Tucano at LOO - no steps required!
Thread Starter
Tucano at LOO - no steps required!
I understand that ZF349 landed wheels up at Linton earlier today. The rumour is that it was an engine failure followed by a forced landing. Also, the good news is that I hear that the aircrew walked away - no steps required! 
They shut the spotters enclosure after asking them for their footage!
They shut the spotters enclosure after asking them for their footage!
Last edited by The B Word; 8th Jan 2013 at 18:00.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,892
Received 2,830 Likes
on
1,208 Posts
Last edited by NutLoose; 8th Jan 2013 at 20:11.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,892
Received 2,830 Likes
on
1,208 Posts
Depends on a lot of things really such as what height you're at when the engine failed, engine wasn't under power as the blades are bent back.
Last edited by NutLoose; 8th Jan 2013 at 21:50.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,892
Received 2,830 Likes
on
1,208 Posts
Engine under power they bend forwards.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: 2 m South of Radstock VRP
Posts: 2,042
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK, fair point.
Here's a Harvard that let down at Church Lawford with wheels up. One blade forward and one back.
Here's a Harvard that let down at Church Lawford with wheels up. One blade forward and one back.
Last edited by GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU; 8th Jan 2013 at 23:41.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,892
Received 2,830 Likes
on
1,208 Posts
They tend to go forward as the prop under power bends fwd rather like the cone effect in a helicopter rotor as it lifts off, so when it strikes it bends fwd, without power on the prop isn't bending fwd , so bends aft. 
The blades bent both directions I could understand as the strike would in effect momentarily stop the prop and would offload the blades
The blades bent both directions I could understand as the strike would in effect momentarily stop the prop and would offload the blades
Tucano at LOO - no steps required!
I'm no Air Crash Investigator but with my limited knowledge of the tin can (it's been a while) I would suggest that, since the blades aren't feathered, the engine was either under power or shut down but without the engine emergency shut down lever being selected (unlikely). As you can imagine in the latter case it would glide like a house brick.
Of course I may be wrong and I bow to your superior knowledge of post crash propeller habits.
Regardless of everything I have just said it looks like they did a bloody good job in the circumstances.
BV
Of course I may be wrong and I bow to your superior knowledge of post crash propeller habits.
Regardless of everything I have just said it looks like they did a bloody good job in the circumstances.
BV
Last edited by Bob Viking; 9th Jan 2013 at 15:23.
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Banished (twice) to the pointless forest
Posts: 1,558
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Looks like a bargain to be had here.
For Sale, as is, where is:
One Tucano Aircraft.
One careful owner, three hundred and forty six not so careful drivers, apply to OC Eng, RAF Linton-on-Ouse.
One Tucano Aircraft.
One careful owner, three hundred and forty six not so careful drivers, apply to OC Eng, RAF Linton-on-Ouse.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Puken
Posts: 358
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well the flap position vs blade angle can at least rule out the dreaded EESDL/Flap lever coggie!
Good to hear all okay. Chances are it'll fly as the T.Mk2 when they get converted; they're actually much stronger frames than people give then credit for.
Good to hear all okay. Chances are it'll fly as the T.Mk2 when they get converted; they're actually much stronger frames than people give then credit for.
Last edited by Farfrompuken; 9th Jan 2013 at 08:04.
The SI report was released alongside the Red Arrows ejection report and has evidently been missed in the rush. Some forthright comment from the Convening Authority regarding the wisdom of conducting engine airtests with a 1200ft cloudbase, and notably a direct statement of DE&S airworthiness failures. Unleash the fury:
Service Inquiry report into the accident involving Tucano ZF349 on 8 January 2013 at RAF Linton-on-Ouse
Service Inquiry report into the accident involving Tucano ZF349 on 8 January 2013 at RAF Linton-on-Ouse
Interesting. Twenty years ago, the min safe altitude for conducting engine air tests was 2500ft - not 2000ft as stated in the report. This was probably a legacy requirement from the JP which had a Hi Key of 2500ft. I did many, and one involved a failure in very similar circumstances - but with a happier outcome. The report also claims that EEC manual checks weren't part of the air test schedule. Again, I disagree - in similar circumstances!
Seems we don't learn!
Seems we don't learn!