Tucano for Private Use?

Possel,

yes of course you are quite right in pointing out that my ‘handle’ is relevant here. But as you see it is not a secret and I do not chose to hide it.

Interesting that the Tucano met spec as you describe, and for some reason had lost some performance when the final production version was produced.

I daresay you could give me some very good stories and useful information about the time you spent testing it…………………..

Pilatus (significant name…!)

The RAF Tucano was certainly flown at a sustained 270kts in level flight as that was the contract spec and we would not have accepted it otherwise. I expect that they reduced this for the RAF aircraft when they later increased the MTOW. Also, I am quite sure that the export tests were similarly in level flight.

I’m not saying it would have been enjoyable – 240kts at 1000ft down the Trent Valley made me sick…

tested up to 310 kts

Tested, yes, but not capable of sustaining this in level flight, I dont think, which is what we are talking about here.

The Tucano gives up at about 255 KIAS at sea level.

If it could achieve 270 KIAS at sea level in level flight during the trials flying (which I can believe), then I assume it was lighter or something.

It would have been at the design weight (at that time, 2900 kg, ISTR) as it was a contractual requirement, and it was my job to make sure that it met the letter of the specification.

I don’t remember the changes, but the export Tucanos were tested up to 310 kts. The loss of ZH203 occurred when being tested at 290kt due to flutter caused by the stores on the wings. (Now there’s another story…)

Does anyone have any update info on any of the aircraft that have been sold? – apparently quite a few went to the states, one went to Wales and there was one that I saw a couple of months ago in pieces outside of Transair here in Shoreham.

I was just wondering if any had actually made it in to the air in civilian hands.

The one you saw outside Transair also went to the USA. Not sure if it was sold on, or will be coming back to fly. Time will tell.

rgds
b_d

255KIAS in level flight sounds about right from what I remember.:)

The Tucano gives up at about 255 KIAS at sea level.

If it could achieve 270 KIAS at sea level in level flight during the trials flying (which I can believe), then I assume it was lighter or something.

I can assure PilatusTP that the speed of 270 kt was certainly achieved by the Shorts and Boscombe Down TPs on the Tucano’s trials flying. I have no idea if they ever did in service.

Regularly I suspect. On just about every run-in and break (although technically with Linton at 50′ AMSL, then this would be 300′ AMSL)!:D

As a matter of interest, 10 Tucanos are being moved from Shawbury to Phoenix. Four have gone by container and the other six will be flown.

I can assure PilatusTP that the speed of 270 kt was certainly achieved by the Shorts and Boscombe Down TPs on the Tucano’s trials flying. I have no idea if they ever did in service.

It may be a delight to fly,

I was really surprised by this comment. I have never met anyone who flew the Tucano who would say this.

Hopefully the Pilatus TP’s are more reliable than the tincanos are.

I can assure you they are, significantly so.

and a top speed of 270kt at sea level,

Unfortunately this was never achieved.

You would also need tolerant neighbours,on the ground (Taxying/Ground Running) Tincanos make an awful noise !! If you operated (say) a PC9 then your neighbours would not even know you were running,but a Tincan with the prop in ground range ****!!!! :rolleyes:

cheers baz

Tucano

Hows your right foot? you`ll need a big one on takeoff!

Galdri… that was put in merely to wind up Rikki the webbie who is Icelandic and is taking some flak from us on this.

But it is good natured – we are all in the poo at the moment.
I hold no brief for some of Mr Brown’s actions, I didn’t vote for him – honest..

Moggy

How true:eek:

Extend my regards to the webbie. At least he gets paid in foreign currency, not worthless Icelandic Krona. He is a rich man compared to many of us:D

Seeing as this thread has been resurrected. I will add my tuppence worth.

I was in the Tucano MOD(PE) project office at the time of the first delivery (June 1988) until Jan 1991, by when I think we had about 65 in service.

The Tucano requirement was for an aircraft that could climb to 15,000 ft in 6 minutes (giving more productive flying per hour) and a top speed of 270kt at sea level, which was why the TPE-331-12B was fitted. The old JP took 15 minutes to the same height, and was a bit faster once it got going!

I would dispute that the RAF mandated mods cause it to be a maintenance nightmare, but rather that they mean that most spares are only available from Bombardier not Embraer. As was stated in an earlier post, the Shorts Tucano is a very different beast from the Embraer one.

I agree with another earlier comment about the non-flyable aircraft sold off – they will be hugely expensive to restore as (naturally) they were all missing the same hard to get and/or expensive bits. However, the 15 flyers (sold as one batch?) would be more straightforward. These are being sold because they just have too many aircraft, as so few (2?) have been lost in service!

Further to the comment last year about an aircraft damaged on the production line: this was the 42nd aircraft (T42) which was to be ZF242 as I recall, but as it was never painted as such, we insisted that T43 became ZF242 and they had to build another one (which I presume they did!) to make the 130 aircraft total. T42 was fairly extensively damaged by shrapnel and blast, caused by a bomb beside the final assembly hangar, and I think the aircraft was used as a training aid. It might have been repairable had it been ours anyway, but why buy a new repaired aircraft? Would the CAA give a permit for an ex-military aircraft which was never flown or delivered? Think not.

Rumour has it they are a maintenance nightmare due, in part, to the myriad of mods insisted on by the MOD before the original order was placed.

In this day and age there are far better options available for fast personal transport.

If you buy one, make certain you have several times the purchase price on deposit (But not in Iceland) to keep the thing in the air.

Moggy

It is no rumour !! they can be a nightmare to look after (mostly engine/prop problems).
Might be better off with something PT6 engined !!
Personally i dont believe that TP trainers are (overall) much cheaper to operate than a little pure jet would be,taking into account the extra maintenance on a military TP (and all the snags one can get with a tuc !!).
Hopefully the Pilatus TP’s are more reliable than the tincanos are.

cheers baz

It is at the top, (well directly under the four ‘stickies’ ) on my screen.

Anybody else?

Rob P

Moggy

My fault, was looking in the wrong Forum after too much Red Wine last night!

Mark

Galdri… that was put in merely to wind up Rikki the webbie who is Icelandic and is taking some flak from us on this.

But it is good natured – we are all in the poo at the moment.

I hold no brief for some of Mr Brown’s actions, I didn’t vote for him – honest..

Moggy

(But not in Iceland) Moggy

Hahahahaha, Very, very funny. By the looks of it, your own (british) banking system is/was headed the same way judging by Mr. Browns latest action.

Mr. Brown single handely made the crises a lot worse than it had to be by his wote winning intervention,to useing terrorist laws to freeze Icelandic assets in the UK. So now the Icelandic nation is a terrorist state by his (and your?) deffinition. My rant is probably more suited for GD, so I´ll leave it at this.

It is at the top, (well directly under the four ‘stickies’ ) on my screen.

Anybody else?

Rob P