Bulldogs

[Firkin L]

Read that the cost of the mod to increase fatigue life is about £12000 plus £4000 for tooling and 500 manhours ( at £30 per hr that makes an additional £15000). That makes the cost around £31000 plus vat, is any body intending to have this work done and how much extra life does it give. Is the purchase of a Bulldog still a good idea?

[A and C]

The cost will come down as soon as some practicly minded GA licenced engineers get a look at the problem.

The price quoted by british wasteofspace is what they can get away with charging the military who are also not noted for the most practical and cost efective engineering practices.

[FNG]

Well, someone must be giving it a go, as two ex UAS Doggies are parked at North Weald waiting to be fiddled with. As well as the rather high sounding figures bandied about for the mod, the various bits and pieces that break and fall off cost a lot because of the military thang, but, as A and C suggests, it may be possible to bring the costs down a bit. You might have a word with Roger Hayes of Skysport who is very knowlegeable on the the subject of Bulldogs and their little ways. He may have a clue as to the prospect of obtaining realistic prices.

Here's an ironic contrast: apparently the US may be an active market for the Dogs, as the FAA is said to be quite relaxed about tired-out hoonds blatting about in the friendly skies. Meanwhile the USAF plans to scrap its large fleet of barely used Slingsby T 67s because they are worried about getting sued if they sell them to people who then crash them (you may recall that the fleet was grounded after some accidents, one of which led a typically stupid US jury to accept that it was Slingsby's fault that the Lycoming stopped in a spin). So, it's alright to let lose aircraft that have been pounded and thrashed by generations of UAS studes, but not OK to sell perfectly good and almost new aircraft, even to us non-litigious Brits.

Returning to topic, if the costs do come down then it may well be worth getting one as they are such good fun to fly. Such a pity that you can't get another seat or two in the back.

[Genghis the Engineer]

I have it on good authority that there is a mod available to fit a single rear seat.

G

[foxmoth]

Swedish AF Bulldogs had a 3rd seat in the back.

[skua]

presumably you can save a bit of weight by removing the mil spec front seats - stressed to 50 g or whatever - and replace them with flimsy civil spec ones.

BTW I see from this month's Flypast mag that one of the Dogs I used to fly has gone to France.

2 questions:
1. does this make them a Frogdog?
2. do the Frogs bother with the main wing spar mod?

[M14P]

I might be wrong but as far as I know - if the manufacturer (as opposed to an airworthiness authority) comes out with an AD or, indeed, quotes a life for an airframe it must be adhered to by the regulators.

The rules may well be different in the experimental category but it would be foolish to just assume that the aircraft 'looks strong, therefore it is'.

Seats are classed as aircraft structure so you might end up with a major mod on your hands to sling them away. Also, since they are the things that will save your life and/or your ability to walk again after an accident why replace them with inferior models?

Like many British Aircraft the Bulldog is overbuilt in some respects almost causing its own problems. It's so stiff that things crack rather than flex and wear. A sideload on the Undercarriage, for example, can crack the rear spar onto which it is mounted.

[A and C]

I,m told that the USAF getting rid of the T67 has more to do with the fact that slingsby could not get there act together and supply the spare parts and so could not get the use out of the aircraft.

As for the engine stopping in the spin the USAF have taken the aircraft to 24 turns in the spin without problems so i think that the court ruling is just a face saver for the USAF who dont want to admit that they delt with a company that was unable to support its (very good)product to the required standard.

[Yogi-Bear]

This info comes either from the horse’s mouth or was published in June’s Pilot mag.

The RAF worked to a Fatigue Index of 114 which equates to 5000 civvy hours.
The major mod BH193 plus some minor mods (at the sort of prices previously mentioned) gives an extension of the FI to 200 or 4320 extra hours but with an overall total of 8760 airframe hours. Most of the ex RAF Bulldogs are at or near FI 114. Because the RAF incorporated many mods, these aircraft are not considered the same as series 120 so are being re-certified as series 121. The Bulldog Owners Group seem to be driving this and expect to recoup costs by a c£4K fee on those ‘planes that eventually reach the register. Contact for the BOG is [email protected] or [email protected]
I've flown some ex-Botswana ones and I've got to say they could be expensive for their owners. ADs on the most unlikely things; a pig for the engs. to work on. Fuel consumption high. Roll cuff on the LE to achieve washout = draggy. Compare with a non-aerobatic PA28 Arrow on the same engine and there is no comparison. They're aerobatic that's all. :)

[BEagle]

Agree - nice to fly but very expensive to look after. Where will you get the canopy repaired/replaced, for example? Expensive to maintain as it has a VP prop, not much use for touring with relatively high fuel consumption, minimal avionics and only 2 seats. So fine if you're rich and want one for personal use, but to operate one for hire would be difficult. There is a limited market for aerobatics and the high operating cost would be a deterrent to a club wanting one for use by their members.

Excellent roll rate, benign handling (but know what you're doing in a spin!!) and terrific visibility. Nice aircraft, but just not very practical to operate at club level unless you've got plenty of folk prepared to pay a lot of dosh!

PS - I mean the ex-RAF ones. The folk operating ex-overseas air force ones seem to be doing OK - and good luck indeed to them!

[mfds]

BEagle - Why do you say
'but know what you're doing in a spin!'
Are their some nasties with spinning Bulldogs and this also true for the Beagle Pups ????

[FNG]

mfds, BEagle will probably be along in a bit with a much better informed answer than I could give, but in the meantime search the instructors and military fora for Bulldog/spinning threads, as the spin characteristics of the aircraft have been discussed there a few times. There were some incidents with Bulldogs going high rotational and not recovering, some of which had amusing endings (eg the "Bulldog cabriolet" story about the instructor flying back to base minus canopy and student after the canopy jettison and/or student jumping out had recovered the spin), others with consequences that were not funny.

As for the Pups, you should not intentionally spin a Pup 150 unless it has spin weights fitted. Recovery is conventional. The Pup 100 is OK to spin if you can get coax it to climb high enough before your licence comes up for a biennial.

BEagle probably has a point about the distinction between the ex RAF aircaft and other ones. I assume that Old Sarum makes a living renting its Bulldogs, but believe that they are ex-Botswana. The Skysport Bulldog is also operated, successfully I believe, as a club rental. It formerly led an fairly easy life in Hong Kong and is a relatively unfatigued airframe.

[ 11 August 2001: Message edited by: FNG ]

[BEagle]

My memory is slightly hazy, but in the RAF Bulldog it was absolutely essential that the fuel balance limits were carefully observed. NEVER spin one with suspect gauging!

Observe the Centre of Mass limits meticulously.

After HASELLs and a 360 deg clearing turn, decelerate in straight flight with idle power and ensure the aircraft is in trim at 70 kts, do not trim below this speed. At 60 kts, briskly apply full aft control column AND simultaneously apply full rudder, ensuring that ailerons are held neutral. MAINTAIN THIS FULL PRO-SPIN CONTROL POSITION!!

There will be some oscillatory activity as the aerodynamic and inertial forces reach a balanced state and the stable spin is achieved. During this phase, MAINTAIN FULL-PRO SPIN CONTROL. If the control column position is relaxed slightly, the ac WILL enter a high-rotational regime with much greater loss of height and longer recovery time.....

To recover, keeping full pro-spin control applied, check height (if you have the luxury of a 'chute), then check throttle closed, ailerons neutral and direction of turn. Apply FULL anti-spin rudder and using BOTH hands on the control column, at the same time firmly move the control column CENTRALLY FORWARD UNTIL THE SPIN STOPS. Do NOT stop this forward movement until it does so! It is easiest to say out loud "Spinning Left, recovering. Full-right-rudder-and-control-column-centrally-forward-until-the-spin-stops" because that will give you roughly the right cadence for the recovery. Then centralise the rudder, level wings, ease out of the dive and select the S&L attitude, carefully opening the throttle until S&L flight is regained. There will be a slight bunting sensation and increased rotation as the spin is 'broken' but that'll indicate that recovery is becoming effective.

Not a particularly pleasant manoeuvre, but not dangerous if the CORRECT technique is used. In the RAF we used to practise the fully-developed spin from manoeuvre which could result in a spin with aileron and/or full power applied. It was then VITAL to do the 'throttle closed, ailerons neutral, full pro-spin applied check' as soon as the fully-developed spin was identified!

This is NOT a substitute for proper training, nor a replacement for handling advice in the POH. But it may help.

[Wee Weasley Welshman]

I vividly recall misshandling a dual Bulldog spin above Telford power station. I relaxed the back pressure during the entry (or so I was rather pointedly informed in subsequent de-brief!) and it went high rotational. Not a big deal from a very conservative 8,500ft but it stays with me to this day.

One of the best days of my flying career remains being checked out for solo spin/aeros on the Bulldog. It really was very nice for aeros - even when latterly compared to the higher performace composite types out there.

However, I did have the benefit of mastering (just!) the Bulldog with many many hours of RAF QFI time beside me...

One wonders.

WWW

[BEagle]

WWW - the Spin/Aeros check cleared you only for solo practice of those aeros which you had been taught dual. And NOT for intentional solo spinning!!

[mfds]

Thanks FNG, WWW and BEagle .....

Maybe I should give spinning my Pup a miss then ..... although I don't feel comfortable doing aeros in an a/c I haven't spun.

[Wee Weasley Welshman]

Yes I was very well aware that solo intentional spins were not permited - thats not how my post should have read. The high rotational incident was dual.

WWW

[FNG]

mfds, I am not aware of any suggestion that Pups as a type have a history of unusual spin characteristics (although NB each individual airframe can have its quirks). It's the Bulldog that has, very occasionally, misbehaved itself, and despite the similarities to a Pup it is heavier and has a different CofG. It is of course sensible to be reluctant to aerobat an aircraft that you have not spun, but why not have an instructor demonstrate Pup spins and recoveries to you before going aerobatic? As for the Bulldog, I gather that there is a school of thought that you shouldn't spin one without a parachute. All of my pre-ppl spinning was done in a civvie Bulldog without wearing a parachute but now that I have a parachute I would wear it just in case.
If you are near London I can recommend a good aerobatic instructor who is current on Pup and Bulldog.

[BEagle]

Sorry WWW - I wasn't having a dig at you. Just didn't want the impression to be gained by anyone that the UAS Spin/Aeros check was anything more than a pre-solo aeros safety check! I'm quite surprised that you had a high-rotational experience as your QFI should have made damn sure that he took control as soon as he realised that you weren't applying full pro-spin - we were absolutely forbidden to let students induce, or even witness, a high-rotational spin; all spinning had to be 'by the book'!!

But it was a great day indeed when one was cleared for aeros the first time, wasn't it!

Back in the days when we had Chipmunks at our UAS at White waltham, we were cleared for solo intentional spinning. The first time I did so there was a clattering noise from behind which nearly caused me to have a heart failure! It turned out to be the ends of the rear seat Z-harness straps which were banging against the seat pan. No-one had warned me that that could happen!!

Hope you're enjoying the jet job!

[ 12 August 2001: Message edited by: BEagle ]

[Perfect PFL]

WWW, I agree with you completely, I'll never forget my solo aeros trips in the bulldog, great fun and a brilliant experience. :)

[Wee Weasley Welshman]

Yes it was a great event. Right up there with first solo, first student sent solo and Boeing base check.

BEagle I an enjoying myself immensely thank you. I feel the ghost of my not converting my RAF sponsorship into a set of Wings is finally laid to rest.

That said its 6 months or more now since I flew GroupA and I am getting a serious hankering...

WWW

[mfds]

FNG - Please can you email me the name of the instructor you know current on aero's in Pups - regards 'mfds'

Email : [email protected]

[FNG]

mfds, you have mail

[Gash Handlin]

Absolutely right chaps, used to count down the trips on the syllabus to my next Solo GH wazzex, I still remember the first, post spin aero check, GH, the strangest part was coming out of a sequence with a bit of energy left because the dead weight had been removed from the RHS :D :D

On the Hi-Rot thing,

A brand new, fresh out of CFS, instructor was posted to us in my second year.

On the first two GH trips he did the students sent him High Rotational, so I'm sure if he's out there he's got a good "I Learnt About Spinning Bulldogs" story to tell.

[hugh flung_dung]

FNG: Old Sarum have operated a number of Bulldogs but currently have G-BULL (ex-Hong Kong) and G-BCUV (ex-Ghana, I think!).
They've been very popular, mainly for aeros and formation training but also some people choose to do PPLs and IMCs in them (both airways equipped). Because of the handling people also like them for solo hire.
There haven't been any type-specific problems and I haven't heard that maintenance is any more difficult than the other types on the fleet.

BEAGLE: I agree that the Bulldog spins "properly" and needs correct recovery actions but maybe your post slightly overstates the situation - although I certainly wouldn't spin without a chute. During aeros courses I teach "academic" spins, precision (1 1/2 turn) spins and spin-from-manoeuvre - after a very large number of spins in 4 airframes and with a very large range of entry energy states, control positions, attitudes, etc I've only had a couple of brief surprises and both were down to mishandling.
The only things I'd say are that it's difficult to get it to depart from manoeuvre because you have to be so ham-fisted and precision spins are hard work because there seems to be variability between airframes.

[ 15 August 2001: Message edited by: hugh flung_dung ]

[BEagle]

hfd - you are probably quite correct with reference to the ex-foreign air force aircraft. The ex-RAF ones may be slightly different, but RAF Bulldog spin techniques were learned the hard way.

People with sufficient experience for the type of aero courses you describe could probably cope with the dynamic entry techniques you allude to. The RAF had to ensure that the 'average Bloggs' could cope, hence the very regimented approach to the subject.

Having flown an ex-foreign air force Bulldog, I noticed that it seemed far quicker than one of HM's at the same power setting; perhaps both mass and centre of mass are significantly different?

I agree that it takes huge abuse to make the Bulldog spin off manoeuvre; the correct incipient recovery within the first 360 deg of undemanded roll rate stops the problem dead in its tracks! In fact the T67A is probably a very good aircraft for teaching aircraft handling on the edge of buffet nibble; its gentle but definite departures make the point very firmly. Not much use for serious aeros, but an excellent aircraft for teaching stall/spin avoidance - although it does take all day to get to a safe height for fully-developed spin training!

[hugh flung_dung]

BEAGLE:
After my first "interesting" spin I discussed it with David Scouller (the boss) and Bob Cole, both were involved with re-clearing the 'dog at Boscombe after the spinning incidents. The general view seemed to be that the spin was normal and that the problems were caused by mis-handling during recovery.

People start the AOPA aeros course at all levels of experience, occasionally pre-gft but usually with a couple of hundred hours.
How much specific aeros training would a typical UAS/RAF stude have before being signed off for solo aeros? The AOPA course is 8 hours min but it's rare to get people through in this unless they've had some experience beforehand.
Some of the ex-UAS people that we get say that HM 'dogs were faster than ours (we get about 110kts at 70%), but ours are probably heavier because of the instrument fit. There are rumours that one of the other 'dogs is faster because the flaps-up stops are set to give a slightly negative flap position - don't know if this is true (or legal).

Very good point about the T67A; until someone taxied it into a concrete pilot(!) we used one for aeros and spin training - it was excellent for demonstrating the effect of a little bit of yaw at the buffet, even in steep turns!

[Gash Handlin]

HFD,

I don't know if i was typical (some would say I was very average :D )but I think I was within a couple of hours of the programmed syllabus.

When I was cleared for solo aeros I had a TT of 29hrs30min of which 9hrs 30 was GH/Spinning in preparation for and including the Independant Spin/Aeros check.

However whenever you flew solo you would only be cleared to carry out any manouever solo, which you had carried out Dual in the previous 30 days, I think you also had to have flown a dual trip (of any kind) in the previous 9 days (the memorys a bit hazy now), so the currency requirements were a LOT stricter than those for ppl's. (And I am not trying to start a mil: civvie fistfight :) )

Incidentally what (if any) are the currency requirements for ppl's before solo aeros, are thay any different from normal currency rules??

[rolling circle]

Some years ago a very good friend of mine was killed in a Bulldog spinning accident, the aircraft belonged to a UAS based at RAF Abindon. Coincidentally, another, more senior, good friend was a member of the BOI. During the Board of Inquiry a representative from Boscombe Down gave evidence to the effect that the spinning characteristics of the Bulldog were well understood and that it was accepted (by Boscombe)that the aircraft would, from time to time and for no apparent reason, enter an unrecoverable spin. However, since the incidence of this unrecoverable spin was so rare, it was considered that it was an acceptable hazard.

This information was, of course, not communicated to we poor QFIs who were required, as part of our SCT, to deliberately carry out one high rotational spin per month. It is hardly surprising, therefore, that anyone involved with Bulldog spin testing at Boscombe Down is held in the utmost contempt by the majority of Bulldog pilots.

[BEagle]

Rolling Circle - quite right!

I remember only one instance of a Bulldog taking longer than expected to recover from a spin - in this case to the right. No apparent reason - student did all the right things and the fuel was perfectly in balance.

Some months later the groundcrew were surprised when a Bulldog was refuelled and one wing tank was almost empty. The student swore blind that he'd had no more than 1 gallon imbalance, the gauge was checked and found to be reading substantially in error. So all the student's careful balancing had done nothing more than to create a dangerous imbalance. I checked my logbook....yes, the very same aircraft which had been reluctant to recover from the spin! Did they have the fleet checked? Did they hell! If we just flew with the fuel selected to 'Both' and left it there throughout the flight, perhaps there would have been less imbalance problems induced in Bulldogs?

Why were the gauges so utterly unreliable?

[ 17 August 2001: Message edited by: BEagle ]

[FNG]

hugh flung dung, do you happen to know if the Bob Cole you mention is the same Bob Cole who now sells Cap 10s?

[tacpot]

BEagle - thanks for the info earlier in the thread, about the bunting sensation on recovery being normal in the Bulldog. I always found the manoeuvre distinctly uncomfortable, and thought I was pushing further or faster than required for the recovery. No QFI ever mentioned that the sensation was 'normal' and I always had the nagging suspicion I never got the spin recovery quite right.

I'm revalidating my PPL at the moment, and my present instructor is most complementary about my flying, all of it taught by RAF or ex-RAF instructors, and given that it is 15 years since I was at Uni' (and 20 since I got my PPL), it's a credit to standards of instruction that so much seems to have 'stuck'.

Thanks

[Wee Weasley Welshman]

Fascinating. I can well imagine fuel gauges being inaccurate and was all too aware of the mortal dangers of fuel imbalance on the type...

A high rotational on each SCT - that really is taking things 'seriously'.

I greatly lament the fact that the PPL now includes nothing about spinning. When I say nothing I mean that from my experience the spin awareness consists of nothing more than the FI's at many clubs/schools muttering something about not using the rudder during stalls. If it were a requirment to be at least demo'd a, say, 3 rotation spin then I think a much more healthy respect would be fostered amongst new PPL holders and an occasional greater degree of professional preparation amongst FI's would be evident.

WWW

[Genghis the Engineer]

Rolling circle, I'm sorry, but I believe that you are in error. I was (rather later than either Bob Cole or David Scouller) involved in one of the many revisitations of the Bulldog high rotational spin at BDN.

It was never the conclusion of Boscombe that the type was capable of entering an unrecoverable spin. It was the conclusion (and I've read all the reports, one of which has my name in the front) up to 1996 when I left the place that the aircraft could (usually through mishandling) enter a high rotational spin. The spin always recovered - and hundreds were done in a series of aircraft, but the recovery was very unpleasant and often protracted. Thus, the requirement for instructor currency on the high-rotational spin and it's recovery.

What was discovered on the trial that I was running, was that with the later mod-state engines, the spin, especially the high rotational spin, caused a complete loss of oil pressure and an associated risk of engine failure later in the sortie.

Bob Cole is, at least until he retires next month, the CAA's senior light aircraft test pilot. I doubt that he also sells CAP 10s! Like David Scouller, he has 10k+ hrs, 20+years instructing experience, and a good knowledge of the mighty Bloodnot.

If you want to see a real BDN balls-up, it was the Tincano spin recovery work, which sadly I was also involved in, but too late to do more than minimise the damage done by my esteemed former employer.

G

[ 17 August 2001: Message edited by: Genghis the Engineer ]

[Genghis the Engineer]

Just by the way, please don't think I'm a BDN apologist - the place has made many grevous errors over the years, several of which I had close sight off (the F3 for example). I just don't believe that the Bulldog spinning was one of them.

Yes, the fuel guages were appauling.

G

[rolling circle]

Genghis - Believe what you will. All I can say is that such was the evidence presented by Boscombe to the BOI, as related to me by a member of that Board.

[mfds]

I finally spun my Beagle Pup last week, it seemed to recover nicely with standard spin recovery, although I only held it in for one rotation on each go. I suspect the CofG of the Bulldog is signifiacntly different and maybe explains the ferocity on them ?

[hugh flung_dung]

FNG: it's a different Bob Cole that runs Cole Aviation (and sells CAP10s)

[A and C]

WWW an interesting observation on how the stall/spin recovery is being taught in some flying clubs ,how about you open this can of worms on another thread i would like to see the results !.

[Wee Weasley Welshman]

A & C - ok then.

WWW