Tiger Moth

[man-tis]

Hi guys,
Do you know any training centre in Canada with Tiger Moth trainer?
What is your opinion about that plane and learn to fly on it?

[BOAC]

What is your opinion about that plane and learn to fly on it? - if you get the chance, take it - you'll be a better pilot for it. Any 'taildragger' in fact.

Cannot help with locations.

[clunckdriver]

As an owner of a DH product with two sets of wings I would sugest. {regretfully I might add} that you try the UK for Tiger Moth training, if you contact the DH Moth club they can point you to schools operating Tiger Moths. Much as we would like to welcome you to Canada, due to our climate my toys are staying in a heated hangar till about May of this year, however in the UK you can fly most days of the year, yes, it gets a bit cool in a Tiger in a British winter, but nothing as bad as here, {this morning, minus twenty nine at my place} On top of this, although we have some very fine re -builders in Canada, most of the technical support to keep these aircraft flying is in the UK, in fact Im on my way over to learn all about keeping Gipsy engines turning. If you do learn on a Tiger you will develope hands and feet skills which will serve you well no matter what you fly in the future, good luck!

[joy ride]

I have flown in a Tiger Moth at Headcorn Aerodrome, Kent, about 45-50 km west of Dover, far closer to Prague than Canada!

[sycamore]

Try the Cambridge Flying Club....

[joy ride]

^ Good shout: Cambridge is reasonably close to Duxford where the Imperial War Museum has a spectacular range of aircraft and vehicles to see, definitely worth a visit!

[Fantome]

In Australia the climate is conducive to making face freeze not an issue.
There is also a lot of fascinating country to see.
No better way than by Tigerschmitt.
If you have time to spare.

And if your kitty is sufficient
why not learn on a Citabria with Jim Drinnan at Camden
just out of Sydney
then pick up your own DH82A?

several of which are always in Aviation Trader
for 80 to 100 G oz dollar.

if you decide to visit the wise, I mean wide, brown land
I would be happy to introduce you to a few
Tigerschmitt owner / operators

and a few Czech pilots too

ex FSO Griffo here on proone
he's got one too.

as I did once upon a time

Everything in their favour that posters here
have said is true

what the author of the following little
satirical piece has to say is very funny but absolute bollocks

THE ABORTION CALLED THE TIGER MOTH

I've plenty of soul, just no patience for that horrible abortion of an aeronautical design, the DH82. It's all well and good to BE FLOWN about Byron Bay in one, but to BE THE ONE FLYING is an experience I wouldn't wish on my mother-in-law or my worst enemy, which ever one happened to be standing closest.

I list only some of its foibles as a complete list would do your head in.

1. The engine's upside down, which is a bad place to begin the whole design process for a start. Open the tap and it makes more noise than horsepower.

2. The glass wasted on the joke of a windscreen would have been put to better wartime use making storm doors for submarines, where they would have been found infinitely more effective than they are as windscreens on Tiger Moths. A louder, draftier, more uncomfortable place cannot be found in all aeronautica.

3. The ailerons are misnamed. They should be called "Adverse Yaw Generators" because that's all the confounded use the blessed things are. Either that or the ones on the example I flew were reverse-rigged.

4. The designer of the trim system deserves a special place in purgatory for this nasty little device. The trim control is notched, not smoothly adjustable, which means you set the power setting you want, find the trim notch closest to that, then fiddle about with the throttle for the entire rest of the flight futilely fighting to find the exact point of trim - never have I been so utterly and needlessly distracted by so necessary yet so useless a contrivance as that rig!

5. To top it all off, the harness was invented by Harry Houdini in his early years as an INscapologist when he thought the crowds would pay to see him get INTO impossibly difficult and complex webbing and knots. I had an easier time learning to tie a bowline on Helsal in a Force 8 than I did trying to understand the Cat's Cradle that is the harness in a Tiger Moth.

Other than that, they're fine machines and every aviation museum and aeronautical university should have an example of one - so they can be studied in excrutiating detail as examples of every single thing NOT to do in designing an aeroplane.

Did I mention too that I'm not particularly fond of these things?

[joy ride]

The "Wind in the face" feeling was precisely why I wanted to fly in an open cockpit aeroplane, I'm too used to tin cans!

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

Do it if you can! SO much more fun than a spamcan! And any taildragger will turn out a pilot of far higher skill than will a spammy.

[clunckdriver]

Fantome, given the temps that Aus has experienced of late I dread to think of the rate of climb in a fully loaded Tiger Moth, {not to mention "running on" during shutdown} its bad enough out West in Canada given the elevations and Summer temps, also I would have thought that an "upside down" engine would fit right in dununder!

[India Four Two]

The "Wind in the face" feeling was precisely why I wanted to fly in an open cockpit aeroplane

joy ride,

Precisely :ok: Flying in an open cockpit is a wonderful experience that makes you want more and makes you prepared to put up with all the inconveniences. I've had the pleasure of flying three different types - Tiger Moth, Stearman and a Schweizer 1-26 with a "sport canopy".

I'm retiring later this year and I have an opportunity to buy a share in a Yak 52 or a Stearman. I think I'll have to go for the Stearman! Flying the Yak with the canopy open is just not the same.

[Fantome]

well clunk me ol' canuck . .. . .. you pick your days of course

heat waves and fires and Melbourne lately 41 three days running
6 above the last record top

but you come back a week later and it's all mild summery and balmy

just like in Edmonton in hot summers, in OZ thousands of EATS
went through the hoops at places some old vets long after the war used
to say 'hot as the hobs of hell'

that's what the late Harry Purvis said of Nhill in February of 1941

short grass strips can look deceptively long , the far end hardly visible shimmering in the heat haze

but. . . let not the unfamiliar be deceived or mislead. Here there is
a wealth of lovely spots you can meander off to and put down right by the beach. Old Bar near Taree is a prime example. Or the strip at the far north end of Fraser Island. Then you've got at least half a dozen choice Barrier Reef islands to pick from. Brampton is a bewdy. Or was.

Inverted? Upright? Next you're going to tell us that you like to fly your DH60 inverted a lot. Just to be perverse. Or worse.

[clunckdriver]

Fantome, I actually lived in Melbourne for a few years, long ago during the days of the "six oclock swill", long gone thank heavens! During my time there there were indeed some beutifull vintage aircraft flying, {much to the distress of the DCA which at the time seemed to be staffed by very unhappy Poms} I must grant you that flying down the East coast at sunset is simply amazing, and the number a VFR flying days makes owning a Tiger, or any vintage bipe a realistic way to travel, would have stayed but it was not to be, still keep in touch with some of my mates, those that are still above ground that is!

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

Nothing wrong with inverted engines - I flew behind one (several actually, over the decades) in the dHC1 for well over 30 years.

But he's right about the Tiger's ailerons and the trimmer!

[JammedStab]

But he's right about the Tiger's ailerons and the trimmer!

Not the Canadian trimmer. It is smooth as silk. Canopy, heat that works a little bit, wheel brakes on angled forward gear legs, tailwheel, a fuel vent with a cover over it, actual trim tabs, a fixed rudder trim tab, a handle on each lower wingtip for ground help on windy days.

Ahhhhh, it just doesnt get any better than that.

[clunckdriver]

Jammed Stab, this is why the Canadian Tiger is called a "C" model, the "C" stands for civilized! However the DH which I own has none of these features and is a real bear to taxi in a cross wind, however we are planing a few mods this Winter so as to make returning to the hanger a bit easier.

[Fantome]

The affection for a Tiger, that grows and mellows with the years, is vaguely akin to the effect that a Model T Ford can have upon the driver/pilot, not necessarily born when either first took to the open road or up up and away into the wide blue yonder.

Interested in your reminiscences clunck. Will you be paying us a visit sometime?

Have to ask. When you look in your hanger, do you see planes? Or do you see hangers?
(Smartarse he growls, from corner of mouth.)

Wondering whether man-tis is serious, or tyre-kicking? Often you never know.

When you say C model the Motor Falke G model comes to mind. Getting in and out is easier than in other examples of the type as the fuse frame is ten inches lower each side of the cockpit on the G model. Some wag said there you have the geriatric model mate.

Cannot put the hand on an OZ Tiger pic just for the moment. . This one should evoke the odd ahhhh. . .. instead .
gemmutliche
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7a/DH_82_A_Tiger_Moth_D-EBKT.jpg (http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&docid=TQdCdKErl4041M&tbnid=I2RlvnsfYJ9cWM:&ved=0CAUQjRw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FDe_Havilland_Tige r_Moth&ei=En7hUsi5HoOpkAX01YB4&bvm=bv.59930103,d.dGI&psig=AFQjCNHrbJKIr9ZnCamvHwznmqftrBO39A&ust=1390595984356901)

[rightbank]

Including Tiger Moth flights

Trial flying Lessons in Cambridgeshire & Vintage Flights from £109 (http://www.classic-wings.co.uk/res_website.asp?supplierCode=CLA100)

[4Greens]

Did a Tiger flight at Duxford recently for old times sake. Great fun and a good instructor to keep an eye on things. Major failure not pulling back on stick on touchdown. Not needed for fifty years so some excuse.

They have a video on you all the time in the cockpit. Great value for the grandkids.

[joy ride]

At Duxford you can also have a pleasure flight in a de H Rapide, over Cambridge or London. The London flights go right past my workshop and I can recognise the distinct sound of the engines and propellers before I see the plane.

[clunckdriver]

Can anybody explain why this thread is way too wide for my computer screeen? Have tried the usual remidies but no joy, all other posts on PPrune are OK.

[Aerials]

It might be Fantome's picture at post#17 that's done it. Usually a Moderator is close by and requests that the picture be re-sized by the poster. Nice picture anyway!

[joy ride]

Yup, a great photo!

[semmern]

Love the Tiger Moth. Not because it is comfortable or easy to fly; It is neither! But it teaches you to aviate, rather than just fly.. There are no two better aeroplanes to learn on than the Tiger Moth and the Cub. It has done more to develop my flying skills than anything else I have done in my flying career so far. Highlights include flying it to Andøya in the Lofoten islands in Norway, at 70 degrees north, and becoming proficient enough to be able to land the thing in 10 to 12kt crosswinds on grass. Ours have no brakes and no tailwheels. This way you also learn that taildraggers aren't finished flying until they're tied down or parked in the hangar.

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y82/semmern/BAS2012/P1060086.jpg

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

[treadigraph]

Nice, think it was LN-BDM I saw in the Tiger Club hangar at Redhill back in the 1970s...

[semmern]

That might very well be. It's ex-RAF DE248, then it became G-ANSC before coming here as LN-BDM. deHavilland serial # 85294.

[treadigraph]

Semmerm, she moved to Norway in '54 so presumably was either visiting the TC for social reasons, or perhaps in with Rollasons for some work. Either way, nice to see her!

[Warmtoast]

To think that when I joined the RAF, Tiger Moths trained our future pilots.

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

A beautiful aircraft

...until things went wrong!

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

[joy ride]

There seems to be a range of opinions about the Tiger Moth!

Slight thread drift to broaden the discussion, hope no-one minds....

To me it seems self-evident that any light, piston-engined, open cockpit, tail-dragging bi-plane of that era is bound to be found lacking in many ways, especially to us more accustomed to modern aircraft.

I would be interested to know which planes of similar design, purpose and age are considered to be significantly better or worse, and the reasons for this.

[Fantome]

Pretty subjective in the analysing ..... even the differences between a Tiger and a Chippy are so marked, comparisons, as they say, are invidious. Bit like a
First World War test pilot being asked to say in what way a Maurice Farman Shorthorn differed from an Avro 504K . (He'd splutter in his beer). Or a Model T Ford from an Escort or a Capri. Or an apple from a pear. Chalk and cheese.

Go back into Flight and Flight International archives. Dig out flight reports by Cliff Barnett, Hugh Field, Mark Lambert and a number of other outstanding pilot/journalists. When comparisons are made, they are valid , apposite, and between closely matched competitive models, then in production.

[JammedStab]

I would be interested to know which planes of similar design, purpose and age are considered to be significantly better or worse, and the reasons for this.

I suppose the Stearman was the equivalent in the US. Like the Tiger moth, if you are not careful with it you will be embarrassing yourself with a groundloop.

From a pilots point of view, you are flying a huge aircraft compared to the Tiger Moth. Everything is larger from cockpit size to height above the ground. From an operational point of view, this means more hangar space will be used.

If one goes by the theory that more coordination inputs are an advantage to teaching a new student flying skills, then the Tiger Moth wins in that area as a lack of rudder input for initiating a turn will send the ball to the far limits of its tube. For an experienced pilot, the Stearman inflight handling is much more pleasant and responsive.

A fleet of Stearmans will burn significantly more fuel than Tiger Moth's. So if cost or fuel shortages enter the picture during a war, the Stearman can be at a disadvantage.

A handcrank for the stearman back in the old days seems much safer than handpropping on a slippery grass field for a Tiger Moth.

I think ground visibility is better in the Tiger Moth with its narrow engine allowing you to stick your head out the side of the aircraft for a better view.

Ground handling in the Stearman is more responsive with its brake system using toe brakes compared to Tiger Moths with no brakes installed. It is much less of an issue on grass where the Tiger Moth did most of its flying of course but a grass surface can become quite hard in the dry summer and the Tiger Moths with tailwheels are really affected by the wind in that case. On pavement, the Tiger Moths with brakes obviously are better but taxiing in a significant wind is more complicated as hands are needed for throttle, control stick and hand brake. Stearman is much easier with its toe brakes.

While I read stories of people flying Tiger moths in quite strong winds, I would rather be in a Stearman if the wind picks up, especially on a hard surface as most Tiger moths have no brakes. Even for those that do have brakes(handbrake on left side), I think the Stearman wins out. So the training might end sooner on a windy day at the airbase with tiger Moths,

Avoiding low speed situations is so critical with these high drag aircraft and so many have stalled over the years. My feeling is that the Tiger moth is more vulnerable to its draggy airframe than the Stearman. Even in a normal climb, you have to watch that Tiger Moth airspeed carefully. After an engine failure, depending on phase of flight, I think more immediate action is required to avoid a stall in the Tiger Moth.

I would say the Stearman airframe is much more rugged.

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

I found the Stearman to be a bit of a bus. Big, heavy, honest, but not really all that nice to fly (but better than a Tiger). I once flew a Waco biplane in Florida and found it very similar to the Stearman.

The aeroplane that the Tiger Moth should have been is the Stampe. They look similar, but the Tiger has truly awful handling and un-harmonised controls. The Stampe is a delight. Not as much of a delight as the Chipmunk, but then, what is? :)

[India Four Two]

JammedStab,

I was going to write about the Stearman, but you beat me to it.

I agree with almost everything you said. However, I think if a WWII student pilot had never flown anything else, he probably wouldn't have noticed the size.

As SSD says the Stearman is nicer to fly than a Tiger. Those are the only two biplanes I've flown. I'll have to get my hands on a Stampe one day (and a Pitts!)

[evansb]

http://i141.photobucket.com/albums/r68/convair640/convair640016/800px-WCAM_Tiger_Moth_zpsc4fce5e0.jpg

[Centaurus]

I learned to fly in a Tiger Moth and all approaches to land were glide. In other words you simply closed the throttles on base leg at a position where you judged you could glide at 58 knots and land in the first third of the field.

If you came in too high you fixed that by side slipping. If you looked like undershooting you simply applied sufficient throttle power to level out momentarily then closed it and resumed the glide. The glide approach was not only the normal technique for landing but gave the pilot constant experience on how wind affected the glide and its application for real forced landings without power.

I don't know about UK or Canada but glide approaches as taught in Australian flying schools in light singles (Cessnas and Warriors for example) are quite different to the original techniques used in Tiger Moths and I don't know why..

Nowadays you have to tell ATC if you intend to do a glide as it becomes a "non-normal" landing even though the Cessna POH states you can land it power off or power on for the same speeds. In fact there are flying schools that do not permit students to practice glide approaches for landing. They are seen as too hard without an instructor to supervise the landing! The technique taught in Australian flying schools requires the instructor to close the throttle late downwind as if it is an engine failure and the student has to get in from there.

The problem is spacing between other aircraft in the circuit as you have to cut someone else off in order to get quickly on to base to get in. This is because it is treated like a forced landing. That is why in Australia there is official advice you have to advise ATC so that other aircraft in the circuit with give you wide berth to do your own thing. How pathetic is that..
Whoopy-do - everyone stay clear 'cos I am about to do a glide approach in my Cessna 150.

Bloody silly, really when you think that for literally hundreds of thousands of Tiger Moths flights before, during and after WW2, glide approaches were considered normal approach and landing procedure. Now they are called "non-normal" landings requiring ATC notification:ugh:

[Centaurus]

It has done more to develop my flying skills than anything else I have done in my flying career so far

Am I correct in saying that Chipmunk landings were normally glide approaches same as we did on Tigers?

[kluge]

Here's a nice and emotive PIREP for the Tiger Moth.

The last paragraph is nice and some's it up for me as I get older.

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

In the right hands it's capable of this and it's not too shabby at all.

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

Having flown Tiger Moths and considerably hours more in various Pitts S2's there are certainly differences. LOL. Both are wonderful in their own but very different ways. Enjoy them all.

[FlightlessParrot]

The Buecker Jungmann looks very directly comparable, and I think there are still some around. Any comparisons?

[treadigraph]

FP, Brian Lecomber wrote a comparison of the Tiger, Stampe and Jungmann for Flyer several years ago. Being a gentleman with sensitive aerobatic hands he naturally had a great preference for the handling of the Stampe and the Jungmann!

If money were no object, I'd have one of each (and a Chippy)...

I'm not a pilot and I haven't yet flown in any of the three, but I have a feeling that I'd enjoy the challenge of learning to fly the Tiger well.

[joy ride]

Many thanks all for your interesting comments and links. I feel that the Stampe and Bucker are great comparisons and sound rather superior to the Tiger Moth. The Stearman is certainly interesting to read about but to my mind is a class up in size, weight and power; noise too!

I certainly enjoyed the "elemental" feel of the Tiger Moth, wafting its way sedately through the breezes.

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

Am I correct in saying that Chipmunk landings were normally glide approaches same as we did on Tigers?

Like any aeroplane I've flown (and that's a few, but all SEPs) it's happy either way. I generally did steepish low or no power approaches - it just seems more natural in that aeroplane.

Unless following an instrument procedure, it is poor airmanship to drag any SEP along a long shallow final with power against drag. A short shallow final for a short landing is OK, however.

But one really should use whatever landing technique works best in the circumstances, so you need to be well practiced in all of them.

At Barton, our Chippy's home for many years, bomber circuit pilots preceding permitting (and there were a lot of those) I'd turn base quite close in, power off, short final, and land. Indeed the entire circuit was tight.

Landing before a commecial jet transport at Liverpool John Lennon, the heavy already on final, that technique worked as well and Air Traffic were skilled and getting you in like that (I used a descending base leg along the airfield boundary).

More often at John Lennon you'd be held south or north of the field for a gap in the commercial inbounds. My technique then, when cleared in ("recommended spacing 6 nautical miles") was to maintain clean configuration, high power, and keep the speed on (about 100 kts, normal cruise being 90) to very short final and watch the airliner's touchdown. Once on final, power right off, speed rapidly back to VFE 1st stage, and flap lowered while still bringing the speed back. At VFE second stage, full flap lowered and the aeroplane trimmed for 60 kts. Remaining high on final like this, and touching down after the airliner's touchdown point, kept one away from the dreaded wake turbulence.

This was followed by a 3-point touchdown, and hopefully one was down to taxi speed for the 'Foxtrot' turn-off. The first time power was applied after that initial 'power off' on final, was for taxying.

That technique worked well and caused no delay to a stream of commercial inbounds. I think if you waited for a 6 nautical mile gap and then flew a 'normal' approach you'd be facing a considerable delay in getting back in!

[India Four Two]

but to my mind is a class up in size, weight and power; noise too!

Quite right and the noise is wonderful - nothing like a round-engine - except maybe a 27L V-12 :ok:

[evansb]

A round-engine type the size of a DH-82C Tiger Moth ? Try on a Fleet Finch..
The RCAF operated over 400 of them during WW.II.

http://i141.photobucket.com/albums/r68/convair640/convair640017/Fleet16BCFGER_zps7315cf76.jpg

[Wander00]

Is that the original shape of the Fleet Finch canopy?

[India Four Two]

Wander00,
It looks like it is original:

http://bcatp.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/fleet-finch-94.jpg

I was surprised by the apparently small size of the Fleet Finch in evansb's photo - look at the size of the pilot. I even went as far as looking up CF-GER to see if it was a 7/8 scale replica, but it's an original.

[JammedStab]

I have also flown the Fleet Finch. It is not known well outside of North America so I did not mention it initially. But, it is a good direct comparison with the Tiger Moth. These aircraft flew side by side in Canada with the DH.82C. I believe Portugal had Finches as well.

These two types were in direct competition with each other for purchases by other countries. The Tiger seemed to mostly win out.

For generally similar looking aircraft, they are actually quite different(Fleet 16 vs, DH.82C). Once again, the inflight handling of the Finch is much more responsive than the Tiger Moth. But then again, that goal is not difficult to achieve. While I have not spun either of them, the Tiger Moth did encounter some spin difficulties. It is a contentious subject among Tiger Moth "experts" with many theories and explanations. The bottom line is that the Canadian-built 82C was never modified like so many A models and does quite well without the ugly anti-spin strakes.

Both aircraft are limited in range but the Tiger does have the advantage of certification of an aux fuel tank in front of the pilot to extend range by more than an hour from original. I would give the Finch which lacks external cables for the rudder at least 5 knots cruise advantage over the Tiger Moth. The small vent on the aft side if the Finch fuel tank(at the upper wing trailing edge) seems less likely to result in water contamination than the vent on top of the Tiger Moth tank, which on the A model seems to only have protection by a ball bearing internal design that stops water from going in and then slides up to keep fuel from going out during certain flight maneuvers.

The Tiger Moth can be more vulnerable to water contamination incidents because when in the three point attitude, the fuel sump is not at the lowest point in the tank. Therefore, this and the longitudinal corrugations in the fuel tank can hide water which can reveal itself in flight. Rocking wings prior to or having your colleagues raise the tail to level while sampling fuel could help if you have any reason to be suspicious(or just draining it). Meanwhile the Finch tank was designed with three outlets although sometimes only two are used.

For colder climes, the canopied Tiger wins out as most Finch canopies have long disappeared, possibly because they went to warmer areas such as Mexico after the war. However, both do have heating capability, although mods might be required on your Finch to get it back to original.

Like the Tiger Moth, the Finch does not have much payload capability but the baggage carrying space is definitely larger on the DH.82C.

To be honest with you, I find that the Tiger Moth, for a simple aircraft has a very large amount of things that should be checked on a thorough walkaround including the fairly complex mechanisms under the cowl.

Engine operation is significantly different between the two of them with the Kinner radial engine on the Finch and all the unique aspects of the radial engine operation from longer warm-up to hydraulic lock considerations (although the Gipsy is more vulnerable to a fuel hydraulic lock if the intake manifold drain is plugged). That being said, having the starter on the Kinner makes things much easier along with normal priming instead of the quaint Gipsy Major engine method of tickling the carby(But having to grease the Kinner rockers every few hours, does add to maintenance requirements and it really should be done properly).

I am not sure if Finches came out of the factory with a starter. There are some Tiger Moths modified with a starter. However, when if it comes to a hand-propping comparison, I much prefer the Tiger as it is less force required and the prop is closer to the ground.

The Tigers Gipsy Major engine has been known to have mag difficulties with the old BTH model, sometimes requiring a reasonable tap on the mag to free up the impulse coupling, if you don't hear it click while pulling the prop through prior to start. That along with saving weight and other difficulties has lead to a Slick mag conversion. The Tiger moth has two sets of mag switches located on the outer fuselage wired in series. One for student and one for instructor. Nowadays the front set could easily be accidentally turned off by a front seat passenger. An original Finch has a simple heavy duty rod that moves forward for mags on and aft for mags off. Checking the mags is annoying as there are separate switches located at the most inconvenient spot on the right sidewall between from and rear seats. Remember to keep holding the brakes as you twist around to reach them.

While the DH.82C has trim tabs for elevator trim(unlike the A model) and a nice handle on the right side of the cockpit to operate it smoothly, the Finch trim adjusts the whole stabilizer. An unusual cable system is used on the left side of the pilot for trimming but no location indicated for a takeoff setting. Presetting marks on the cable(although it could slip) or at the fuselage to stabilizer location can be beneficial.

These two aircraft handle completely different not only in the air but on the ground. The DH.82C has a free castoring tailwheel while the Finch has cables directly attached from rudders to the tailwheel unit(internally routed of course).

For the Tiger Moth taxiing, this means much more effort. While differential braking is installed, taxiing requires extra talent due to the brakes being operated by a handle which in combination with amount of rudder pedal deflection dictates the amount of differential. For improved ground handling, brakes can be set up with a slight amount of individual brake application with full rudder deflection. I have had to do a 360 degree turn on the runway while taxiing with a poor brake setup to do what I wanted. I have also seen a Tiger Moth unable to turn toward the desired direction due to relatively strong winds. Fortunately the Canadian version has a hand hold at the end of each lower wing for ground assistance which saved the day in that case.

Meanwhile the Finch with its direct cable linkage to tailwheel unit has as immediate a response to steering that I have ever seen using just the rudder pedals no pre-planning required for effect. There are heel brakes which are reasonably easy to use. Tight turns in the Finch may be difficult depending perhaps on tailwheel modifications.

Many Finches have been modified to have the pilot fly from the back seat. This can reduce the noseover tendency by moving the CG aft. Some but not all of them do have grabby brakes. The CG can be further forward than original due to many having been modified from 125 to 160 hp(although some early models were built with with the larger engine until the PT-22 created a shortage). One aircraft did flip over recently while just taxiing at a high speed followed by brake application and there have been quite a few noseovers. Because of the front pilot seat design, the fuel guage for the Finch is on the bottom of the fuel tank instead of on top for the aft seated pilot in the Tiger.

Takeoff in these two aircraft are very different in terms of control response. For those flying back and forth between the two, a review of techniques is a good idea for each one. With the Tigers Gipsy driven prop(either metal or wood are used) spins in opposite direction to the Finches Kinner driven prop. Opposite rudder inputs for turning moments are required.

Sensitivity to rudder input between the two are completely opposite. The Tiger pilot is used to coarse inputs to get response at lower speeds as its small rudder has lesser effect. Meanwhile, the Finchs large rudder makes it very, very sensitive to rudder input. I try to remind myself to make mini rudder inputs for control for takeoff and landing. I imagine it to be more like a Pitts(although I have not flown one).

For the landing, once again there are differences. The Tiger requires a light touch for the flare to avoid ballooning while the Finch stick requires noticeably more force to be brought fully aft for proper full stall landing. Both aircraft are quite docile on grass. Once again, coarse rudder inputs can be quite normal on the rollout int the Tiger but should be avoided in the Finch.

Where they both provide potential challenge is on pavement but in different ways. The Tigers lesser rudder responsiveness and free castoring tailwheel make it much more vulnerable to crosswinds. Brakes are available but using a handbrake is not necessarily intuitive to the average modern day trained pilot. The brake setup of a small application of differential braking at full rudder deflection can save the day and has. As speed decreases during the roll, vulnerability to loss of directional control increases.

Meanwhile, the Finch is subject to serious overcontrolling leading to accidents. The rudder cables were originally attached directly onto the tailwheel fork itself which lead to many overcontrol accidents. During the war, modifications or at least a study about them was made leading to some present day aircraft having a modified tailwheel strut where the cable attachment points are now fitted to a bracket that has been attached to the strut. The result is less tailwheel movement for a given amount of rudder input, although it is still very effective. As well, at touchdown on the Finch, it appears that main gear compression can happen at slightly different times leading to a temporary small heading change which can be over-compensated for and therefore lead to directional instability. While I have not personally experienced it on my few pavement landings, it has been suggested by another pilot to more plop it on in order to compress both struts right away and equally than feather it on and let struts settle on their own individual time. Higher tire pressure may also have a detrimental effect but this has just been talk.

In the end, one feels that there is much better response available for crosswind conditions in the Finch, especially at low speed due to its very effective rudder and very effective tailwheel. Finch ailerons are much more effective on the ground as well, as the Tiger Moth ailerons have the unusual feature of deflecting down a bit and then back to neutral as full stick deflection is reached. Mind you, your legs block full stick deflection anyways, strangely to your benefit as you have your little bit of down aileron(and lots of up aileron).

My personal preference for both types and most conventional gear aircraft is wheel landings on pavement and three-point on grass. But that is subject for endless debate among the many experts.

For the modern owner, you will find much more support and information about your Tiger Moth as there are so many of them. There is more than one type club around with excellent information, incredible regular magazines and books written(try finding anything on the Finch). Much of the Finch history has disappeared and the one club is much smaller and has few enthusiastic members although more are eagerly welcomed. Parts will likely be easier to find on the Tiger and there actually are original drawings for the Tiger unlike the disappeared Finch drawings.

[joy ride]

Thanks JS, great post.

[Wander00]

Fleet cockpit canopy looks like a prototype for the Messerschmitt bubble car

[joy ride]

Certainly the rear end does, in fact the rear also looks a bit like the back window of my Heinkel/Trojan bubble car!

[4Greens]

Glide approaches were the norm. In case of an engine failure - non event.

[India Four Two]

Glide approaches were the norm

Yes. When I was training at White Waltham (mostly non-radio in those days!), the instructions were to close the throttle on base leg when you were sure of reaching the runway.

[JammedStab]

A few interesting things can be seen in the Finch picture at the top. At the far left upper corner, you can see a windy airspeed indicator. I suspect that these were brought over from Tiger Moths and not factory standard on the Finch but I have not been able to ever find a Finch factory picture.

On top of the centre upper wing are two small tabs (above the inner struts attached to the fuselage) Cables would be attached here for lifting. The Tiger also has a setup for crane lifting but it is on the airframe itself requiring removal of the covers between wing and fuselage.

A single handle on the back of the fuel tank is in view. The small fuel vent will be nearby but not visible in the picture. Where the left stabilizer meets the fuselage is a black curved mark. That is actually an opening to allow the stabilizer to be moved up and down with trim.

It is very difficult to see but unlike the Tiger Moth, there is a large amount of offset to the vertical stabilizer.

The top portion of the exhaust reaches over from the left side to the right side with a balance tube forming a nice circle. As well, you can see the exhaust pipe coming from the top cylinder. Present day exhausts have all had that balance tube removed and then had the holes capped off. I am not sure why this was done(although apparently the caps have Fleet part numbers) but there are now two separate exhaust tubes(which eventually merge down below). One exhaust unit is for three of the cylinders and one for the remaining two cylinders. That may have something to do with the interesting sound that it makes in flight.

You can also see that portion of the exhaust in view for the left side of the aircraft has a larger diameter in its lower portion. This is because there is a shroud over the exhaust pipe with the same on the other side. One side is for carb heat and one side is for cabin heat.

A few updates and corrections were made to the earlier comparison.