Tiger Moth

[4Greens]

Just did a Tiger Moth flight at Duxford. First for fifty years and great fun. Really good instructor making sure I didnt do anything stupid.

[treadigraph]

Lucky so and so - on my list of things to do, Duxford, Redhill, or if Tiger Club can do joy rides, in dear old G-ACDC...

[kluge]

...any Tiger Moth anecdotes out there please ? :)

[Wander00]

My old friend Peter Charles was doing some work for a well known restorer in North Norfolk, and blagged me a trip from Lt Snoring to Langham - good job gates were open! Brilliant, one of the most memorable quarter hours in my life. Thanks Pete and HL

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

Hmmm. I was very dissapointed when I flew one. Awful ailerons, and very poorly harmonised controls. It looks far better than it flies, and is only redeemed by having 'character' as an open-cockpit biplane.

[Agaricus bisporus]

Blimey! I must have been asleep when I flew them. Never noticed any of that! Loved it. OK, the Stampe has better roll rate (whether the ailerons were "better" or not I couldn't say, they all looked OK to me) and was vastly easier to handle on the ground but the Tiger was just a joy to fly. (Dear old ACDC)

[Tiger_mate]

Was ACDC once blue and based at Swanton Morley circa 1985?


..... If so, I have the tick too.

[treadigraph]

Was ACDC once blue and based at Swanton Morley circa 1985?

Nah, plummish red since Tiger Club acquired her late 50s.

G-ACDA made a brief reappearance in the 1980s until being rudely interrupted by some power lines - still extant, no idea what colours she wore.

[DX Wombat]

http://www.airport-data.com/images/aircraft/small/000/205/205281.jpg

[taybird]

You can also fly a Tiger at the Cambridge Flying Group. Their two Tigers are really well maintained aeroplanes and they offer excellent tuition both in flying and operating them.

If you ever have a chance to fly the DH60, particularly if you've flown the DH82a, do so. You'll find most variants of the DH60 to be quite a bit nicer than the DH82a.

There are also a number of lovely books written by Stuart Mackay on various subjects of the deHavilland nature. Much better than the "Haynes" Manual series!

[India Four Two]

Awful ailerons, and very poorly harmonised controls. It looks far better than it flies, and is only redeemed by having 'character' as an open-cockpit biplane.

SSD,

I agree with you, but perhaps you and I have been spoiled by our Chipmunk flying. However, the open-cockpit is a wonderful redeeming feature. The most vivid recollection of my first Tiger flight was the graphic demonstration of what profile drag means, when I closed the throttle without lowering the nose. It seemed as if we were going to stop in mid-air. ;)

My favourite biplane is the Stearman - like a Tiger on steroids - better handling, brakes, wonderful radial engine sounds, lots of grunt and a fuel bill to match!

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

I prefer the Stampe. I flew a Stearman once and it was OK but not very agile (big, heavy, ponderous, like a Waco I flew in Florida). The Stampe almost rivals the Chippy for 'nice to fly'. I once flew a Jungmann, but not long enough to get to know it; that was very nice to fly.

The only other biplane I've flown is an Acrosport that I was considering buying a share in many many years ago. I remember that as very agile but lacking grace and with strangley 'dead feeling' controls; it darted around everywhere like a hyper mad kitten, going just where you pointed it!

[Warmtoast]

My only experience of Tiger Moths was in my early days in the RAF when I was at 5 FTS (RAF Thornhill), Rhodesia.

Couple of photos from my album of one taking off

http://i145.photobucket.com/albums/r231/thawes/RAF%20Thornhill/Thornhill-TigerMoth2.jpg

And of one landed - sort of!

http://i145.photobucket.com/albums/r231/thawes/RAF%20Thornhill/TigerMothPrang_1280x742.jpg


When they were replaced by Chipmunks from September 1951 onwards some were sold/given to the Royal Rhodesian Air Force with the remainder being flogged off locally at £5 each, but even at £5 not many were sold and most were scrapped.

[kluge]

Tiger Moth "Easy to fly, but blooming difficult to fly well".

Here's one flown very well.

Yes a higher performance aircraft can do it all better and easier, Stampe, Pitts, Nanchang, Yak, Extra, Sukhoi and the list goes on etc but so what.

A nostalgic treat.


Tiger Moth biplane aerobatics - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=SG&v=oHhzIgbBjJ4&hl=en-GB)

[rjtjrt]

That is a nice display.
Interesting to see 7 Triplanes waiting to line up as he lands.
John

[4Greens]

It should be remembered that the Tiger was used for training in the 39/45 war. It's a bit unfair to compare it with much more modern aircraft even including Chipmunks. The Chippy had a disturbing tendency to swing a bit on landing on a runway, if not watched carefully.

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

It should be remembered that the Tiger was used for training in the 39/45 war. It's a bit unfair to compare it with much more modern aircraft even including Chipmunks. The Chippy had a disturbing tendency to swing a bit on landing on a runway, if not watched carefully.

Modern? Stampe? Jungmann? They are similar vintage and have infinately superior handling to the Tiger Moth.

Chippy swing on landing? Not in my very conderable expeience on type (30+ years of strip flying, aeros etc).

[VictorGolf]

Unlike the chap who parked his in the oilseed rape adjacent to our strip after a swing on landing. That was expensive.

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

All taildraggers will swing on landing if you let them - they are directionally unstable on the ground, the CG being behind the main wheels. That's why you use your feet!

Some taildraggers have a greater propensity to swing than others. The Chippy is not one of these.

[JW411]

I always find it interesting to hear the various opinions given by pilots. I guess a lot of it has to do with the sequence that they fly various aircraft in and how often they flew them.

I did my PPL on the Tiger Moth and I loved it probably because I hadn't flown anything else.

I flew my first Chipmunk after 120 hours on the Piston Provost and it did absolutely nothing for me, nor has it since.

I'm sure if I had flown the Chipmunk before the PP then I might have thought differently?

[Wander00]

Always wish I had flown in the Piston Provost - and the Hunter, which I missed by a few courses in each direction at Valley.

[thetexpat]

Had the honour of gaining my PPL at Thruxton (Wiltshire School of Flying) in 1961, primarily on the Jackaroo (bastardised Tiger!?)!
Final flight with the CFI (John Heaton) was inflight engine restart (remember, no starter motor!)!
Anyway, I'm curious to know whether SSD has had the dubious experience of flying a Jackaroo? I'd be interested in your comments re handling as, from my experience, it handled like 'a serving spoon in a bowl of rice pudding'! Certainly NOT aerobatic!

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

JW - does not compute.

In much the same way that Concorde and the Spitfire are 'generally agreed' to be among the better looking of aeroplanes, the de Havilland Chipmunk is 'generally agreed' to have superbly harmonised controls and excellent handling qualities, though it lacks in other areas (notably, available power!).

I don't think any one would ever claim that the Tiger Moth, lovely aeroplane though it is, scores well in the handling department.

[kluge]

in my very conderable expeience on type

I'll bet you're fun at parties. :rolleyes:



The Tiger Moth is a product of its time. Notwithstanding its shortcomings it delivered what it was tasked to do successfully and much more.
Today it presents an opportunity to go back in time experiencing its handling qualities and design quirks accordingly.

Whether it is the best or the worst aircraft is irrelevant. It simply is as the 600 or so currently airworthy stand testament to a loved design.

[India Four Two]

Tiger Moth "Easy to fly, but blooming difficult to fly well".

Here's one flown very well.


kluge,

Thanks for posting that great video of Dave Phillips' spectacular Tiger Moth display. I saw him perform at Tauranga last year. It is not always obvious from the video that the whole display is at low-level. Amazing skill to fly such an under-powered, draggy aeroplane in such a polished performance.

He then hopped out of the Tiger and gave an equally skilfull display in this:

http://www.airplane-pictures.net/images/uploaded-images/2007-10/12/7555.jpg

Used up more sky though, and made a lot more noise! :ok:

[kluge]

Yes I heard from friends about that show, I missed it unfortunately.

He certainly is a talented flyer. There are other Tiger routines of his on YouTube. The finesse and energy management is impressive given the types erm 'challenges' :O His aeros and general handling notes on the Tiger are good reading too.

Also he was the test pilot for the recent Anson and Mosquito first flights!

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

thetexpat - no, never flew the jackaroo but have heard the war stories which support what you say!

Kluge wrote:

The Tiger Moth is a product of its time. Notwithstanding its shortcomings it delivered what it was tasked to do successfully and much more.
Today it presents an opportunity to go back in time experiencing its handling qualities and design quirks accordingly.

Whether it is the best or the worst aircraft is irrelevant. It simply is as the 600 or so currently airworthy stand testament to a loved design.

None of which anyone here is disagreeing with. But it still handles like a rice pudding. 0 out of 10 for your need to make a personal attack (the bit of your post that preceded the above), 10 out of 10 for excellent point-missing!

[scotbill]

The Jackaroo (being a Tiger modified to seat 4) was one of those "constant speed, variable noise" aeroplanes. i.e grossly underpowered.

The Tiger is a less versatile aerobatic machine than e.g the Stampe - as it only has ailerons on the lower wing. Slow rolls require much better coordination of aileron and rudder.
(Which makes displays like Dave Philips all the more impressive).

[Wander00]

The Magister was a near contemporary of the Tiger Moth - how did that compare for co-ordination, manoeuvrability, etc. Another on my list of aeroplanes I wish I had had the opportunity to fly - not sure why. Always looked good though.

[kluge]

SSD - Just trying to keep it light and I guess it backfired like an old Gipsy.

Now smile and everything will be ok :ok:


As regards 3 axis handling roll response in general attracts criticism.
Pitch and yaw are considered to be good in the old girl.

Wander00

Interesting article on the Maggie here.

Miles Magister - Flight Tests - Pilot (http://www.pilotweb.aero/features/flight-tests/miles_magister_1_1973861)

So why were only 1,300 Magisters built, as opposed to over 7,000 Tigers? I can only imagine that the it was deemed to be too easy to fly or too expensive to build−or perhaps the longitudinal stability issues made it ‘too dangerous’ for students?

[India Four Two]

As regards 3 axis handling roll response in general attracts criticism.

Yes, I've often wondered what a Tiger would be like if it didn't have that differential-aileron control. There is hardly any downgoing aileron at all.

SSD, are the Stampe's ailerons differential to the same degree?

[kluge]

Nick Bloom (Pilot magazine) wrote in August 2004 edition :

"People criticise the Tiger Moth's ailerons, and it's true that they become ineffective at very slow speeds, but the roll rate at cruise speed is excellent."

It's certainly no Pitts but last Saturday's Tiger flight IMO confirmed Bloom's comments.

The geared differential aileron control minimises adverse yaw in a rather complex way.

[India Four Two]

His aeros and general handling notes on the Tiger are good reading too.

kluge,
Are these notes available on the web?

[Wander00]

Kluge- VMT- W-00

[kluge]

IF2 - they were available on the Tiger Moth Club of NZ website but I see that their server seems to be down at present.

http://www.tigermothclub.co.nz/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/tmcmembersform.pdf

[Flying Lawyer]

The Tiger Moth is a wonderful aircraft to have flown and I'm very pleased to have done so. However, although Brits understandably tend to wax lyrical about the Tiger, I think the Stampe and the Stearman which were designed and built in the same era are better aircraft and, for me, more enjoyable to fly.

I was thrilled when I first flew a Tiger Moth at the Tiger Club, and tootling over the countryside in a classic open-cockpit biplane is an enjoyable experience but, after I'd been checked out to fly the Stampe, only took a Tiger Moth if there wasn't a Stampe available. It's much more responsive (ailerons on both wing surfaces) and much more fun. Perhaps if I'd done more hours in the Tiger Moth I'd have a different view. It's relatively easy to fly, but difficult to fly well - I didn't get to that stage.

The Stearman is pure joy to fly. Less agile than the Stampe, but excellent handling qualities.

Of biplanes of that vintage, I'd say Stearman, Stampe (almost a tie, but for different reasons) and then Tiger Moth.


The Chippy had a disturbing tendency to swing a bit on landing on a runway, if not watched carefully.All taildraggers do to varying degrees, but I never found it to be an issue with the Chipmunk - a superb aircraft IMHO.
I loved flying the Harvard but the Chipmunk's beautifully harmonised controls and excellent handling qualities are rightly famed.


FL

[Lightning Mate]

1965.

I will always remember what my instructor said:

"If you can slow roll a Tiger, you can slow roll anything".

He was right.

[kluge]

A quaint read for the record.

de Havilland Tigermoth Pilot Report (http://www.airbum.com/pireps/PirepTigermoth.html)

[old,not bold]

My very first powered flight was in a Thruxton Jackaroo; I saved up for it while training at Larkhill. I found it quite exciting.

Just after that her Majesty asked me to go to Aden and then Plymouth. But a few years later I found myself in Oswestry in a boring job, and looked for someone to teach me to fly for very little money.

He was as Welsh as they come, and kept his Tiger Moth somewhere up towards Llangollen, as I recall. I don't think he had much time for CAA busybodies.

He flew it out of a muddy field surrounded by trees, and believed in throwing students in at the deep end, ie making them fly it from the start and taking control only when the crash was imminent.

I only had one flight with him, for a number of reasons, and finished training at Sleap, but the sheer magic of that flight set me off on a life in aviation. It was my last in a Tiger Moth, which was my loss.

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

I will always remember what my instructor said:

"If you can slow roll a Tiger, you can slow roll anything".

He was right.

The other one I like:

"You can't do a really slow roll in a Chippy becuase the endurance is only 2.5 hours".

[olbob]

I have flown numerous biplanes and others. The Stearman is the absolutely the best of all. I flew a 300Hp version and a 400HP version and the more power, the better it got. Beautifully balanced controls and the desire to fly matched mine. It taught me more about flying than anything else. The Cub is a close second.

[kluge]

Anyone have stories pro/con the use of Slots on the Tiger Moth a.

[JammedStab]

One of the most interesting things to see in a Tiger Moth is while on the ground, move the stick to full left or right deflection and watch the downgoing aileron. It soon becomes the upgoing aileron as it returns almost to neutral at full stick deflection.

After wondering how such a complicated mechanism must have been created to do such a thing, look under the wing and you are surprised by the simplicity of it all.

The watch the difference in how much up deflection there is on the other aileron compared to the minor downgoing deflection there is on the other side. De Havilland patented differential ailerons.

Have only flown the C model. Canopy, brakes, gear legs angled more forward to lessen noseover tendencies, tailwheel, heater, better fuel tank vent, elevator trim tabs, no ugly anti-spin strakes, no slats, thinner metal tube interplane struts, lower mainplane leading edge more robust due to wood construction, wingtip handhold slots, safety covers over the location where the rudder bar attaches to the rudder cables, night flying capability on some, no side doors, baggage compartment entrance from the rear cockpit, no need to open the cowl to add oil, two piece cowl, a wider walkway originally covered in cork, a cable with a ring to tickle the carb so the cowl can stay closed, a fixed trim tab on the rudder, less interesting modern instruments, different venturi, 145 hp engine.

Any other differences?

The Stearman is a completely different animal and much bigger inside and out with worse forward visibility in my opinion. The Tiger definitely requires some rudder for entering the turns for coordination in greater amounts than all other biplanes I have flown.

[Snakecharmer]

Lucky so and so - on my list of things to do, Duxford, Redhill, or if Tiger Club can do joy rides, in dear old G-ACDC...

'CDC is indeed available through the Tiger Club :-)

[semmern]

Tigers, eh? Larking about in northern Norway last year, on our way to Bodø Air Show.

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y82/semmern/BAS2012/P1060084.jpg

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y82/semmern/BAS2012/P1060085.jpg

And a PT-19 for good measure. One of the nicest-flying kites I've ever had the pleasure of piloting!

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y82/semmern/BAS2012/P1060083.jpg