speed (I did the ADR analysis for the BOI). The aircraft was recovered from the spin but was not pulled out of the dive. It bunted to the inverted at which point the crew rolled erect and it bunted down again; they ejected on about the down vertical at, from memory, about 380 KIAS.

I once made the same inadvertent trim input during the CA Release trials and I wrote it up saying that ".. if it happened in service it would not be a problem as you would notice the higher pull force during the dive pull out and all you had to do was to retrim nose up". How wrong I was! We continued to see it happening occasionally during inverted spins and it became a big pre-flight briefing point.

[possel]

Thanks LOMCEVAK, that's very interesting. 380 KIAS must have made their eyes water!!

[BVRAAM]

I see a few rather senior Officers have been quite sad about the Tincan retiring.

Yeah, at least they got to the frontline in 4 years. Some of them are responsible for screwing over my generation, and most of the next, by not speaking up about UKMFTS.

Cheers "Sirs." :ok:

[Downwind.Maddl-Land]

Now Tuesday; just taken t'dog for walk. Eerily quiet in Nth Yorkshire's airspace - can't get used to it!! Would the Lakenheath wing like to re-commence their ACM/ACT activities over the Linton bullseye please?

[chevvron]

Now Tuesday; just taken t'dog for walk. Eerily quiet in Nth Yorkshire's airspace - can't get used to it!! Would the Lakenheath wing like to re-commence their ACM/ACT activities over the Linton bullseye please?
When I controlled in the NJRSA from Lindholme in '73, we were always getting 'incursions' (well not really incursions but training traffic wasn't 'supposed' to operate there) from the V of Y training area, but now all the training units seem to have gone in fact, is it even called the V of Y training area nowadays?.

[Downwind.Maddl-Land]

Chev,

No, just checked. All the AIAAs appear to have been disestablished; dunno when that was from though. Hardly surprising when you recall that all the FTS have gone from the VoY: CF - closed as an FTS/RLG, FY - closed as a FTS, LO - closed as an FTS, TP - closed as a RLG, DH closed as a RLG, LI no longer a FTS/home of CFS. The Yorkshire (esp North) economy has really taken a hammering in realising the so-called 'peace dividend'.

[bloodaxe]

Nice touch that the last Tucano down was the first production aircraft. Whatever the pros and cons of the aircraft, it gave good service for 30 years and was fun to fly. Let’s hope that the Texan gives similar service. Good luck to 72 Sqn for their future.

[possel]

Nice touch that the last Tucano down was the first production aircraft. Whatever the pros and cons of the aircraft, it gave good service for 30 years and was fun to fly. Let’s hope that the Texan gives similar service. Good luck to 72 Sqn for their future.
And moreover I am sure that the RAF never lost a pilot in a Tucano - pretty good for any aircraft, far less a trainer!

[LOMCEVAK]

One other interesting aspect of the Tucano is that it was cleared in service for intentional inverted spinning. No type currently in UK military service is and I am not sure which the previous type was, perhaps the Vampire T11 or Piston Provost? The reason why it was cleared was because it was considered that if an inadvertent spin occurred during aerobatics there was a relatively high probability that it would be inverted.

[Dave Gittins]

IIRC from the documentary "Test Pilot" it was the Hunter.

[LOMCEVAK]

DG,

The Hunter was not cleared for inverted spinning in the Release to Service. The Boscombe Down Hunter T7s had a specific clearance for inverted spinning (and erect spinning and stalling) based on having cockpit displays of AOA and lateral stick position plus an audio altitude alert system. In addition, for inverted spinning a safety pilot had to be present in the telemetry ground station. I could go on but that would be thread creep!

[David Thompson]

I believe that the last day of Babcock International operations at Linton was the 31 March and the Tucano fleet will be handed over from their contract to the new owners/operators although I suspect that the present COVID-19 situation may have had an impact on that ? Regardless , it is a very sad day in the life of this Royal Air Force Station as it looks to complete its Drawdown with flying operations to cease towards the end of December once the Yorkshire UAS move to a new as yet unannounced home . The remainder of the Drawdown tasks will be completed during 2021 before handing the real-estate over to the Defence Infrastructure Organisation but as yet the long term future of the site is yet to be announced . Others will know more !
https://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/2000x1235/lintonbabcocktheend_b575a73388846996a972cdb693016b4ce686032e .jpg

[Sandy Parts]

Nice momento photo for those involved. Hope they labelled up those wings to match to the right fuselages.... Sad days for any station going through the close-down process, it feels like taking a favourite pet to the vets for that final time.

[Martin the Martian]

Lots more Tucanos going to the US civil register, no doubt.

[DuckDodgers]

All will be heading to the United States with RSW Aviation acquiring them (84 aircraft) with full backing of UK MOD and Bombardier in Belfast.

[Rhino power]

So, 84 Tucano have been replaced by how many Texan IIs?

-RP

[Stitchbitch]

So, 84 Tucano have been replaced by how many Texan IIs?

-RP

Surely more than 10? Or is it one each for the FJ trainees on the course...

[David Thompson]

All will be heading to the United States with RSW Aviation acquiring them (84 aircraft) with full backing of UK MOD and Bombardier in Belfast.
I'm not sure that RSW are getting 84 aircraft as there are 48 going from Linton and 23 from Shawbury of which 4 may go elsewhere ? There appears to have been around 36 Tucanos sold in the 'States when the first batch went around 2007-2009 of which some are presently for sale and showing very low flying hours compared to those going from Linton but I suspect the Shawbury aircraft will also have low flying hours too ?
For sale in the 'States ; https://www.controller.com/listings/aircraft/for-sale/list?Mdltxt=TUCANO+MK1&mdlx=Contains&qss=1&FullText=Tucano

[Martin the Martian]

Surely more than 10? Or is it one each for the FJ trainees on the course...

Ten. No more.:sad: