Bulldog v. Grob

[ScottishSteve]

Why is it when ex-UAS here that I am now a member they say (after laughing), "Sorry about the aircraft mate!"

Is the Grob so bad??? Or was the rusty old Bulldog just so great?

Thanks

Steve

[UAM]

God, I wish this stupid argument would go away!
Having flown both the bulldog and the tutor for approximately the same number of hours, I hopefully will provide an unbiased view on the subject.
Firstly, the Grob is better. MILES better. Now im not going to make a statement like that without justifying it, otherwise i would get shot down, like many others in this forum seem to for expressing an educated opinion. My justifications for this are as follows.

1) the training package supplied with the A/C are second to none. Try and say that about the Bulldog. the bulldog flight manual was lets face it, something to keep on the bookshelf to fill it up. The Tutor manual on the other hand, is comprehensive and extremely useful.

2) The navigation/radio suite is more in-line with what the air force requires for upcoming aircraft (training and front-line). It hasnt got an NDB reciever. So what? be honest, when was the last time you used an NDB? The GPS NEAR AIRPORT does exactly the same function, and gives you a range. The aircraft is restricted VFR NOT due to a design flaw (lets be honest guys, I feel much happier flying IF on the Tutor than I ever did the Bulldog, especially ILS's. Those bennedix king jobs the Bulldog had were a piece of crap), but due to beaurocracy and translation difficulties between the German and British flight manuals. It certainly has nothing to do with "different power sources" for the AI's, which it actually has.

3) The Tutor is far more reliable in terms of number of aircraft available on the line, there were days I can remember there were only two out of a total fleet of six available.
4) Roll rate. The aircraft does have a lower roll rate than the Bulldog, however the Bulldog couldnt throw a 540 flick roll in a cuban either! The decision to not allow flick manoevers recently, in a large number of peoples opinions is ludicrous. The aircraft has been CLEARED in its flight testing to ensure this, otherwise it would have not been certified safe to do so.

5) aerobatics - Grob climbs in aerobatics. The Bulldog fell like a brick. Nuff said.

6) Climb Rate from takeoff, spin package is generally complete in 5-6 minutes. you were lucky to do it in 10-15 in the Bulldog.

6) The Grob does not have in irrecoverable spin. The Bulldog, apparently did, and caught out a fair few very experienced instructors. The spin recovery if it all gets pear-shaped simply involves removing your hands from the controls.

These opinions are not formed due to loyalty to the aircraft, purely due to the fact the Grob meets the training requirements of the EFT sylabus, and in fact exceeds it (GPS navigation can be introduced for example whenever EFT fancy, DGPS ILS is fantastic for practasing approaches to airfields without the kit (most!).

[ 28 November 2001: Message edited by: UAM ]

[Wee Weasley Welshman]

UAM, I would have said:

1) Good point. Very important in a training aircraft.

2) NDB is very important. I have done at least a dozen NDB/DME or DME only approaches (from vectors and procedural) in the last 3 months. I first learnt these things in the Bulldog although now I fly 737 - no idea how often the military use NDB but its still common in the EU civilian world. The skills involved in NDB work are of a far higher standard than their VOR or GPS brethern. If you can cope with a wobbly dip-infested needle you can cope with anything else aviation is going to throw at you in terms of non-visual approaches.

3) Hmmm, perhaps unfair to compare the Bulldog at the end of its life against a new aircraft fresh out of the wrapper. The Scottish Aviation product was built to the proverbial brick out house philosophy and if you take its service life as a whole I think its reliability was good. If you look at the last Grob product the RAF purchased ( Grob 109b motor glider for the Air Cadets ) it was plagued with quality and reliability issues after its honeymoon period... We shall have to see how shiny those plastics after 20 odd years on the Tutor.

4) I'm sure the Tutor with its better Power Weight ratio and higher G clearance is the better hooligan manchine.

5) Part of the Finesse of Aeros is to minimise height loss when that is a challenge. Any old fool, me included, can hurl an Extra 300 around. The dark arts of energy management that the Bulldog demanded were valuable lessons in themselves.

6) Yep.

7) Oh do come off it. The Bulldog after modification did not have an irrecoverable spin if correctly loaded.

I am sure the Tutor is in many ways a fine ab initio aircraft. Just as the Bulldog was.

I hope it has such a good service life as its forebear.

I just wish they had bought the Zlin 242 instead - much nicer than Tutor or Bulldog I am told (haven't flown Tutor).

Cheers,

WWW

[Al Titude]

WWW

Some good points, not sure about NDB though. I don't consider this to be an important approach to master on EFT at all! Better to get handling skills sorted and some basic understanding of IF work prior to BFJT - without a doubt, the Grob's instrument suite provides this!

Your point about aeros is also a little misguiding - the skill with aeros on a more powerful machine remains the same; working to a base height requires throttle management so you don't climb and come out of each manoevre at the correct speed - think about the Tucano/Hawk!

I think the Grob is probably a better EFT machine, but it does look like a motor glider (unlike the mighty bulldog!)

[peterward]

To all you JEFTS wannabies out there, enjoy the motor glider. Why they didn't just buy more fireflys is a mystery-can anyone enlighten me?

[KD]

Plastic Banana . Nuff said

[peterward]

6g of plastic pleasure I think you'll find old chap. Knocks spots off the bulldog and more than likely the Grob aswell. Still, it's only for the good lads....... :p

[KD]

Bulldog Low Level 250 ft. Your call . . :p

[Wee Weasley Welshman]

KD - very very good point. Wish I had remembered that.

WWW

ps does the Tutor have a F700 and if so do students get to do battle with it. It was a useful experience for future aircraft commanders I would imagine...

[Max R8]

UAM! What planet are you from?

Don't start me on this one cos I will probably get in trouble.

You are quite right about the Bulldog being a potential (and actual) killer. Its spin could be difficult to recover from if mishandled, but correct recovery actions always worked. It was a dragmonster an needed all of its 200 gee gees to get up to 120 kts. It glided like a Hunter and if you let it get below 75kts dead stick it fell out of the sky. It had no crashworthyness to speak of and, when I first instructed in it, only minimal nav and comms fit.

However, it had stability, a reliable fuel system, a rate of roll that was very much better, could do all of the IFR, Low Level and Aerobatic training is the syllabus, held a speed with constant power and attitude, had predictable pre-stall performance, good cockpit visibility, good conspicuity, could carry two bulky QFIs and their landaway kit, I never had an engine failure in one, none of my students had an engine failure in one, it had military clearances and an F700 which told you the mod state, the last few snags, and exactly what fuel was in it, it did real max rate turns on the buffet and it did not run out of trim in the glide or on finals!!!

Can't talk about the Tutor though. Nuf said.

[Olly O'Leg]

I guess UAM's from Planet Ainsdale, where QGH approaches rule!!! No NDB's required, just good old fashioned DF and stopwatch!!! The arguments here are all valid, provided that you consider the Bulldog's thirty years older than the 115 and that's why it was replaced.......... Still, met some chaps on a landaway at Perth once who were buying a Bulldog (or two) off the Guadeloupe (sp) Air Force I think it was and they were complaining that the airframes had 800 hrs on them!!! We got out our 700s to prove the hours on our Bulldogs and they nearly had a coronary!!!

[scroggs]

It's interesting how the appearance of newer technology aircraft instantly makes the obsolete aircraft, and its associated techniques, fit for heroes!
I flew the 'Dog from 87 to 91. When I first flew it, it had no avionics whatsoever. None - with the sole exception of a 12-channel UHF radio. We used to fly over 8/8 cloud ('overcast' it's called now) using the plumes from the various power stations in the Vale of York, plus a bit of clock and general spacial awareness, to navigate by. With the amount of practice we got, we were rarely far out from where we thought we were.
In 89/90, they fitted the Dog with what we thought of as an all-singing, all-dancing nav kit. It didn't actually improve our navigational accuracy much, but it totally changed the conduct of navigation teaching. It also allowed us to do ILS approaches in the South Yorkshire smog, but didn't actually change our flying rate in poor weather - we just got more legal!
As for the Bulldog's spin characteristics, there were problems occasionally. The recovery from (not easily recognised) inverted or oscillatory spins often required the pilot to enter a normal spin before attempting a conventional recovery. Some didn't manage it, for whatever reason, so the aircraft got a bit of a bad rap. Personally, I loved it.
At the same period in my career I had to occasionally airtest Chipmunks fettled by our UAS's engineers. While the aircraft was fun, as a teaching platform it was far inferior to the Bulldog, and had a few 'interesting' handling characteristics that wouldn't be referred to so charitably if the aircraft was to attempt certification now.
I'm sure the Grob is a great aeroplane. If it's built well, and can survive the rough life of an elementary trainer, you'll be talking about it with great affection in years to come. I just hope that the fun-detectors don't remove all reason for flying it before then....

[Recover]

WWW,

How could you learn your NDB/DME skills from the Bulldog when it wasn't equipped with an ADF?

I've flown the Bulldog for a few years (started in 1984, ended in 2000 when we got rid of them from the AEF/UAS) and have to say that in all I think the Tutor is the better machine.

The avionics are undoubtedly far superior and the cockpit much better laid out with a view to ergonomics. I love the fact that the ginger beers can't use petrol to clean it, so it doesn't constantly smell of fuel and induce the queaze on a hot summer's day. It does a LOT more on 180 hp than the 'Dog ever did on 200 and for a significant reduction in fuel flow.

The current problems regarding min landing fuel and IMC clearances will be ironed out and we will be left with the aircraft the RAF supposedly bought in the first place. The problem with the roll rate will never be sorted and, while you can flick the thing, it's so pedestrian in its roll rate and lack of rudder area that I find myself dropping off to sleep during aeros (okay, a little bit of exageration :) ).The 'Dog definitely won there.

I don't share UAM's enthusiam about all the documents. True, the training manual is good (and one day I'll get one) but the FRCs and Flying Manual were/are appalling. Just scrubbing out Bulldog and writing Tutor just doesn't wash. Admittedly we were the first bunch to get the Tutor so had to suffer the initial issues, but ammendments like 'delete Fuel Sytem. Insert Electrical' smacks of a certain lack of proof reading :rolleyes: Shame on you BD crowd.

As an instument platform I find both aircraft comparable. The Bulldog and Tutor are lovely and stable once you get them trimmed out, but with its lack of rudder area the Tutor does tend to 'fish-tail' a lot when disturbed in yaw, something the 'Dog never did.

It's a shame they decided to put a civvy reg on the side (or at least make us comply to civvy rules) since 250' IS significantly different to 500', but I suppose in these PC days of lack of noise it may have come to that anyway.

We ALL know that the nicest aircraft to fly was the Hunter :D and, as far as light military aircraft are concerned, in terms of pure pilot pleasure, I think the Chippy beat the 'Dog and the Tutor, but in this race, my money has to go on the Grob.

Now, if only they'd let us fly them with just a headset...... ;)


And....

Recover

[Jackonicko]

I flew the Bulldog (for more than a hundred happy, carefree hours) back in the 'pre avionics days' and I loved it. I was a spotty herbert fresh from school, however, and I'd have loved anything with a stick rather than a yoke, with a roundel on the wing, and a serial rather than a registration, mind you. Having to wear a bone-dome and flying suit just seemed to add to the 'military' experience - at least 'til the novelty wore off.

But it had its faults and it will probably never go down in history as a classic. It was as over-engineered as the Pup (which I still fly and love) and just as over-weight. The spin problems, the inadequate prop clearance for taxying on bumpy grass, were real enough, but the aircraft was difficult enough to fly an aerobatic sequence in to teach all of those useful lessons about energy management which others have outlined more effectively than I could (whereas the Chipmunk really was under-powered!). And in its 'yoof', when looked after by service engineers, and with adequate spares support, it seemed reliable enough for us always to have as many as we needed on the line - and enough for OUAS to be forever nicking one!

Max R8 summarised the beast very nicely, IMHO.

Someone asked us to "consider that the Bulldog's thirty years older than the 115 and that's why it was replaced" - my understanding is that the Bulldog could have gone on (with a 112FI(?) Spar mod which was designed, cleared and even fitted to one 'Dog - hope they're keeping that one for display use!) and that the reason it didn't was that they wanted a PFI solution, in which operating costs were the driving force, and where a modern gf llightplane was bound to be procured. Moreover, the costs of spares and support for the 'Dog had been escalated by the DA to a barely sustainable level (thanks BWoS), as anyone operating a civil one today will be finding.

Now who's going to take me up in a Grob and make me eat my words?

Dunno about EFTS, but anyone lucky enough to be on a UAS should be bloody grateful for whatever they're flying, although a bit of envy for what went before seems traditional. Some of us, I'm sure, wished we'd been able to experience the Chipmunk, and some of the Chipmunk studes could have looked back to the days when Harvard and Balliol 'advanced' flights were attached to UASs, or to the open cockpit magic of the Tiger and Hart! In 20 or 30 years, old farts like me will be getting all nostalgic about the Grob, too, I have no doubt.

[Greg Baddeley]

Hi Jacko! I worked on Bulldogs and Chipmunks at Marshalls' in the Seventies and Eighties (God I feel old now!) and purely from the grease monkeys' aspect, the Chipmunk was more reliable, if only because it was simpler. The biggest problem we seemed to have with the Dog was with the awful fuel injection, which kept a lot of aircraft in the hangar when the 'munks were happily blatting around the skies.

I've no experience of the Grob at all, except they fly over my house at the weekend, and noisy little beasties they are, but I love to see a bit of flying activity at Wyton these days, if only to annoy the nimbys :p :p :p :p :p But it's probably easier to work on; we had a couple of Pups to look after too, and I loved 'em, but they were a right pig to look after compared with one of Mr. Piper's equivalents.

[ScottishSteve]

Well looks like I really touched one off!
Sorry for bringing it up again, I should've known that this topic would have been exhausted by now.

Thanks much anyways for the answers...very informative I must say :p

Maybe one day someone will be asking why my gen. laugh at their Skoda DIY Kit Plane and I will be able to answer as you fair gents have.

Thanks,

Steve

[eggshaped]

One good point is that the bulldog was not easily damaged. Recently wasted a whole day flying because of an inch wide hole in the
aileron sending the frame u/s. Can't fix the hole due to fantastic composite materials and so have to wait for whole new part which will cost how many thousands to aquire and repair. :(

[Olly O'Leg]

See ya point Egg. I used to fly those Vigilant thingys on a VGS (Grob 109) and I'm just waiting for all those horrible cracks to appear in the gel coat around all the stretchy parts of the airframe.......

[Tonkenna]

Fortunately I have never flown the dog, so I can justifiably keep out of this argument, which is a good job as I keep getting in the pooh each time I mention how great our aircraft is.

Doh................

Tonks :D :D :D

(big, happy, tongue-in-cheek smiley faces)

[Woz]

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! :eek:

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. :D

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 ]

[Woz]

Besides, the Bulldog was Scottish, not German. And metal, not plastic. Anything else? :)

[Re-Heat]

Nobody's mentioned the rubbish crosswind limit which prevents flying on days which would have been fine in the Dog, especially when you are on a large North/South runway with a Westerly prevailing wind in between Durham and York. D'oh. Plus far more days lost due to low cloud bae.

[BEagle]

Woz - a good post indeed! Recently visited my old UAS by air (PA 28). Happily VFR on top with my IMC rating, then a bit of a weed-schneeble to get in. All the pretty plastic planes were sitting on the ground.....

Remember the days of climbing up through winter stratus into an azure sky with a ruler-straight horizon perfect for teaching attitude flying? Not in das Teutor you won't...

Agree about the flick roll comments - why should you expect to perform a type of manoeuvre in the plastic Teutor which is - and has been - banned throughout the RAF for the last 30 years at least? It needs a roll rate appropriate to a military trainer, not a toy glider.

[Woz]

Glad no-one's shot my arguement down so far! :)

Most of my original UAS training many many moons ago was done sitting on top of a 2k-3k layer of 8/8 SC with everything perfectly smooth, gorgeous and wonderful, with a top horizon and more than enough space to do all my aeros; regardless of how much height I needed to "plummet like a brick" into!

Back in the good old days of PIFGs, they even let some of us do that sort of thing on our own. Wonder why that went away; have UAS studes suddenly become less competent? I think I could still handle 2000' with no turns under a RAS. Not that it matters, as an old Bulldog stude I can't even fly the damned thing; seems that with having to justify every hour to the beancounters I can just sit and feel all those years of training slide out my ears before my next posting.... 2.5 years between instructional sorties? Can't be good!

As far as flicking goes, the Tutor seems to have a lot of things that are good qualities, but sod all use. Yes, it can flick; but technically none of us are allowed to practice or teach it. Yes, it can pull +6G, but I'm ******ed if I've ever HAD to- fun, but not much instructional benefit. Yes, it has DGPS, but that's only really useful for doing self-positioned simulated ILS doodahs; and with the amount of IF the studes get nowadays, I'd be very surprised if they have enough hours left to do many of them with PARs and SRAs to perfect first!

I could forgive the Tutor a lot of its sins if they had the sense to give it, oooh, let's say 260hp? But they didn't, so I won't. :p

[ 30 November 2001: Message edited by: Woz ]

[BEagle]

Yes - the PIFG was often regarded as a better yardstick to progress than the PFB. When I was a UAS QFI, I instructed one of my students on a radio navigation exercise above 8/8 and then sent her off solo to do the same thing. Which she did, culminating in a PAR approach to land. She reckoned that it gave her immense reassurance to know that someone trusted her - and even more confidence in her own abilities!

The plastic plane is a day VFR toy - not a military trainer!

[ 30 November 2001: Message edited by: BEagle ]

[Tonkenna]

I would like to point out that the views of Woz are his own and have nothing to do with me or the Sqn I fly with.

Woz, your question depends on when you get those computer bits sorted (and if you drop me in the sh*t on here!!!!).

Tonks :)

[ 30 November 2001: Message edited by: Tonkenna ]

[Woz]

Will make sure I keep you firmly out of the **** !! In fact, I might try to avoid mentioning your name, just in case.....!

Yes, of course, my views are entirely my own, and any shred of comic bitterness running through them is purely due to the fact I'm blatantly being groomed for rebranching to admin sec.

Maybe if I start screwing up some admin jobs, you'll all give up and start flying me all the time instead? ;) :p

*yes, my tongue is planted firmly in cheek*

[superfurryanimal]

Boys, count your blessings that you have any kind of mildly aerobatic aircraft to chuck about whenever you feel like it. I spent many happy hours in the 'dog back in the early 90's (well, except for my bloody uncomfortable helmet, but at least it stopped the Boss from hitting me to hard!!), and now I am having to suffer the indignity of a Piper Cadet. Compared to the 'dog, what a pile of old ****! Can't do anything remotely interesting in it (legally) and the nac kit is no better than the stuff they fitted our 'dogs with before I left (and I still don't know how to use the bloody stuff).

Can't make any informed comment on the Grob, but I know our old engineers miss the 'dog. Also, why does anybody want a Firefly? That's what they teach the bloody Army in, and if they were supposed to fly they wouldn't all have been given helicopters!!!!

Now that I have uncomfortable headphones to wear, I miss my helmet as my new instructor has a fearsome left hook!!!

Happy flying guys.

[RowT8]

Well, at least one contributor has now given you the solution to 2 of your problems - IFR certification and ANO Rule 5 minimum height. Just ignore the rules and flight safety, go "weed-schneebling" instead!

[BEagle]

If that's a pop at me, then get stuffed! With a UK IMC Rating you can legally fly below 3000ft and 140KIAS under VFR if you have at least 1500m flight visibility and remain clear of cloud and in sight of the surface. Plus you can fly as low as you need provided that you observe Rule 5!. If you can remain clear of people, vehicles, vessels and structures, you may therefore fly below 500 ft. Knowledge of the rules is needed, however.

[UAM]

I wonder why people feel it necessary to knock an airctraft so often that actually is fully certified IFR, but for certain silly reasons is not permitted in the books.
couldnt be anything to do with the fact that its german and plastic? I will agree with those who say that NDB is a useful tool, but so is TAC to ILS, TAC and all other instrument approaches. Seriously, count how many NDB beacons still exist round the country (many are inactive).

With reference to flicks, I agree to a certain extent that there is little point in training flicks considering no other RAF aircraft is capable (or permitted), however, look at the fundamental reasons Aeros are taught in the EFT sylabus in the first place. I know for a fact handling a flick manoever can increase confidence in the aircraft, and can also teach extra finesse for handling more advanced aerobatics.

Landing in the Grob can be hard, but it enforces a very imporant technique - being over the threshold AT THE THRESHOLD SPEED with the throttle closed. It takes a little extra finesse, but as soon as you master it you can grease landings wherever you fancy!

[Olly O'Leg]

Yeah, that's all pretty cool, but can anyone tell me why the Civvy aircraft (Firefly, Grob) can only fly 500' MSD??? I know the Civvy rules etc etc, but I fly a Civvy - owned Mil aircraft (fixed wing) that can go down to 100' MSD (on certain routes). Surely someone somewhere must be able to give some sort of dispensation because as mentioned earlier in this thread, there is a LOT of difference between 250' and 500', especially when you're only doing 120 kts. I also find it saddening that when I was on the Air Cadet Gliders, we flew at a temporary operating base and we were the only Mil registered aircraft flying out of there!!!!! :eek: :eek: :eek:

[Recover]

It's called a 'G' registration and Rule 5 of the ANO. The daftest thing is now simulating an engine failure after take off at 800' in order to go-around at 500'......ah the joy of ex navigators sitting around in the Belgrano wondering what lovely rules the CAA can introduce in order to stop us flying :(

[Woz]

People find it necessary to knock the aircraft because it's probably not the best choice for the job.

I'd be interested to hear these "silly" reasons that the Grob isn't IFR ready; as far as I knew, there is actually something to do with power to instruments and being able to isolate the generator; hence the possible addition of an extra switch or a something somewhere? Haven't heard an official line, but that seems to be what we believe up here.

TAC to ILS etc are all very useful and very relevant for the future, but it's not in the UAS EFT syllabus. You certainly can't do proper TACAN nav in the Tutor, can you? Again, another thing that people get very excited about the Tutor having that's actually sod all use because we're either not allowed to demo it or it doesn't feature in the syllabus.

Aeros improving confidence and edge-of-envelope handling is obviously very very important, and you're right that flick moves require a big wodge of finesse to pull off with any degree of accuracy. However, again, UAS QFIs aren't allowed to teach them, demonstrate them, practice them, or do them at all!! Again, another thing which would be good, IF HQ EFT had worked it into the syllabus.

Having an aircraft which enforces good landing technique is all fair and well, but when learning in the 'dog I had a QFI who certainly enforced good landing techniques; I didn't need the threat that the aircraft would try and kill me if I did it wrong, I had the threat that my instructor would instead! The Tutor's landing performance affects the confidence of a lot of students in a bad way. Better an aircraft that's very easy to land so that they build confidence, then teach them the ideal way to do it, than an aircraft which requires an ideal performance each time or you face making a mess of it!

The Tutor has a lot of faults which stop us from teaching EFT as well as we could, and a lot of kit and/or abilities which are all fine and well but no use if the techniques required are forbidden or not featured in EFT.

[Tonkenna]

Recover,

I don't think ex-navigators at the CAA had anything to do with the 500' MSD and the EFATO problem. Alas it was much closer to home :(

Tonks ;)

[ 03 December 2001: Message edited by: Tonkenna ]

[Woz]

Is this another one? No EFATOs below 500'? How about PFLs to the field that go a bit awry, are they going to raise our go-around height too.....?

Why don't they just take all the Tutors back? They obviously don't want us to actually be able to do anything in them ;)

[BEagle]

Chaps - you're missing the root cause. Your plastic planes are not on the military register, hence all the problems. Solution? The MoD should buy them outright and operate their military training aircraft in a military manner to train for military needs.

If we can't even afford to buy some little plastic planes, then it really is time to turn out the lights.......

[ 03 December 2001: Message edited by: BEagle ]

[Woz]

Doesn't really fill you with confidence when you're flying an aircraft technically belonging to the Royal Bank of Scotland.

How long before I find myself wandering up to a Hawk/Tucano/Squirrel/whatever with a sponsor's logo on the side......? :mad:

[Olly O'Leg]

It's being done at the moment Woz and it ain't cool. Without giving too much away, it's being very restrictive....... (Haven't flown for two weeks now - no landaways). :mad:

[Woz]

Sorry Olly, I don't follow; what's being done at the moment? The solution to the IFR problem, or the sponsor's logos........?? ;)

What's stopping you doing landaways?

[Jackonicko]

Pretty poor that the UAS/EFTS trainer requirement couldn't have been used to give work to UK industry, and kick-start the UK lightplane industry even if the SAH-1 (say) had been more expensive than the Grob, and/or inferior.

Run a competition, by all means, and if UK plc can't get in the right ballpark price and capability wise, then give the order to the box-heads, but this lowest bidder nonsense gets on my wick.

[Wee Weasley Welshman]

Zlin 242 was rejected from the final clutch and it is fully IFR certified, made of metal and is really really good to land - you can play it like a harp with just a few hours of circuit bashing - shame they chose plastic-fantastic.

Never mind.

WWW

[positive_rate]

Woz

Didn't you forget an aircraft in your list above?

How about the jetstream and follow in the line of all great Sadstauas holding officers!

:p

All that practise you're getting at driving Sharans at the moment should help no end!

[Woz]

No thanks Positive Rate; and I invite you into my "office" anytime you like to see all the photos of those who came before me.

You'll find all the holding guys who were also ex-ADStAUAS studes went through BFJTS; we've been happily sending 60-70% of our lot that way it seems!

A tradition I'm more than happy to try to uphold. I'll call you back when I'm streamed ;)

Besides, we're getting slightly off the topic. I haven't made an unpleasant comment about the Tutor, in, oooh, two posts now?
:p

[ 04 December 2001: Message edited by: Woz ]

[Olly O'Leg]

Sorry Woz!!!

I meant operating a Civvy-owned aircraft in a military manner. Fortunately, the weather's cleared up now, but due to contractural restraints, we weren't allowed to push off anywhere to continue the flying. Do you guys suffer from the same deal with the Grob or do you not get the opportunity ro land the UAS away these days??? ;) ;)

[Bazois]

But its all quite OK lads, we are assured that fixs areon the way, so they must be here sometime soon (as one of the very few A1 QFIs on the EFT fleet commented to me, they've been saying that about Christ for 2000 years now, and he's still not here!)

Apparently, one of the reasons we can't egt civvie dispensation to go back to 250' is that its only the police who have it at the mo, and in the short term might mean taking the allowance away from police helis - a pretty bad idea by all accounts!

Still, at least the VFR only limits gives the new first years a solid introduction to the joys of a Phase 0 day over their first Xmas camp with the UASs! That should keep 'em interested!

[Peter Heater]

too much UAS sh$te on this page. Get a proper uni life, get down the pub and then enter the RAF a mans way - JEFTS ! :eek:

[Jackonicko]

What's up Pete? Couldn't get onto a UAS? :D

[Peter Heater]

didnt want to / didnt try ! :D

[Tonkenna]

Well Peter H, there is probably a load of "UAS sh$te" on this page as it is a debate over the current and last ac flown by the UASs. If you are not that interested then don't read it. I didn't go to a UAS cause I didn't go to uni, but however you get in and which ever way you trained the outcome is the most important bit. The UAS EFT is just as valid (and probably a harder way to do well at, cause of continuety(spelling?)) as JEFTS. (JP5s was the mans way though :D :D )

Oh, and you can still have a 'proper' uni life and the beer is cheaper than the pub.

Tonks :)

[Peter Heater]

maybe you should have gone to uni Tonks !

[peterward]

I don't think "Peter" is still at Fenton, although he/we definately kicked the arse out of JEFTS. As regards the UAS, it's just another means to an end. However, recruiting a bird because has massive puppies and no aptitude may be considered to be one of the flaws...... Or not as the case maybe....... :p

[Al Titude]

BL

Think you might want to check Peter's profile before slating his view.....looks like he's moved on from the UAS world! D'oh!


Edited to add that the UAS is definately the way to go....no chimping around on JEFTS and their funny litttle yellow planes.

[ 11 December 2001: Message edited by: Al Titude ]

[Bervie]

What would you know Bad Livin, you couldnt even finish JEFTS! And should you have checked Peters profile it seems he hasnt been on JEFTS for a while either.

What would you have been like on a UAS where a Uni degree and flying were both the priority. Multi tasking? Whats that then.
CF ATC "Clear join 1 in"
Bad Livin "Arghhhhhh - head fire, where is he, in fact where is the airfield?!"

How about making some informed comments rather than ones based on a very limited experience. Enjoy the door sliding.

Respect to all the uni studes studying and flying - hope you get what you want in the long run.

Oops - On the topic thread, definately Bulldog!

[bad livin']

Bervie and Al Tit - I didn't claim to have finished JEFTS but fair one on checking Peter's profile. Bervie clearly I know you - did u go to the cold place or the warm one? Besides I spent a large portion of uni in the US where stress of any kind was a bad memory! In addition, if you actually read my post, you might glean that I was defending the UAS system, not attacking it.

Rgds, despite your snide comments Bervie - perhaps interpreting a few lines is beyond your clearly sky god like status! Stay off the sides of those hillls now.
BL

[ 12 December 2001: Message edited by: bad livin' ]

[Olly O'Leg]

To be fair guys, it really depends on what UAS you're on. I was on MASUAS where we had our own airfield, but two Squadrons operating out of the same field, with Warton and Blackpool to the north and Liverpool to the south - Godsend!!! Unfortunately, I recently flew another aircraft type alongside a UAS and JEFTS and it was the UAS that couldn't cope with another type in the circuit - JEFTS just got on with it, but the UAS were b1tching and moaning. I can understand it for a first or second solo, but even when I was at the UAS (Chippies in the circuit as well as civvies, who flew squares) it was good experience to fly with other types. Seems to me as though it was kid-gloves in this case........

Oh and of course - Bulldog!!!!!

Olly ;) ;) ;)