Thought you might like this Tiger Moth review...
SSD I will second Shortstripper. Of the around 70 different light airplanes I have flown I am quite confident in saying it is the worst handling aircraft of the lot.
I think that for everybody who dares speak the truth, that the Tiger Moth flying qualities are terrible, it has marginal performance for the amount of power it has, is horribly uncomfortable to sit in, and has an engine that barely passes muster when used as a boat anchor; there are 10 who have drunk the coolaid and think it is wonderful.
So sorry for providing a little balance......
It is hard to believe that the same company that produced such a Shyte handling machine could go on and design and build the Chippy, one of the nicest flying light aircraft ever built.....Oh wait it wasn't you Brits that designed the Chippy it was a Canadian.....
I think that for everybody who dares speak the truth, that the Tiger Moth flying qualities are terrible, it has marginal performance for the amount of power it has, is horribly uncomfortable to sit in, and has an engine that barely passes muster when used as a boat anchor; there are 10 who have drunk the coolaid and think it is wonderful.
So sorry for providing a little balance......
It is hard to believe that the same company that produced such a Shyte handling machine could go on and design and build the Chippy, one of the nicest flying light aircraft ever built.....Oh wait it wasn't you Brits that designed the Chippy it was a Canadian.....
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 3,325
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I thought it was a Pole.
Designed by a Pole at dH Canada (hence the designation dHC 1) but mostly built in UK.
I'd often wondered about the Stampe SV4.
Anybody had experience with that aircraft?
Anybody had experience with that aircraft?
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Utterly insignificant little blue-green planet, unregarded yellow sun, unfashionable end, western spiral arm, Milky Way
Age: 38
Posts: 276
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have around 150 hours in the Tiger Moth now, and will say this: It is huge fun to fly! Taking it to airshows around Norway, navigating by P8 compass and a chart on your thigh (with just enough room underneath the panel to flip it over once you'd better fold it correctly before you strap in) while enjoying the experience of flying a vintage biplane is fantastic.
The handling is not very harmonious to say the least, but that is what made it such a great training aircraft. To fly it is one thing, to fly it well is another. The somewhat overly powerful rudder, for example, gives one the opportunity to arrive nearly inside the airfield fence on downwind and perform outrageous side slips to get down. The undercarriage is actually very good, in that it is well damped but not stiffly sprung, leading to easy wheel landings and soft three-pointers, compared to the Cub, which bounces like mad.
There is immense satisfaction in being able to aerobat a Moth without making a fool of oneself, and the same satisfaction is found in learning to land it at the spot you're aiming at with a glide from keypoint and in. The ailerons are mostly adverse yaw-generators, as has been pointed out. A pair of ailerons on the upper wing as well would have done wonders. So, handling-wise, not the best, but it is still one of my favourite aircraft to fly.
The handling is not very harmonious to say the least, but that is what made it such a great training aircraft. To fly it is one thing, to fly it well is another. The somewhat overly powerful rudder, for example, gives one the opportunity to arrive nearly inside the airfield fence on downwind and perform outrageous side slips to get down. The undercarriage is actually very good, in that it is well damped but not stiffly sprung, leading to easy wheel landings and soft three-pointers, compared to the Cub, which bounces like mad.
There is immense satisfaction in being able to aerobat a Moth without making a fool of oneself, and the same satisfaction is found in learning to land it at the spot you're aiming at with a glide from keypoint and in. The ailerons are mostly adverse yaw-generators, as has been pointed out. A pair of ailerons on the upper wing as well would have done wonders. So, handling-wise, not the best, but it is still one of my favourite aircraft to fly.
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Do I come here often?
Posts: 898
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I did my PPL on the tiger in 1979. I had no idea how bad it really was until I flew a Stampe. But then for real Aaahh De havilland moments its mighty hard to beat the Gypsy Moth. Less adverse yaw, more comfortable and easier to land.
Still if money was no object then I would love to own a Hornet.
SND
Still if money was no object then I would love to own a Hornet.
SND
There's a Leopard about to be packed up at Murwillumbah in northern NSW
to go a man in England. Beautiful fuse rebuild. Wings not so.
This is her at Cunnamulla in 1937 -
ALL DH devotees know that it is spelt GIPSY
(a good one to have a bet on sometimes)
to go a man in England. Beautiful fuse rebuild. Wings not so.
This is her at Cunnamulla in 1937 -
ALL DH devotees know that it is spelt GIPSY
(a good one to have a bet on sometimes)
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Utterly insignificant little blue-green planet, unregarded yellow sun, unfashionable end, western spiral arm, Milky Way
Age: 38
Posts: 276
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is a dH.60 being rebulit by some friends of mine. Eager to get my hands on that one for comparison.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Oop North, UK
Posts: 3,076
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have flown many DH Moth types, I like the Tiger but it is certainly not my number one. The problem with the Tiger is it was not so much designed as a dH60 modified to get it to what it was - the RAF wanted the front cockpit clear so the instructor could more easily get out with a parachute in an emergency, so they moved the wings forward for this then swept them back to keep the CoP in the right place (at the same time inverting the engine for better forward view), they then found the wingtips hit the ground taxiing so they shortened the interplane struts. Almost all the other Moths handle better including the 60, personally I am not a great fan of the Hornet, but the Leopard, and of course Foxmoth are both very nice to fly. 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,416
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Those of us of a certain age can remember the Thruxton Jackaroo; for me the aircraft in which I had my first powered flight, not counting trips as a passenger in the Herons of Jersey Airways and an Aer Lingus Viscount.
I have nothing but fond memories of it. It prepared me well for later training up to and beyond a PPL in Austers, although the Jackaroo was more forgiving in a landing.
I have nothing but fond memories of it. It prepared me well for later training up to and beyond a PPL in Austers, although the Jackaroo was more forgiving in a landing.
I've only had a couple of flights in a Tiger, once in Oz and once at Sandown (G-ANEZ), but I agree with SSD about its poor coordination, particularly in comparison to the Chipmunk.
However, it's a biplane and open cockpit, which offsets a lot of the handling deficiencies.
Two things I vividly remember from the Sandown flight, where I flew the whole flight, are the way it seemed to levitate skyward after takeoff and the graphic demonstration of form drag when I closed the throttle without lowering the nose.
However, it's a biplane and open cockpit, which offsets a lot of the handling deficiencies.
Two things I vividly remember from the Sandown flight, where I flew the whole flight, are the way it seemed to levitate skyward after takeoff and the graphic demonstration of form drag when I closed the throttle without lowering the nose.
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Cooper City, Florida
Posts: 81
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Having learned to fly on Tiger Moths which were maintained by Fairey Aviation at White Waltham I just cannot relate to the comments here. I have flown some others that were not nearly as nice to handle, maintained by other organizations, and it's all in the rigging. But let me say that the first time that I flew a Cessna 172 I thought that was the worst handing aircraft ever, heavy on the controls and sluggish. All the Jodels had handling I liked. My present aircraft is a Grumman AA5, one of the nicest handling machines ever, responsive controls and excellent visibility in climb. Incidentally, someone made mention of G-ANEZ earlier in this thread. That was once part of the Fairy Aviation fleet.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Philippines
Posts: 460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
4 ailerons, like the Stampe, would have been good, for a start!
Lovely aeroplane the Chipmunk, as SSD and others have said.
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: eastcoastoz
Age: 76
Posts: 1,699
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Apropos of nothing..
I recall, when not much more than a toddler, waiting with my old man for the baker's cart to arrive, a Tiger Moth (I know now) flew overhead.
I'd been fascinated by those 'by-planes' and asked the OM if he could draw it for me.
I remember he protested that he couldn't even draw a pin but we sat down at the dining room table and sketched something out for me.
Well, sorting through some family papers the other day, I came across that very illustration he did for me all those years ago.
The funny thing is - he was not an artist, had no real interest in aeroplanes of any kind and had not even flown in one.
Well, blow me down, he had it pretty well right, just from seeing it fly over.
The proportions, the wing sweep and stagger - and even the iconic DH tail were all there.
Strange.
Hope I didn't bore you.
I recall, when not much more than a toddler, waiting with my old man for the baker's cart to arrive, a Tiger Moth (I know now) flew overhead.
I'd been fascinated by those 'by-planes' and asked the OM if he could draw it for me.
I remember he protested that he couldn't even draw a pin but we sat down at the dining room table and sketched something out for me.
Well, sorting through some family papers the other day, I came across that very illustration he did for me all those years ago.
The funny thing is - he was not an artist, had no real interest in aeroplanes of any kind and had not even flown in one.
Well, blow me down, he had it pretty well right, just from seeing it fly over.
The proportions, the wing sweep and stagger - and even the iconic DH tail were all there.
Strange.
Hope I didn't bore you.
Not at all Stan. . . . . memories are made of this. My dad was quite a dab hand at depicting semi-naked women in a variety of poses, using different medias.
Had he liked painting planes, he might have had a go at this one, a semi-naked Tigerschmitt. (VH-BUM, Tamworth 1958)
Had he liked painting planes, he might have had a go at this one, a semi-naked Tigerschmitt. (VH-BUM, Tamworth 1958)
I take all the points mentioned, and suggest they apply to most 1930s aircraft. Just try driving a 1930s car or better still a vintage lorry in comparison to today's power-assisted, computerised featherbeds.
In fairness to my fabric-clad friend, remember she was designed for hard work, not for fun. The Tiger Moth soon teaches the importance of nose attitude and of energy conservation, and few of her trainees forgot their first half-turn of auto-rotation which so quickly developed into a spin. She was and is very difficult to fly well, but very tolerant when novices got it totally wrong.
Half a century ago I learned instrument flight basics by climbing into cloud in our once deserted airspace as even then the wartime IF hoods were long gone. If you can fly a TM on instruments you can fly anything and when I tackled my IR years later the limited panel was the easy bit!
Engineers loved the Tiger Moth, even though they were expected to have 40 or 50 ready for flight each morning. The Stampe is much lighter and more responsive, but it's fragile and I have known a few drop wings into the ground. The Chipmunk too is a pilot's delight, but I've seen that dainty rear fuselage wrinkled like a toothpaste tube after a heavy landing with drift. The Magister, I was told, was nice to fly but we wrote off several Miles machines due to glue failures. This was the fate of most of them.
The Tiger Moth on the other hand takes just about everything short of sticking the nose in the ground. Gravity fuel flow, so no pumps to worry about; the fuel tank sits in full view, easy to inspect. Only one pair of ailerons to maintain on the lower wing. Cables and pulleys in easy view. The simple undercarriage has a long stroke self-damped by brass colletts; grease it regularly and it lasts for years of intensive instruction. Hangar rash and minor vehicle bumps etc. need only a quick splice, a piece of fabric and a splash of dope. The wartime pupils broke most bits breakable, so DH came up with every conceivable repair scheme so the TM could continue doing its job day after day, year after year.
For all her failings, hopefully you'll agree that the Tiger Moth was unrivalled as the trainer of her time. Try one if you get the chance, I've yet to meet someone who has failed to learn something!
In fairness to my fabric-clad friend, remember she was designed for hard work, not for fun. The Tiger Moth soon teaches the importance of nose attitude and of energy conservation, and few of her trainees forgot their first half-turn of auto-rotation which so quickly developed into a spin. She was and is very difficult to fly well, but very tolerant when novices got it totally wrong.
Half a century ago I learned instrument flight basics by climbing into cloud in our once deserted airspace as even then the wartime IF hoods were long gone. If you can fly a TM on instruments you can fly anything and when I tackled my IR years later the limited panel was the easy bit!
Engineers loved the Tiger Moth, even though they were expected to have 40 or 50 ready for flight each morning. The Stampe is much lighter and more responsive, but it's fragile and I have known a few drop wings into the ground. The Chipmunk too is a pilot's delight, but I've seen that dainty rear fuselage wrinkled like a toothpaste tube after a heavy landing with drift. The Magister, I was told, was nice to fly but we wrote off several Miles machines due to glue failures. This was the fate of most of them.
The Tiger Moth on the other hand takes just about everything short of sticking the nose in the ground. Gravity fuel flow, so no pumps to worry about; the fuel tank sits in full view, easy to inspect. Only one pair of ailerons to maintain on the lower wing. Cables and pulleys in easy view. The simple undercarriage has a long stroke self-damped by brass colletts; grease it regularly and it lasts for years of intensive instruction. Hangar rash and minor vehicle bumps etc. need only a quick splice, a piece of fabric and a splash of dope. The wartime pupils broke most bits breakable, so DH came up with every conceivable repair scheme so the TM could continue doing its job day after day, year after year.
For all her failings, hopefully you'll agree that the Tiger Moth was unrivalled as the trainer of her time. Try one if you get the chance, I've yet to meet someone who has failed to learn something!