Okay, so is the Grob better than the Bulldog? My specialist subject!
No, it's not.
Answering UAM's comments first. The flight manual is good? Well, can't say I had any problems with the Bulldog one. I've not picked up anything from the Tutor one that I think a student with an ounce of common sense couldn't withdraw from the Bulldog one. Yes, tidier written perhaps, but colour photos a manual do not make!
Studes these days may get it all bound together in a nice red folder, but studes from my era had no problem finding everything they needed; plus those who have gone on to better things are hardly disadvantaged!
Navigation suite?? Hang on, that's a bit daft. GPS is all well and good, and I'm sure in a GR7 on fire with my leg broken while I'm drunk I'd be very glad of a "nearest airfield" facility, but the fact remains that UAS studes aren't taught to use it. It seems to be there as an aid for QFIs, so whether or not it's in line with future RAF front line aircraft is immaterial if proper techniques in its use aren't covered. Besides, the Tucano and Hawk don't have a GPS capability, so if they were instructed in its use, they'd swiftly forget about it before they ended up sitting in a Typhoon! Give me NDB any day!
VFR restrictions? Without getting into an arguement about why they're there, the fact is they are; and all those "actual" hours we used to get in the 'dog are gone for now, and definately gone are they days of punching through an irritating layer of 8/8 to do some work with a decent horizon/cloud base above.
On that subject, what happened to PIFGs for UAS studes? Just another useful thing we've lost; I know bringing us into line with JEFTS is good, but it's still a shame..
Aircraft on the line? I'd rather have 2 of 8 'dogs and be able to get through the 8/8 cloud than 7 of 7 Tutors and be left on the ground........
Nope, the 'dog couldn't throw a 540 flick through a Cuban. But then again, QFIs aren't meant to "teach" that to students. It's not a valid instructional comment when you're not allowed to flick any other aircraft in the RAF, is it? I'd rather learn aerobatics in an aircraft which has a sensible natural roll rate.
Yep, the Bulldog did fall like a brick; but as someone else has mentioned, it's not a problem. Modify your sequence to maintain height; probably is better practice than having a ridiculous plastic aircraft which sits wherever you put it without you having to worry about a base height.
Spin package in 6 mins as opposed to 15? At least you had to think about it in the 'dog.... no comment as to whether or not that's a good thing though, we've all been bitten by a Bulldog in the spin before!
On that thread, it's nice having a light aircraft which maintains height during aeros and doesn't plummet during a spin. However, if that makes the aircraft a bloody mess to land, it's a shame to the studes who are meant to be building confidence doing their first landings in it. As confirmed by several students who have only flown the Tutor, you flare.... and wait.... and then hit the upwind threshold. Whooops, shame the Bulldog actually landed sensibly when you wanted it to; and in the same county as where you started!
Higher G limits? Who in EFT actually needed 6G to fly a decent loop?? I can do a decent Bulldog aeros sequence in the Tutor sticking happily to Bulldog limits.
Yes, it's fun sitting in a +6G max possible rate turn (not that I'd know because it's another thing we're not allowed to do) but is it really necessary for an EFT student?
Oh, and it's civilian registered; 250ft low level was a very handy skill to learn!
People moaned about the Bulldog fuel system, but having fuel minima that mean they have to land with something bizarre like 65% of your initial fuel left. Plus, 20 litres unusable fuel in each wing?? Even a Cessna can get by with 7! Oh, and if you get a slight fuel imbalance, I'm reliably informed it starts rolling a bit to that side... which reminds me, it's annoying not having rudder trim too!
While I remember, your formation references were better. And you had more space inside. The canopy arch wasn't the size of an A4 sheet of paper. It was easy to taxy about.
Oh, and you could see the Bulldog in the CCT when it was painted black. White Tutors are an utter 'mare to spot anywhere, and I challenge anyone to disagree with that! Oh, and which machine had better wind limits?
Jackonicko makes some interesting points about cost driving the adoption of the Tutor. I won't comment on that, it'd probably drive me apoplectic!
As a final thought, at least Bulldogs sounded better than Tutors. Someone needs to take the Tutor fleet to a few thousand and blow the baffles out of the exhausts to give them a decent sound!!
Hello Tonks, don't chop me.
Edited to remind everyone that some ridiculous bureaucratic reason we can't do any advanced aerobatics either, and you can't squeeze into it unless either you or your QFI is a beansprout.
---------------------------------------
PLVS ETIAM POLLEMVS QVAM CREDIMVS!
[ 30 November 2001: Message edited by: Woz ]