Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
User avatar
By Rob P
#1718780
Well, the good news is that we did win Euromillions last night.

Rob P
By TLRippon
#1718784
Why would a 30 year old aircraft costing just over a million new and thrashed around by RAF student pilots, be worth millions now. I would expect them to sell in the low hundreds of thousands with running costs similar to a Civvy turboprop.
User avatar
By Lockhaven
#1718805
Rob P wrote:They are advertised in the US for around $1 million with c 2-3,000 hours.

I'd expect as more are retired that price to fall.

Rob P

https://www.controller.com/listings/air ... tucano-mk1


Also a couple listed on this website, however be careful opening the link you may not be able resist spending on some of their other items for sale. :wink:

https://www.platinumfighters.com/warbirds
User avatar
By Rob P
#1718806
OK,, a million for the Shorts or 350k for an A26...

:scratch:

Rob P
By chevvron
#1718845
Kremen wrote:I understand that each one was almost unique with differing CofGs and limited commonality of parts … sounds like a money pit to me.

According to Pprune, they were built in batches by Shorts with each batch differing from the previous one (don't forget they originally had a P & W PT6 engine and Embraer had to re-design them to accept the Garrett TPE 331) so a spare part canniblised from a different batch or an Embraer built example wouldn't necessarily be suitable.
There was also some problem with the paintwork when they were delivered with ailerons having to be stripped and re-painted due to 'flutter'.
A quote from an engineer at Boscombe Down said 'they were the best aircraft he had worked on - for overtime'. :wink:
User avatar
By gaznav
#1718879
I much preferred the JP5 to the Tincan. Also, the build quality was poor with airframes of different length and strange hammer marks in places to ‘make things fit’. In the early days there was at least one where the ejection seat wouldn’t come out on servicing.

As others have said - there were 2 political wins for the Government of the time, one on the island of Ireland and the other in South America. So I guess for some, it was no brainer.
By Dominie
#1718911
VictoryRoll wrote:I’ve heard that when they were delivered they were parked at the far side of the airfield for a few weeks in case something was left ticking inside one :shock:

Yes, that was a requirement by a certain cautious officer at HQRAFSC
rogerb wrote:Anything in the rumour that they were disassembled, checked and reassembled upon delivery from Shorts?

No, although that was a statement made by some RAF personnel to a magazine (Flypast, I think). The RAF policy was to do a thorough acceptance check and make adjustments to restore them to the book figures. In one case they changed the minimum fuel flow setting which caused an issue in flight: when they throttled back the airflow then drove the propellor, causing high drag. What the RAF didn't appreciate was that some bright spark was saving money by not publishing submitted amendments to air publications which would then have shown a higher correct figure!

chevvron wrote:
Kremen wrote:I understand that each one was almost unique with differing CofGs and limited commonality of parts...

According to Pprune, they were built in batches by Shorts with each batch differing from the previous one (don't forget they originally had a P & W PT6 engine and Embraer had to re-design them to accept the Garrett TPE 331) so a spare part canniblised from a different batch or an Embraer built example wouldn't necessarily be suitable.

They weren't really built in batches although any new modifications were usually incorporated on build at stages like aircraft 41, aircraft 51 etc, which could be seen as the same thing. Modifications whch affected spares had mod kits for retrofit to earlier aircraft, but I bet most of those were never done. Commonality was usually more of a quality problem caused by using freshly trained lads off the Belfast streets.

pprune has someone who said that some mainplanes differed in wingspan. I can't really understand that as I saw the jigs they were built in.

NB BAe also had a commonality problem with the Harrier GR5 - e.g. although mainplanes were interchangeable, the panels around the wing attachments were not and needed fettling, and the tailplane attachments were drilled in situ.