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.

If I remember correctly, the PC7 is 750shp and the PC9 is 1150shp - sound right? Can you actually purchase the PC9 as a civilian aircraft? That would be fun.

Ginger ;)

I'd argue that power is a fairly small part of the equation defining the quality of a military training aeroplane.

G

PC7s are varied - depends on the model of PT6 up front......I think they start at 550shp.

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.....

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.

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. :ok:

Thanks flyingfemme, good range indeed.

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.

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

With a nose to tail warranty included hopefully. Sounds like it could be needed.:hmm:

I'd be interested if it was.







.... and if I had $1 million. :(

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

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.

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!!

Interesting - it was built under licence in the UK wasn't it? I have this image now of men in brown coats measuring the sample airframe with tape measures before getting busy with the tinsnips on aluminium sheet:)

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..

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

Are these figures right? That is utterly unbelievable. My 13 year old who builds model planes, without drawings, would have got the airframe lengths within a few mm. A 200mm variation on an airframe which is GA-sized points to an astonishing Fawlty Towers operation.

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.

I am not suprised. Why did the RAF accept this kind of garbage, for risking servicemens' lives?

Having seen a PC12 close up, I don't think Pilatus build their stuff in this way.

Politics. It was to keep the Short's factory in Belfast open as I recall.

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

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... :hmm:

That's my piece. I spoke with the owner and his wife. They said they went through the entire airframe and rebuilt/replaced anything that was suspect. They were/are aware of the beating the airframes absorbed as trainers and are also aware of the litigious environment in the US.

I saw an ex-RAF Tucano at Reno. I have a picture somewhere, it looked in great condition. But for me I would prefer an SF.260, a lot cheaper, lot less hassle and just as fun.

I would say that a SF260 doesn't come anywhere near a Tuc for fun. I've flown both, they're both great aircraft but very different in performance.


The Tucano was built at a new facility by mostly ex Harland nad Wolf shipworkers. The first ten airframes were good as they were put together from kits supplied by Embraer. After that, the airframes showed signs of being built to shipbuiling standards - some of the things we found were horrifying and it took the engineering facility at Scampton a long time to put each one right as it came out of the factory.

The later ones were much much better. But one thing that did amuse me was that when they were delivered, they were parked on a remote part of the airfield and left for a month in case the Irish Cathololic workforce at Shorts had built a bomb into the airframe!

Presumably the Irish were not capable of building an electronic timer which would run for more than a month. This is the 1970s, I believe.....

Evidently, there were really smart people involved, all around this project :yuk:

KiloDeltaYankee, you're absolutley correct. Here's a photo from another web-site of ZF200 now registered in the US as N822RS:

Please resize to 1024 x 768 or less. Thanks.

I think Genghis is correct .... if you want an aeroplane in this class then get a PC-7.

Unless I am much mistaken, and not really mentioned on this thread so far...

Operating an ex-RAF Tucano in the UK would be best compared to operating it's predecessor, the JP :ooh: CAP632 gives the info you need. Fuel burn will clearly be far less, but if getting it approved via CAP632, and then maintaining it, are anything like as alluded to above, then the JP costs would be cheaper overall :{

Anyone considering it needs to look primarily at a supporting engineering organisation, and what it would take to get it on a Permit. If those proved satisfactory, it would be a great machine. Until then, JPs are cheap to buy, maintenance is not cheap, but likely far cheaper than a Tincan, and they are faster (and noisier) :eek:

NoD

I suspect, given the UK knowledge of the (RAF) Tucano, the publications available, and the numbers that will (eventually) be sold off, the Tucano might be better... :ok: As before, see CAP632

I hate to claim I know more, especially in this esteemed company, but...

I worked at one point in the Tucano project office, and later on managed (and flew on board) quite a lot of the later Tucano flight testing.

Later on again, I was on the committee that wrote CAP632.

And I'd still buy a PC7 if I had that sort of money and a desire for such an aeroplane.

G

However, the PC7 is certified isn't it?

One of many reasons for my posts above. The aircraft can be flown for remunerated flying training, at night, in IMC, and over built-up areas; none of these are possible (in the UK) in a PtF ex-military aircraft under the procedures outlined in CAP 632. I'd also not at-all relish the work of putting together an airworthiness management plan for it acceptable to the CAA, when with a PC7 operating under an EASA CofA I can just take standard material off the shelf.

G

I'm an ex-RAF pilot who knows plenty of people who had to try to keep these badly built heaps in one piece. I wouldn't fly one if it was given to me.

One simple example: my father in law (who had the misfortune to work int he structures bay at Linton on Ouse) was repairing main spars on aircraft that had done just 400 hours. He was an aircraft engineer for 40 years+ and said it was the most appallingly badly assembled aeroplane he'd ever seen. Enough said for me!

I don't know about 200mm, but my father in law did find one with a significant difference in length between the left wing and the right. Not surprisingly, they never could get that one rigged properly for straight and level flight!

I recall one brand new "hangar queen" Tincano at Scampton. I was told that the ejection seats had been removed for servicing and then they wouldn't fit back in because there was something very wrong with the alignment of the bulkhead in the airframe.

Careful about all this negative stuff with the Tucano . . .wouldn't want to drive down the tender/auction values would we? :ok:

It's a pity, innit, because the Tuc, especially with the black paint scheme, absolutely looks the mutts nuts!

All style and no substance.

well it wouldn't be a brasilan if it couldn't be arsed to do the job properly

I think Embraer built a pretty good aeroplane, it was us Brits and Shorts of Belfast that made it a crap one!

Ysw, I apologise. My point was incorrect.

Except that the Shorts version has more than a third more power and a lot more performance. The French flew the RAF Tucs and told their Government that's what they wanted to replace the Fouga Magister. The French Government looked a the cost of the Shorts compared with the Embraer and chose the latter. So the Armee De La Air ended up with an intermeditate trainer which would do 180 knots at low level which followed on from their basic trainer, the Epsilon which did, er.... 180 knots at low level!

I've flown a French Embraer Tuc and it's gutless compared with the Shorts. they're different animals.

Actually, if you think about it - it did both.

A real 'win - win' (ha)

Arc