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