Bulldog or Slingsby Firefly
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bulldog or Slingsby Firefly
Hello,
I'm going to remove the aerobatics instructor restriction from my FI rating this Summer and I would like some advice on whether to do it in a Slinsby Firefly or Bulldog. I have not flown either before. Please tell me which is your favourite and why?
Thanks
I'm going to remove the aerobatics instructor restriction from my FI rating this Summer and I would like some advice on whether to do it in a Slinsby Firefly or Bulldog. I have not flown either before. Please tell me which is your favourite and why?
Thanks
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Newcastle
Age: 52
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well it shouldnt really matter which aircraft you do it on, just know your aircraft well, each type has different handling characteristics. You could fly many types and asked to instruct aerobatics on any type. I own and instruct on a Bulldog and I prefer the the Bulldog over the slingsby. My reasons are as follows, It is faster in roll, it flies like an aircraft should and is well balanced, has a large cockpit (wide) and space with great visibility from the canopy and is ergononmically well set out and looks cool. The Slingsby is also a very nice aircraft I have owned both, I just prefer the Bulldog. The slingsby has no Fatigue Index to count or monitor which the Bulldog does, so can perform heavy use aerobatics whilst many Bulldog owners will not want their FI hammerred to often all day every day. The Slingsby usually has unlimited inverted flight which is better than the bulldog which has a limit of 15seconds (if it has the inverted system) the slingsby is slower in roll has a small tight cockpit. and I found the stick could be restricted slightly from my knees. The aircraft fly's fine there is much contoversy over spinning both but I have not personally had any issues nor surprises they both did what I was tuaght and told they would do, the best advice I can give you is fly the aircraft with someone that knows the type or exact aircraft well, listen and fly the manouvres and speeds correctly and and have lots more height than you think you might need initially. Enjoy and fly carefully. SA
"there is much contoversy over spinning both."
Which brings up a very valid point about aerobatic instruction. The recoveries for both are subtley different, and are many spin recovery techniques for different types. Know the recommended procedure for the type you fly and don't modify it. The Bulldog's was changed when in RAF service as a result of hard learned experience involving the loss of several aircraft.
Which brings up a very valid point about aerobatic instruction. The recoveries for both are subtley different, and are many spin recovery techniques for different types. Know the recommended procedure for the type you fly and don't modify it. The Bulldog's was changed when in RAF service as a result of hard learned experience involving the loss of several aircraft.
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Dundee, Scotland
Age: 61
Posts: 1,271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Never flown the Bulldog so can't comment, except to say I'd like to, but with the Firefly it depends which one. If it's the M260 then it's an outstanding aircraft with a good climb rate and high Vne (196 kts if I remember correctly) which will outperform the Bulldog in all but possibly roll rate. The M160 Firefly is rather less able and I would probably go for the Bulldog, the M200 Firefly probably about the same as the Bulldog. If it ain't an 'M' Firefly I wouldn't bother!
The Bulldog's was changed when in RAF service as a result of hard learned experience involving the loss of several aircraft.
Purely for performance reasons, I'd take the T67M260 over the Bulldog but none of the others.
Having instructed in both I'd say they are equally suited for what you want to do - as are most other aerobatic trainers!
Compared to the Bulldog the T67M200: is slightly lighter in pitch, has a slower roll rate, is better when inverted, and seems to have a faster-acting prop governor. The T67M200 is probably the best of the T67s because it has some "go" without the expense, weight and fuel consumption of the M260 (which I haven't flown); the T67A-C are hard work.
Both are spin resistant (not true of the T67A
) but will spin properly if provoked. I've done a large number of Bulldog spins but not so many in the T67 - the T67 spin recovery feels "crisper" (whatever that means!) but is not as positive as some others (Cap10, Yak52, etc). As others have said, learn and follow the procedures. Make sure that your FIC instructor demos a high-rotation spin and recovery during the course, but I would not be keen to deliberately flatten the spin in either of these types.
Overall I think the Bulldog is subjectively the "nicer" aircraft (BTW, not all Bulldogs have fatigue meters).
HFD
Compared to the Bulldog the T67M200: is slightly lighter in pitch, has a slower roll rate, is better when inverted, and seems to have a faster-acting prop governor. The T67M200 is probably the best of the T67s because it has some "go" without the expense, weight and fuel consumption of the M260 (which I haven't flown); the T67A-C are hard work.
Both are spin resistant (not true of the T67A
) but will spin properly if provoked. I've done a large number of Bulldog spins but not so many in the T67 - the T67 spin recovery feels "crisper" (whatever that means!) but is not as positive as some others (Cap10, Yak52, etc). As others have said, learn and follow the procedures. Make sure that your FIC instructor demos a high-rotation spin and recovery during the course, but I would not be keen to deliberately flatten the spin in either of these types.Overall I think the Bulldog is subjectively the "nicer" aircraft (BTW, not all Bulldogs have fatigue meters).
HFD
Last edited by hugh flung_dung; 29th Jun 2010 at 17:16.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Emirates Living - The Meadows
Age: 79
Posts: 405
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Plastic is good
BEagle oh come on!
I flew T67M260 at JEFTS and Bulldog on my UAS. Whilst never having instructed on them I instruct now and did spin/aeros solo in both.
I have flow the T67M200, T67C160 and the Chipmunk (though only with the AEF)
The Bulldog has got a bigger cockpit if you are tall or broad shouldered but bear in mind that the T67M260 comes with a high top and low top version. If you have the high top version, a slim parachute and are not wearing a helmet it is far more roomy.
They are both nice to fly but the avionics and feel of the Firefly is much better IMHO. The comments from about spin recovery problems always appear in any Firefly discussion but I think you will find that the main problem is the syllabus differences and standards either side of the pond rather than the a/c itself.
I will leave it to BEagle of CFS backgrounds to argue those points.
On a parting note the Firefly will do all of your routine at 5000' AGL without loosing any altitude if you manage the energy correctly. The Bulldog takes forever to get up there, has less endurance and cannot hold altitude anywhere near as well. The Firefly will also stay inverted far longer than you can, the Bulldog will either cut or show you some oil if you hold it there too long.
Now you have me all nostalgic over those carefree UAS days
Good luck in your choice. Tell us what you go for. VT
I flew T67M260 at JEFTS and Bulldog on my UAS. Whilst never having instructed on them I instruct now and did spin/aeros solo in both.
I have flow the T67M200, T67C160 and the Chipmunk (though only with the AEF)
The Bulldog has got a bigger cockpit if you are tall or broad shouldered but bear in mind that the T67M260 comes with a high top and low top version. If you have the high top version, a slim parachute and are not wearing a helmet it is far more roomy.
They are both nice to fly but the avionics and feel of the Firefly is much better IMHO. The comments from about spin recovery problems always appear in any Firefly discussion but I think you will find that the main problem is the syllabus differences and standards either side of the pond rather than the a/c itself.
I will leave it to BEagle of CFS backgrounds to argue those points.
On a parting note the Firefly will do all of your routine at 5000' AGL without loosing any altitude if you manage the energy correctly. The Bulldog takes forever to get up there, has less endurance and cannot hold altitude anywhere near as well. The Firefly will also stay inverted far longer than you can, the Bulldog will either cut or show you some oil if you hold it there too long.
Now you have me all nostalgic over those carefree UAS days
Good luck in your choice. Tell us what you go for. VT
Last edited by Vortex Thing; 5th Jul 2010 at 11:20.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: England
Posts: 1,006
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Do it in the most powerful one (less time spent climbing). T67 260 m then the bulldog then the RF 6 100 hp (don't even try a 160M- too slow).
Someone said the firefly doesnt spin? Its great at flicking and teaching incipient spins. I never had any issue getting one to spin or (touch wood) getting them to come out of a spin.
Why did they not make the bulldog handle like the Pup. Then it would be the best. But because they didn't beagle is right the chipmunk wins.
Someone said the firefly doesnt spin? Its great at flicking and teaching incipient spins. I never had any issue getting one to spin or (touch wood) getting them to come out of a spin.
Why did they not make the bulldog handle like the Pup. Then it would be the best. But because they didn't beagle is right the chipmunk wins.
Why did they not make the bulldog handle like the Pup.
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Dundee, Scotland
Age: 61
Posts: 1,271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hmmm, after watching a Chippy stagger around a standard level sequence recently I'd have to say that, nice handling or not, you'll have your work cut out when you're two-up and have any low- or negative- g work to do. Solo and positive g maybe, with a low fuel load, otherwise forget it. Firefly M260 wins it as a trainer; less time to height, will carry two big chaps (plus parachutes and bonedomes) and full fuel, good handling with viceless spins - most if not all Firefly spin funnies have been in the lighter-engined variants - and all the ex-JEFTS ones have full IFR kit so you can climb up through the clag to clear air, fill your aerobatic boots and back home on an ILS for tea and biccies. Marvellous machines.
DB6, ex-JEFTS instructor so not biased at all
.
DB6, ex-JEFTS instructor so not biased at all
.
The Chippy is a bit underpowered and perhaps no the best aircraft for your purposes. But it is delightful to aerobat and it's lack of power forces you to develope an energy efficient aerobatic style. You can get a lot out of it if you aren't too agressive. It has no sustained negative capability, the engine will rich cut even in a slow roll. And I won't mention the oil loss!
I like the Chippy - but with about a thousand hours in them I'm bound to be biased! I preferred it over the Bulldog and the T67. During the last days of the RAF EFTS, the instructors flew the contenders for the JEFTS contract. Two offered the Firefly, one the SAH1, one the FFA Bravo and one the Zlin 260. The general consensus was that none were going to be as good as the Chippy for the job intended, but if we had to chose it would have been the Zlin as it seemed to be the only aircraft up to the job. Personally, I thought it felt like an improved Bulldog and was nicely engineered. the T67 we tried was a 160hp version and with it's bodged second throttle restricting knee movement, it felt like a bit of a lash up. Also, the ailerons were hopelessly under-powered and I couldn't even slow roll it. I later flew the 200hp version and it was a big improvement, but still not as good as the Bulldog, but the ability to do an areos sequence without height loss was a big advantage.
But the Chippy will make you a better pilot.
I'm suprised that none of the "Standard Spin Recovery'' adherants haven't picked me up on by earlier post!
I like the Chippy - but with about a thousand hours in them I'm bound to be biased! I preferred it over the Bulldog and the T67. During the last days of the RAF EFTS, the instructors flew the contenders for the JEFTS contract. Two offered the Firefly, one the SAH1, one the FFA Bravo and one the Zlin 260. The general consensus was that none were going to be as good as the Chippy for the job intended, but if we had to chose it would have been the Zlin as it seemed to be the only aircraft up to the job. Personally, I thought it felt like an improved Bulldog and was nicely engineered. the T67 we tried was a 160hp version and with it's bodged second throttle restricting knee movement, it felt like a bit of a lash up. Also, the ailerons were hopelessly under-powered and I couldn't even slow roll it. I later flew the 200hp version and it was a big improvement, but still not as good as the Bulldog, but the ability to do an areos sequence without height loss was a big advantage.
But the Chippy will make you a better pilot.
I'm suprised that none of the "Standard Spin Recovery'' adherants haven't picked me up on by earlier post!
I'm suprised that none of the "Standard Spin Recovery'' adherants haven't picked me up on by earlier post!
Have you tried the Beggs/Müller recovery in the Bulldog?
''Have you tried the Beggs/Müller recovery in the Bulldog?''
No, although with the wink smiley, I'm not sure if this is a leading question. I only ever flew the Bulldog in the RAF and we didn't use any recovery except the one in the book. The Bulldog had a bit of history with spinning. It didn't recover like the Pup it was developed from and a few were lost to spinning accidents. A theory was that the much larger canopy on the 'dog was blanking the rudder. A new recovery was developed where the control column was moved forward faster and further than before, almost like a neagtive bunt. For this reason, I don't think the Beggs Mueller technique would be appropriate or that successful from a fully developed spin. Do you have experience of it in the Bulldog?
I've experimented with the B/M on a couple of aircraft and my impression is that it works OK, but probably with only certain types. I've seen a list of aircraft it doesn't work with which includes the Harvard, Chipmunk and Decathalon, all of which spin quite well. (It also includes the C150 which will exclude a large chunk of the training fleet!). I get the impression that it's a technique which works well on spin resistant aircaft which would probably recover if you just centralised the controls - which is the recovery for the insipient stage anyway.
But I'm sure someone will mention the Pitts S2 which will spin like a top and with which I gather the B/M is particulary effective. However, from my memory of flying one (a long time ago) it also recovers quickly.
Thanks DB6. I rarely get told that. But I do often get picked up on my spelling!
No, although with the wink smiley, I'm not sure if this is a leading question. I only ever flew the Bulldog in the RAF and we didn't use any recovery except the one in the book. The Bulldog had a bit of history with spinning. It didn't recover like the Pup it was developed from and a few were lost to spinning accidents. A theory was that the much larger canopy on the 'dog was blanking the rudder. A new recovery was developed where the control column was moved forward faster and further than before, almost like a neagtive bunt. For this reason, I don't think the Beggs Mueller technique would be appropriate or that successful from a fully developed spin. Do you have experience of it in the Bulldog?
I've experimented with the B/M on a couple of aircraft and my impression is that it works OK, but probably with only certain types. I've seen a list of aircraft it doesn't work with which includes the Harvard, Chipmunk and Decathalon, all of which spin quite well. (It also includes the C150 which will exclude a large chunk of the training fleet!). I get the impression that it's a technique which works well on spin resistant aircaft which would probably recover if you just centralised the controls - which is the recovery for the insipient stage anyway.
But I'm sure someone will mention the Pitts S2 which will spin like a top and with which I gather the B/M is particulary effective. However, from my memory of flying one (a long time ago) it also recovers quickly.
Thanks DB6. I rarely get told that. But I do often get picked up on my spelling!
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Buckinghamshire, UK
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bulldog Firefly etc
Hi all,
I own an ex military Dawg and have also done a lot of flying in Chipmunks, albeit most of which were converted to Lycoming engined versions for glider towing, I have even flown a Mk23 Crop sprayer (front seat = hopper) Unfortunately I have never had the pleasure of flying a Firefly, yet...
I considered buying a Chipmunk and ended up going for the Dawg instead, mainly due to the bottomless pit that chippie owners seemed to be pouring cash into. The FI on the Dawg that people fret about is not really a problem for a private owner, I gently aerobat on most trips up to about 3.5g and I am still achieving over 300hrs per sub unit of FI.
Spinning is not an issue in either aircraft, although I'm sure those of you who are really familiar with Chipmunks will remember having to 'push' the stick through the false forward stop?? The RAF lost pilots whilst spinning both of the types. I can remember my first spin in the Dawg, as soon as I moved the stick off the back stop the rate of rotation went ballistic, I now understand why someone who was perhaps new on type would have been reluctant to keep the stick moving forwards.
I love the Bulldog, a little known fact which is hidden in the RAF POH is that if you use 21"Hg, 1800 RPM and reduce the fuel pressure to 2psi (ish) you get a 90Kt cruise with a 4 Gph Fuel burn, bargain!!
I own an ex military Dawg and have also done a lot of flying in Chipmunks, albeit most of which were converted to Lycoming engined versions for glider towing, I have even flown a Mk23 Crop sprayer (front seat = hopper) Unfortunately I have never had the pleasure of flying a Firefly, yet...
I considered buying a Chipmunk and ended up going for the Dawg instead, mainly due to the bottomless pit that chippie owners seemed to be pouring cash into. The FI on the Dawg that people fret about is not really a problem for a private owner, I gently aerobat on most trips up to about 3.5g and I am still achieving over 300hrs per sub unit of FI.
Spinning is not an issue in either aircraft, although I'm sure those of you who are really familiar with Chipmunks will remember having to 'push' the stick through the false forward stop?? The RAF lost pilots whilst spinning both of the types. I can remember my first spin in the Dawg, as soon as I moved the stick off the back stop the rate of rotation went ballistic, I now understand why someone who was perhaps new on type would have been reluctant to keep the stick moving forwards.
I love the Bulldog, a little known fact which is hidden in the RAF POH is that if you use 21"Hg, 1800 RPM and reduce the fuel pressure to 2psi (ish) you get a 90Kt cruise with a 4 Gph Fuel burn, bargain!!
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 47
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A web-app for calculating your Bulldog Fatigue Index
If your Bulldog is under the fatigue-monitoring regime, this web-app will be of interest:
flylogical: Announcing iBulldog
...basically, it enables you to calculate current FI given previous value and recent meter readings.
Pass this on to fellow Bulldog owners/operators if you find it useful
flylogical: Announcing iBulldog
...basically, it enables you to calculate current FI given previous value and recent meter readings.
Pass this on to fellow Bulldog owners/operators if you find it useful
The T67's was also changed for very similar reasons, but rather more quickly. ISTR that the BOI for the Abingdon accident discovered that Boscombe knew about the Bulldog's 'delayed recovery' problems at a very early stage but chose not to reveal the fact. Corporate liability does tend to concentrate the mind!
Purely for performance reasons, I'd take the T67M260 over the Bulldog but none of the others.
Purely for performance reasons, I'd take the T67M260 over the Bulldog but none of the others.
My recollection was that we had cabinets full of information on it; whenever I tried to expand anything in the POH this got stamped on by RAF Handling Squadron (also at BDN, but not part of the flight test organisation, just co-located) who insisted that it be kept as simple as possible for the students. CFS, who wrote the instructors manual certainly had full access to all our reports as did RAF HS.
Looking at the accident histories of both (and having spun both), I'd be happier routinely spinning a Bulldog. However, I'd not spin either without a good safety margin and a chute + briefed and adhered to mandatory abandonment height.
Damnit, I just like the Bulldog better, but that may just be UAS nostalgia.
All the Bulldog and Chipmunk flight test reports from BDN should be accessible via national archives if anybody wants them.
G
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Here and there
Posts: 534
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would recommend you complete the course on something which is similar to the type upon which you will eventually teach. That said, the Chipmunk is an excellent aircraft for conducting the FI Aeros course in.