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: