Auster Tiger Chipmunk Cub
I did my PPL on the Auster in 1960 and then subsequently did a few hours on the Tiger and then perhaps twenty or so in the back seat of an acquaintance's Chipmunk. More recently I had an hour in the back seat of a Cub.
I feel that for all basic training, (in which I include taildragger differences training,) you need an aeroplane with generic handling characteristics but which is intolerant of poor pilot technique. Such a relatively difficult to fly aeroplane will set you up well for any subsequent, more forgiving type. However, I would say that if it is your intention to fly vintage, then try to train on vintage.
Personally, I favour the Auster Autocrat. It has no electric starter and so has to be swung. It has heel brakes but you must avoid using them if possible to stop the aeroplane when in motion on concrete. This is because on concrete she rolls like H3ll so you have to taxi very, very slowly and apply the brakes gently and separately one at a time. In the air, the rudder is very sensitive, so you have to learn to use it properly. On landing, as someone else has remarked, the rubber suspension can produce some spectacular bounces if you don't land properly. On a hot day and in ground effect you can float for ever. Somebody said it has a high fuel consumption. The ones I flew consumed no more than four and a half Imperial gallons per hour. I wouldn't call that high.
The Tiger Moth is a very easy aeroplane to fly and to land but a very difficult aeroplane to fly accurately. The only difficulties it presents are that it is very 'draggy' and can lose speed very quickly in a gliding turn if you don't watch out and of course the reduced forward visibility. In the pre-war years aeroplanes were designed to be flown with the coming almost up against the horizon. This provided a poor level of forward vision that we wouldn't be happy with today. On the landing approach I seem to remember that I used to lean over and look around the nose now and again to see where I was going. The one I flew had balloon tyres with only 16 lbs pressure, (which is why it didn't need brakes; it rolled to a halt in a few feet,) and a thing like a giant steel serving spoon as a tail skid. (In the dusk, if someone else was taxiing one of these aeroplanes you could see this thing sparking as the pilot taxied the aircraft across tarmac or concrete to the hangar). To me, the Tiger is too non-generic unless you are going to specialise in flying vintage taildraggers. It really is a relic of the 1930s.
I found the Cub to be much like the Tiger accept less draughty, a bit more responsive to controls in the air and a bit more difficult to taxi. For my liking, its a bit too easy to fly to use as a training taildragger.
The Chipmunk is a lovely aeroplane to fly in every way. It's flying characteristics are about as generic as it is possible to get. It certainly demands good flying and tells you if you do something wrong, but is less likely to bite than the Auster. My only criticisms are that the control column was, for my liking, too far forward from the seat and too short. This made it uncomfortable for me on longer trips. I found taxiing difficult also because, like all these aeroplanes it has to be weaved on the ground and it rolls like H3ll on concrete - and those differential brakes take some time to master.
Well that's my two penneth.
BP.