What is a Slingsby like to fly?

[Cricket23]

Hi all,

I'd be grateful if anyone could point me to any reviews, or indeed pass on their experiences regarding the Slingsby.

Pros and Cons would be good, any vices?

Thanks in advance.

C23

[Genghis the Engineer]

Which Slingsby?

G

[DB6]

Indeed, which? T67A is very different to T67M-260. Both have low wings, stick and good vis but a bit different thereafter. Or do you mean the Slingsby T66? That's even more different :} (Tipsy Nipper). All are aerobatic though :ok: :ok: :ok: .

[Cricket23]

...sorry, should have added it's aT67M.

Didn't realise they were all so very different.

[Genghis the Engineer]

For that matter, there are still a few old Slingsby gliders out there.


Slingsby T67M260, from my slightly distant recollection flying the company demonstrator with their chief test pilot.

- Cockpit layout, conventional with good clear instrument layout, predictably placed central stick. Visibility in most directions superb.

- Take-off, conventional and rapid, a little care needed not to over-rotate, lots of rudder needed.

- Climb, trims easily in pitch, climb performance very impressive, annoying requirement to maintain large and continuous rudder input at climb power since the aeroplane I flew had no yaw trimmer. I suspect that later aeroplanes may have one, they certainly need it.

- Use of power - simplified single lever "jetlike" operation, fantastic, a great improvement upon the faffing that goes with most piston engines.

- Manoevring, light and crisp - will test your finesse, but once cracked, a really gorgeous aeroplane to manoeuvre.

- Stalling, (memory may be inaccurate here, as sadly I don't seem to have kept my notes), moderate pre-stall buffet, moderately nose-up attitude, not a particularly high stickforce, a disturbing reduction in back-stick-force immediately prior to stall, firm pitch break, slight tendency to drop a wing.

- Spin, crisp, not particularly oscillatory, 3ish seconds per turn, rapid response to conventional recovery controls.

- Approach, trims well to approach speeds, only small trim changes (again, my memory may be hazy) due to flap selection.

- Landing, bit of a tendency to float unless you get the approach and landing speeds spot-on, but can land in quite a nicely short patch of runway if you get it right.


Overall, I thought it was a lovely aeroplane and that everybody should have one - certainly the M260 was a huge improvement upon the underpowered and too-light (in pitch) A model. But the lightening of the stick force approaching the stall disturbed me and I can't help suspect that's related to the number of aeroplanes that have been lost in spins, even though Slingsby seem convinced when I asked them that it wasn't important and that the USAF losses were primarily down to instructors unused to piston-prop aeroplanes (this latter certainly being true).

G

[Dannyboyblue]

Could not have flown a nicer aircraft.

I had 1 flight in a T67M but ive got 30 odd hours in the C, Fantastic visability, very responsive and great panel layout.

Watch out for stalls and spins. If you buy one get a good 2 hours spin recovery training with an instructor who flys one all the time.

Oh and remember that the c does not have an inverted fuel pump. Found that one out (as did my instructor) at 4000' over the isle or wight the wrong way up!!!!!:{

dbb

[DB6]

Aha. Ok, 160, 200 or 260? The 260 is a brilliant aircraft, will get to 10,000 ft in 10 minutes and has a Vne of nearly 200 kts. Yahoo! The 160 is good as well and is an excellent progression from the Katana, handles fairly similarly in many ways but more torque so more rudder needed, plus rolls quicker (although still slowly compared with e.g. Pittses). All are +6/-3g limited and have inverted fuel and oil systems. You can't inverted spin or tailslide them but can do everything else. You will hear horror stories about not coming out of spins but in my experience they always recover immediately on application of the correct inputs (even after 23 turns :eek: ) but not if you just let go. Great aircraft, don't stay straight and level.

[shortstripper]

For that matter, there are still a few old Slingsby gliders out there.

Yep! .... A new T31m will soon be flying as well. Engine runs planned this week, cowlings to make, then just the final inspection and paper trail :ugh:

SS :ok:

http://www.ivan.pfanet.co.uk

[AerBabe]

Slingsby make fork lift trucks too. They're not that great to fly. :)

[18greens]

Its a lovely plane to fly. Its an eye opening step up from the C152 and warriors of the world. Good visibility, lovely responsive stick and useful if you like seeing the world from upsidedown.

It spins jolly well. It has no need for a stall warner since it shakes so much near the stall.

The only vice it has is the canopy. Its a bit wobbly and fragile when its open and if you start it with the canopy closed but unlocked it will fly off. Its a bit like landing with the undercarriage up. Everyone has either done it or is about to do it.

Make sure you get one with at least 160 hp.There are plenty of schools with them, go and have a go. PM me if you want to know where they are.

[Tony Le Mesmer]

Did my first solo in a T67M2. Fantastic aeroplane to fly, very good basic trainer and fun in every phase of flight.

[Cricket23]

Thanks all, as usual a good response from PPRUNE.

Funnily enough DB6, I will be stepping up from a Katana, so it's good to know, and yes I've heard some horror stories about spinning. To be honest, it worries me as I've never done any - you aren't allowed to intentionally spin a Katana in the UK.

So, I'll have to take myself off and get some specifc stall/spin training as has been mentioned.

18greens - thanks, I may well be in touch.

Regards,

C23

PS - Good reply Aerbabe!

[egbt]

and yes I've heard some horror stories about spinning See AIAB report on the loss of G-FORS (http://www.aaib.gov.uk/publications/bulletins/march_2006/slingsby_t67c_firefly__g_fors.cfm) which includes a discusion on spinning following more tests.

A very nice a/c to fly, I had about 25 hours in G-FORS (T67c), a very nice 2 seat tourer also but I did no aeros in her.

[DB6]

Cricket23, I am all-seeing, all-knowing (or I looked at your profile :} ).
Spinning can be terrifying at first, but stick with it and you will soon master it. After that it's great fun and a great way to lose height at the end of a sortie (but not all of it!).

[Cricket23]

Thanks DB6, I'd forgotten about the bit in the profile! Doh!:O

[Send Clowns]

Genghis is right about the spin - responds well to the correct, conventional recovery action. However it can respond poorly to bad recovery action. For example spinning a Cessna 152 (I suspect the first aircraft most people spin) it doesn't matter if you just release the controls. It does in a Firefly, as it can develop into a high-rotational spin, flatter and spinning faster. This still respondes to conventional recovery action, but not as quickly.

When you do spin it (and you should, with an instructor for the first few of course) don't be surprised if the stick is almost fully forward when it recovers. If you want a safety pilot for the spinning I'll do it - my instructor rating is lapsed so I can't even charge, but I love the Firefly!

If it's a 260hp then don't be caught out on the take-off roll! It accelerates quickly, and I only ever had chance to rattle off the checks rather smartly before rotating.

(they also make wheeled hand carts for pushing stuff round in. Probably only fly if pushed from a tall building, and then only briefly!)

[Tarq57]

I've got about 2hr in the T31b. Want to know what that goes like?

[ProfChrisReed]

I think you should do your spin training in a Slingsby T21 (side by side, open cockpit, wood and fabric glider). The easiest way to confirm the direction of the spin is that it's opposite to the direction in which your sunglasses departed.

[chevvron]

Many flights in T21b (Sedburgh) and T31 Mk3, plus Prefect. Also did two trips in the development T53 and it was HORRIBLE!

[Footless Halls]

I did my first solo in a beautiful Red and Silver T31, on a beautiful summer's day in 1974, at RAF Spitalgate, with the wind in my hair and the wires singing in the (fairly gentle) wind, so for me Fred Slingsby's T31 can do NO WRONG.

[Speed Twelve]

Cricket23

Go for it, it's a great, fun aeroplane. I'll pretty much reinforce what others have said. The M160 is a useful performance increase over the average flying club fodder, and in my opinion is nicer for aerobatics than the M260. It is considerably lighter in pitch when loaded up with 'g'.

All the 'M's have inverted systems without limitation (other than a 10 sec zero 'g' limit) and will stay upside-down until you run out of fuel.

The M260 'feels' like it has more than 100 hp up on the 160 and is a real hot rod. It accelerates on a hard runway like a TVR, and as DB6 mentioned, will very quickly get you to FL nosebleed (for a piston trainer).

None of the M Fireflys have a sparkling roll rate, but are capable of some pretty sporty aeros. Go to an airshow this year and try and catch DEFTS' Alan Wade displaying the M260. It's absolutely eye-watering to watch.

[Send Clowns]

Yes, it's great. I sat through it. In the cockpit with him :E He helped brush up my aeros when I did JEFTS, then showed me some of his work, which I can tell you is more eye-watering from next to him than on the ground!

[Pronto]

I can't help with information on the T67M - all of my T67 time was on a B model. That also had very nice handling. However, the one minus side was that the seats were a simple metal tray with a thin foam cushion. After an hour or so, it could become a little uncomfortable!

Despite that, I have very fond memories of the T67 and would love to fly one again.

P

[Miserlou]

This is the briefing I got before flying the T-67a.

"It's a very nice aircraft and you WILL like it!"

Turned out to be entirely correct.

Have also flown the -200M which is also great but heavier in the nose. So, the nicest handling is the 'a' but the performance of the 'M' is much better.

Apparently, the 'c' is the best compromise.

[A and C]

I had a very brief flight in thr 200M and was not altogether impressed by the roll rate.......................Any comments from the floor ?

[Rotorbiggles]

10 hours in the 67m.. one of the best aircraft I have flown, was just starting to enjoy it when someone bent it taxying... now i have to fly the spam cans again..

Starting takes a bit of practice (need three hands and if you even look at the throttle when starting from hot it overprimes) but once it is going it is a joy. Just remember to bang the canopy with your fist as part of the pre take off checks (see earlier post for why). The M that I flew needed very little rudder with power (or for that matter in turns).

Roll rate a tad slow and sensitive in pitch (go easy with the trim wheel), but all in all a great fun aircraft.. go fly or even better go buy...

[Cricket23]

Thanks to all for the helpful replies - I haven't been on PPRUNE much lately as I've been preparing for my GFT, which I'm glad to say that I passed yesterday.

Anyway, the Slingsby sounds like a nice aeroplane to fly, and I'll certainly be looking to fly one soonish.

Cheers all.

C23

[18greens]

Well done. Welcome to the fraternity of pilots. You are now a pilot and no-one can ever take that away from you. What an adventure you have ahead of you.
Where did you do the gft?

[Cricket23]

Thanks for the feedback 18greens - yep I'm still smiling. I've finally fulfilled a lifelong ambition, and if I never fly again (which of course is unlikely!) - at least I've done it.

I did my GFT at Redhill (Nav Redhill - Southend - Lydd), although of course we diverted partway into the 2nd leg.

Cheers,

C23

[Woodenwonder]

Loved the RF 6B, enjoyed the T67A, haven't flown the unexciting, heavy 67B (all that grp instead of God's fatique free material - wood.

Hope soon to try the 67M MkII (does this have a power lever like the 260M?).

But am concerned that quite a number of the 67C models have been the subject of spinning accident reports, and I well remember an early one with the 260M where the Instructor could not make a recovery after the student had cocked up, and they threw the aircraft away, as this was service flight with parachutes.

None too confidence building. I gave my students spinning in Airtourer (which is a spiral diver after a couple of rotations anyway), and the delightful Pup, which always behaved impeccably, and made the thought of needing a parachute laughable. But not so the Slingby .....

[BEagle]

Flew the T67A. Underpowered, poor roll rate for a semi-aerobatic aeroplane and most of the time during aeros you have to watch the engine RPM like a hawk. Very restricted 2 PoB aerobatic weight.

Nice to potter about in though - but a very small fuel capacity.

I gather later models have more power and a better aerobatic weight - but still the glacial rate of roll unless abused by 'flicking'. Some have a CSU, which makes aeros less hassle...

The Bulldog is a far better aeroplane all round.

[Speed Twelve]

The Mk2 Firefly has a proper throttle lever for the LHS and a plunger-type for the other seat i.e. awkward for a short-@rse like me who spends his day at work in that chair stretching for the throttle.

The Firefly will sit all day in a stable spin and will do so all the way to the ground unless the correct recovery is used. The JEFTS Firefly abandonment accident report is in the public domain and involved the stude mishandling a spin recovery inducing a high-rotational spin followed by an unsuccessful delayed recovery.

[Cricket23]

Just to keep folk updated, indeed if people are interested. The reason that I posted the original question is that I've been asked to join a group forming on a Slingsby. It now appears that a T67M (160hp) has been identified and I've said yes, subject to flying the thing, but from what I've heard I think that I will enjoy it.

C23

[18greens]

T67M 160 is a good machine. Its the one I fly. Very good at basic aerobatics.

I would like to know the costs of the group if you have them. Capital and monthly , hourly costs. I may know some people who are interested in the group.

Finally enjoy it, so much nicer than a 152!!!!

[Cricket23]

Sent you a pm 18greens