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! :ok:

They shut the spotters enclosure after asking them for their footage! :}

Pictures

ZF349 crash pictures • FighterControl • Military Aviation Forum

Allegedly, one woman driver...

http://i110.photobucket.com/albums/n...ps8492a427.jpg

...bloody good skills :D:D:D

Hmmm? 4 bent props and no gear on an aircraft with a blow down system. SI report should be an interesting read.

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.

OK, they are bent back (all 4) more than they are bent radially but they don't look too featheared to me either.

Engine under power they bend forwards.

OK, fair point.

Here's a Harvard that let down at Church Lawford with wheels up. One blade forward and one back. http://i111.photobucket.com/albums/n...ps8ee279e2.jpg

That link shows one fot of the the aeroplane resting on the grass but another, with the nose over a metal surface. ??

'Well done' to whoever bought it back.

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

Looks repairable and they walked away - well done :D

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

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.

Now THAT's TFR!!!

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.

No worries, it will buff out! :p

The comment I was waiting for! Took a while today.....

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

Glad all safe, but odd how all the pics on both fora have been removed.......Black Omega on the drive (Well, Citroen cos I am in France)

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!