MoD Tucano Sell Off
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 4,777
Likes: 9
From: Blighty
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.
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.
Moderator
Joined: Feb 2000
Aviation Qualifications: CPL
Posts: 14,480
Likes: 178
From: UK
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.
G
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 480
Likes: 0
From: Livin de island life
If I remember correctly, the PC7 is 750shp and the PC9 is 1150shp - sound right?
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.....
Thread Starter
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 532
Likes: 2
From: UK
flyingfemme -
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.
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.....
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 480
Likes: 0
From: Livin de island life
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.
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.
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 1,199
Likes: 3
From: Hunched over a keyboard
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.
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.
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 1,796
Likes: 1
From: 1 Dunghill Mansions, Putney
Psst...wanna buy a slightly used Tucano?
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
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
Couldonlyaffordafiver
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 1,934
Likes: 0
From: The Twilight Zone near 30W
Price starts at $1 million.
I'd be interested if it was.
.... and if I had $1 million.
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
From: Derbyshire
Question for Tucano engineers
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
Cheers ex Plummer John
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 4,777
Likes: 9
From: Blighty
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.
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,235
Likes: 0
From: Niort
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!!
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!!
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 480
Likes: 3
From: Retford, UK
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.
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,235
Likes: 0
From: Niort
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..
Recall the Nimrod MR4 upgrade programme where the new centre sections (all made largely identically using modern processes) would not fit the existing airframes..
Moderator
Joined: Feb 2000
Aviation Qualifications: CPL
Posts: 14,480
Likes: 178
From: UK
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
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
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
From: EuroGA.org
Airframe length can vary by something like 200mm between airframes and cockpit height by perhaps 100mm.
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.
Having seen a PC12 close up, I don't think Pilatus build their stuff in this way.
Moderator
Joined: Feb 2000
Aviation Qualifications: CPL
Posts: 14,480
Likes: 178
From: UK
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
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
Joined: Feb 2000
Posts: 759
Likes: 34
From: Rural England, thank God.
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...