Thought you might like this Tiger Moth review...

[akaSylvia]

Tiger Moth: Old school flying without all those pesky flaps, brakes and instruments

Tiger Moth: Old school flying without all those pesky flaps, brakes and instruments ? The Register (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/02/07/the_day_i_almost_flew_a_tiger_moth_singlehanded/)

An excerpt:

I smiled and sat back. I was in a beautiful vintage plane about to take off and fly over the Salisbury plains in the sunshine. Could life get any better than this? David interrupted my day dreaming. “Now you too can experience the joy of taxiing a tail dragger. You have control.”http://regmedia.co.uk/2015/02/06/tiger_moth_5.jpg

I choked and then rapidly grabbed the stick and looked for the rudder pedals. Memories of my first-ever training flight came back to me: I couldn’t reach the pedals. Weren’t they all a lot shorter in 1933? Clearly still not as short as me, though. David agreed to do the rudders. I increased the power and we trundled down the taxi-way.


“Here’s the thing,” said David. “We have no brakes. We’re following another aircraft. And we’re about to start rolling downhill.”

[thing]

I blagged a flight in a Moth once. Lovely aeroplane to fly and all that but the most uncomfortable I've ever been in. Had a bad back for days after I got out, the seat was obviously as wrongly shaped as it could be for my build.

It was an interesting blag actually. We had taken an E3 down to Marham open day and I was wandering down the static line when I came across this Moth. I got talking to the owner and he said he would love a look around the E3. I said 'Gizza trip in the Moth and I'll show you round' half jokingly. His eyes lit up and he asked when I wanted to go. Ten minutes later we were airborne, me with a silly grin but aching back. Worth it though.

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

I blagged a flight in a Moth once. Lovely aeroplane to fly

Um... I'd really have to disagree with that. Lovely experience I could go along with (open cockpit biplane, loads of character etc.).

But lovely to fly? It's one of the worst co-ordinated aeroplanes I've ever flown; terrible ailerons and hyperactive rudder! It's one de Havilland didn't get right as far as handling goes.

[thing]

Ah, I know what you mean but when I was having a pole around the owner asked me if I flew gliders. I said yes and he said 'I can tell, you know what the rudder is for.' I thought it handled OK but I didn't do anything extreme in it being as it wasn't mine.

Have you ever flown a 150 Aerobat? Now that does have a twitchy rudder. You kind of sail through the air chasing the slip ball around.

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

Aerobat handles the same as any 150 - soggy! But better handling than the Tiger Moth.

But if you offered me a flight in either, it'd be the de Havilland every time! Especially for aeros!

[thing]

Aerobat handles the same as any 150 - soggy!

Interesting, I fly a 152 a fair bit and find it totally untwitchy, soggy, yes. Don't know if the Aerobat has a bigger fin/rudder or whether it's the bigger donk that makes it a bit less able to fly in a straight line. It could of course be my crap piloting skills!

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

As far as I know the only difference in the Aerobat is it's beefed up to take aerobatic forces (actually I'm not sure the structure is any different to a standatrd 150), and has jettisonable doors and removable seat cushions for fast parachute-equipped exit, and 4-point harneses. I flew both years ago and detected no handling differences between them. Or indeed the 152 that replaced the 150 - except the limitation of only 30 degrees flap in the latter.

[thing]

Aerobat I fly has the Continental O-240 in it which is 130 hp. The 152 has the Lycoming 235 at 115hp.

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

Same for me. Watch out for carb icing on that Conti!

[thing]

Ah, ta for that. Bit prone to it are they?

[foxmoth]

Had a bad back for days after I got out, the seat was obviously as wrongly shaped as it could be for my build.

I think you will find it is not the shape of the seats but the shoulder strap setup which is too low and tends to pull your back down.

Also very surprised that the instructor was doing the prop - often the "student" will have no flying experience whatever!

[smarthawke]

The Aerobats (150 and 152) do have a 'beefed up' structure over a standard aircraft. Strengthened main spar, tailplane spar and wider chord wing struts are the basic differences.

152 Aerobats (A152/FA152) had the same Lycoming O-235 engine as the standard 152.

150 Aerobats (A150) had the same TCM O-200 engine as the standard 150 apart from the French built FRA150L and M which used the Rolls-Royce Continental O-240, 130hp engine.

[Fantome]

You can pay for a ride in a Tigerschmitt at Tyagarah, near Byron bay NSW

If you go further and decide to be checked out, you would not then necessarily agree with the anonymous, sarcastic author of the following, for the DH82 does or did have great attributes as a trainer. The thousands upon thousands who did their basic training in Tigers in the Second World War are testimony to that. It does take some precision to fly a Tiger accurately.
Having got the hang of it, I swear there is nothing more exhilarating than to find a nice wide open paddock on a summer's day, then indulge in half an hour's circuits, judging it finer and finer with each successive circuit.

Here's that spoof -


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 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 a basic trainer.

[9 lives]

A Tiger Moth was resident in my client's hangar for ten years that I saw it there. 'Never flew. One day he mentioned in passing that he had sold it, and was looking forward to one last flight before it went, it was duly make flight ready.

I was at his hangar on other business, doing some test flying of a modified Caravan. He said to me: "I guess I'll have you test fly the Moth, it seems to have shrunk since I last flew it!". A smile crossed my face. I had flown one a couple of times on skis in the late '70's, but not since. As I was certain it had no flight manual for me to review, I asked if there was anything I should know. "No", he said, "just go and fly it."

I sensed the frustration of an older fellow, whose waistline had grown more than deHavilland had allowed for in their design. So after a very detailed walk around, I climbed in, and looked around. I checked the light controls, and found that the ailerons went up, but apparently not down. I asked the mechanics, they had blank faces. So, I went up to his office... "Ailerons move up, but not down? I s that correct?" "Yup". And with that, I went a flew. I had a delightful time, even though it was a cool December day. But I agree with SSD, even my soggy 150 is more crisp to fly than the Moth.

It was flown away soon after, hopefully after checking the gas, and filling the oil....

[shortstripper]

Why do people seem to feel big by knocking the Tigermoth?

There seems to be a trend developing? ... "Worst handling aeroplane I've ever flown", "It's so crap I'm surprised it was ever considered capable of carrying my Godlike ass aloft" .... these comments seem to dominate???

Well personally I rather like them! I've flown one or two aeroplanes in my time and yes, I like some better than the poor old DH82a. But there are a lot I like less :hmm:

SS

[Fantome]

Well. . . there are so many light aircraft with diverse handling qualities.
You should only compare like with like. Other comparisons are invidious.
And pointless. The fun of a Tiger is akin to the fun had driving, say, a Model T. But of course, three dimensions always will leave two in the shade.


P.S. If you are, in any sense, a short stripper, I do hope business is booming, and you are not dwarfed by the competition.

[shortstripper]

LOL ... I am indeed rather short but alas not good looking enough to be a stripper other than in a flying sense.

My first powered solo was in a Tigermoth and so I guess I have a soft spot for it ... Mind you, I took my driving test in an Austin A40 ;)

SS

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

. "Worst handling aeroplane I've ever flown", "It's so crap I'm surprised it was ever considered capable of carrying my Godlike ass aloft" ....

Well, Shortstipper, I've searched the thread. It seems it's only you who said that. Everyone else just says it has poor handling, which it undoubtedly does. No-one's claimed to have a 'godlike ass' (whatever that is - some sort of heavenly equine quadruped?). That's entirely in your own head. Better deal with it.

I quite like the dH82. It handles like a wet sponge, but it sure has character.

[Fantome]

wish I was handling a wet sponge this morning .. . in the right company

someone once described the handling characteristics of the BN Trilander as like stirring porridge with a crowbar

[shortstripper]

Mr Shaggy Sheep ...

Not just referring to this thread. It just seems that whenever a thread about the dear old Tigermoth comes up, everyone loves to comment about about how crap it is ... If you hunt back over similar threads I'm sure you'll see what I mean.

SS

[Big Pistons Forever]

SSD I will second Shortstripper. Of the around 70 different light airplanes I have flown I am quite confident in saying it is the worst handling aircraft of the lot.

I think that for everybody who dares speak the truth, that the Tiger Moth flying qualities are terrible, it has marginal performance for the amount of power it has, is horribly uncomfortable to sit in, and has an engine that barely passes muster when used as a boat anchor; there are 10 who have drunk the coolaid and think it is wonderful.

So sorry for providing a little balance......

It is hard to believe that the same company that produced such a Shyte handling machine could go on and design and build the Chippy, one of the nicest flying light aircraft ever built.....Oh wait it wasn't you Brits that designed the Chippy it was a Canadian.....

[Fantome]

if there's one as good as, in her way, as this -

http://www.stickandtissue.com/yabbfiles/Attachments/Tiger_Moth_Inverted.jpg (http://www.stickandtissue.com/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl?action=print;num=1385340873)


. . . surely it is this -

http://www.barnstormers.com/eFLYER/2010/138-eFLYER-FA01-17.jpg (http://www.barnstormers.com/eFLYER/2010/138-eFLYER-classics.html)

[abgd]

Oh wait it wasn't you Brits that designed the Chippy it was a Canadian.....

I thought it was a Pole.

[Stanwell]

I'd often wondered about the Stampe SV4.
Anybody had experience with that aircraft?

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

I thought it was a Pole.

It was. Wsiewołod Jakimiuk to be precise. Ah! The Chipmunk! Far and away the best handling aeroplane I ever flew. Better than the Satmpe, better than the Yak52, better than the Jungmann. Just sublime!

Designed by a Pole at dH Canada (hence the designation dHC 1) but mostly built in UK.

I'd often wondered about the Stampe SV4.
Anybody had experience with that aircraft?

Only flown one a couple of times, but it handled very nicely indeed. It's probably what the Tiger Moth should have been had dH started with a clean sheet instead of cobbling bits together to make the dH82. 4 ailerons, like the Stampe, would have been good, for a start!

[semmern]

I have around 150 hours in the Tiger Moth now, and will say this: It is huge fun to fly! Taking it to airshows around Norway, navigating by P8 compass and a chart on your thigh (with just enough room underneath the panel to flip it over once you'd better fold it correctly before you strap in) while enjoying the experience of flying a vintage biplane is fantastic.

The handling is not very harmonious to say the least, but that is what made it such a great training aircraft. To fly it is one thing, to fly it well is another. The somewhat overly powerful rudder, for example, gives one the opportunity to arrive nearly inside the airfield fence on downwind and perform outrageous side slips to get down. The undercarriage is actually very good, in that it is well damped but not stiffly sprung, leading to easy wheel landings and soft three-pointers, compared to the Cub, which bounces like mad.

There is immense satisfaction in being able to aerobat a Moth without making a fool of oneself, and the same satisfaction is found in learning to land it at the spot you're aiming at with a glide from keypoint and in. The ailerons are mostly adverse yaw-generators, as has been pointed out. A pair of ailerons on the upper wing as well would have done wonders. So, handling-wise, not the best, but it is still one of my favourite aircraft to fly.

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

I'd agree with Semmern. Awful handling, but still great fun to fly. :ok:

[Sir Niall Dementia]

I did my PPL on the tiger in 1979. I had no idea how bad it really was until I flew a Stampe. But then for real Aaahh De havilland moments its mighty hard to beat the Gypsy Moth. Less adverse yaw, more comfortable and easier to land.

Still if money was no object then I would love to own a Hornet.

SND

[Fantome]

There's a Leopard about to be packed up at Murwillumbah in northern NSW
to go a man in England. Beautiful fuse rebuild. Wings not so.


This is her at Cunnamulla in 1937 -

http://www.edcoatescollection.com/ac1/austu/VH-UVF.jpg

ALL DH devotees know that it is spelt GIPSY
(a good one to have a bet on sometimes)

[semmern]

There is a dH.60 being rebulit by some friends of mine. Eager to get my hands on that one for comparison.

[foxmoth]

I have flown many DH Moth types, I like the Tiger but it is certainly not my number one. The problem with the Tiger is it was not so much designed as a dH60 modified to get it to what it was - the RAF wanted the front cockpit clear so the instructor could more easily get out with a parachute in an emergency, so they moved the wings forward for this then swept them back to keep the CoP in the right place (at the same time inverting the engine for better forward view), they then found the wingtips hit the ground taxiing so they shortened the interplane struts. Almost all the other Moths handle better including the 60, personally I am not a great fan of the Hornet, but the Leopard, and of course Foxmoth are both very nice to fly. :D

[Capot]

Those of us of a certain age can remember the Thruxton Jackaroo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thruxton_Jackaroo); for me the aircraft in which I had my first powered flight, not counting trips as a passenger in the Herons of Jersey Airways and an Aer Lingus Viscount.

I have nothing but fond memories of it. It prepared me well for later training up to and beyond a PPL in Austers, although the Jackaroo was more forgiving in a landing.

[India Four Two]

I've only had a couple of flights in a Tiger, once in Oz and once at Sandown (G-ANEZ), but I agree with SSD about its poor coordination, particularly in comparison to the Chipmunk.

However, it's a biplane and open cockpit, which offsets a lot of the handling deficiencies. :ok:

Two things I vividly remember from the Sandown flight, where I flew the whole flight, are the way it seemed to levitate skyward after takeoff and the graphic demonstration of form drag when I closed the throttle without lowering the nose. ;)

[Fantome]

http://i611.photobucket.com/albums/tt200/phredd10/SibsonJune2007.jpg

[creweite]

Having learned to fly on Tiger Moths which were maintained by Fairey Aviation at White Waltham I just cannot relate to the comments here. I have flown some others that were not nearly as nice to handle, maintained by other organizations, and it's all in the rigging. But let me say that the first time that I flew a Cessna 172 I thought that was the worst handing aircraft ever, heavy on the controls and sluggish. All the Jodels had handling I liked. My present aircraft is a Grumman AA5, one of the nicest handling machines ever, responsive controls and excellent visibility in climb. Incidentally, someone made mention of G-ANEZ earlier in this thread. That was once part of the Fairy Aviation fleet.

[SpannerInTheWerks]

4 ailerons, like the Stampe, would have been good, for a start!

I was once told that if you divide the number of ailerons on each side of a biplane by 2, you get an indication of their effect!

Lovely aeroplane the Chipmunk, as SSD and others have said. :)

[dh83]

I understand that VH-USM was the one that was being worked upon and 'UVF was stored awaiting attention
photo of 'USM in Moth mag No.165

dh83

[Stanwell]

Apropos of nothing..

I recall, when not much more than a toddler, waiting with my old man for the baker's cart to arrive, a Tiger Moth (I know now) flew overhead.
I'd been fascinated by those 'by-planes' and asked the OM if he could draw it for me.
I remember he protested that he couldn't even draw a pin but we sat down at the dining room table and sketched something out for me.

Well, sorting through some family papers the other day, I came across that very illustration he did for me all those years ago.
The funny thing is - he was not an artist, had no real interest in aeroplanes of any kind and had not even flown in one.

Well, blow me down, he had it pretty well right, just from seeing it fly over.
The proportions, the wing sweep and stagger - and even the iconic DH tail were all there.

Strange.

Hope I didn't bore you.

[Fantome]

Not at all Stan. . . . . memories are made of this. My dad was quite a dab hand at depicting semi-naked women in a variety of poses, using different medias.

Had he liked painting planes, he might have had a go at this one, a semi-naked Tigerschmitt. (VH-BUM, Tamworth 1958)

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Bcu9qLPCQAEg54B.jpg:large

[Geriaviator]

I take all the points mentioned, and suggest they apply to most 1930s aircraft. Just try driving a 1930s car or better still a vintage lorry in comparison to today's power-assisted, computerised featherbeds.

In fairness to my fabric-clad friend, remember she was designed for hard work, not for fun. The Tiger Moth soon teaches the importance of nose attitude and of energy conservation, and few of her trainees forgot their first half-turn of auto-rotation which so quickly developed into a spin. She was and is very difficult to fly well, but very tolerant when novices got it totally wrong.

Half a century ago I learned instrument flight basics by climbing into cloud in our once deserted airspace as even then the wartime IF hoods were long gone. If you can fly a TM on instruments you can fly anything and when I tackled my IR years later the limited panel was the easy bit!

Engineers loved the Tiger Moth, even though they were expected to have 40 or 50 ready for flight each morning. The Stampe is much lighter and more responsive, but it's fragile and I have known a few drop wings into the ground. The Chipmunk too is a pilot's delight, but I've seen that dainty rear fuselage wrinkled like a toothpaste tube after a heavy landing with drift. The Magister, I was told, was nice to fly but we wrote off several Miles machines due to glue failures. This was the fate of most of them.

The Tiger Moth on the other hand takes just about everything short of sticking the nose in the ground. Gravity fuel flow, so no pumps to worry about; the fuel tank sits in full view, easy to inspect. Only one pair of ailerons to maintain on the lower wing. Cables and pulleys in easy view. The simple undercarriage has a long stroke self-damped by brass colletts; grease it regularly and it lasts for years of intensive instruction. Hangar rash and minor vehicle bumps etc. need only a quick splice, a piece of fabric and a splash of dope. The wartime pupils broke most bits breakable, so DH came up with every conceivable repair scheme so the TM could continue doing its job day after day, year after year.

For all her failings, hopefully you'll agree that the Tiger Moth was unrivalled as the trainer of her time. Try one if you get the chance, I've yet to meet someone who has failed to learn something!

[Miserlou]

As Geriaviator says, it was built to work and as earlier stated modified from another Moth to fulfil requirements.

As such the two things which made it great are the ease of repair and the handling characteristics.

Of the handling, well, it's handling is poor. And that makes it a great trainer!

But still today, decades later, it is such a rewarding aircraft to fly well and great fun. And it is still flying!

She is such a seductive mistress. We know her and her foibles and failings. But we keep coming back and we love her anyway.

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

Of the handling, well, it's handling is poor. And that makes it a great trainer!

Really? The dHC1 has some of the best handling available, yet that is an excellent trainer (not too difficult to fly, but difficult to fly well and does not mask a pilot's mistakes but doesn't necessarily kill him for them either).

[Miserlou]

SSD,
I don't disagree. The Chipmunk is without doubt a delight. But it was 15 years too late.
And just as the Tiger Moth's contemporaries, the Stampe and the Jungmann, (both also delightful handling aircraft) the Chipmunk would not have been as easily repairable which is arguably the key to the success of the type and the job at hand.

Its place in history, not its handling, is what keeps the Tiger's appeal so strong.

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

I think just one thing keeps the Tiger's appeal so strong, and it's something even a Chippy doesn't have:

It's an open cockpit biplane!

I defy anyone to fly any open cockpit biplane, no matter how poor its handling, and not to have a big grin on their face!

In a Chippy, you can play at being a Spitfire pilot. In a Tiger Moth, a Sopwith Camel pilot!

In a spam can you can recreate the heady days of driving a 1956 Ford Consul!

[9 lives]

Just so I say with the program here, I know that a spam can is a basic production airplane made of aluminum. Thus I understand how a Tiger Moth is not a spam can, how isn't a Chipmunk a spam can?

[thing]

Spam, besides being the famous meat product, is also a term used by Brits to describe our cousins south of you. Americans, especially to the Brit armed forces are known as Spams. Spamcan=generic US light aircraft, Piper, Cessna etc.

[Silvaire1]

The phrase Spam Can was coined by people brought up on tube and rag tailwheel aircraft in the US, to describe (then) new aircraft with stressed skin aluminum construction, Cessnas mostly at that time. It's an old timey 1950s US expression still used by 'antiquers' in the US, and sometimes others with no idea where it came from.

Spam (the meat product) was introduced just prior to WW II, picked up by the U.S. military for rations, and brought to Britain by US wartime forces. A lot of people who ate those rations were same people flying Cubs in the US circa 1955 ;-)

BTW, I'd suggest that the Tiger Moth was only 'unrivaled as the trainer of her time' if you limit the discussion to trainers for the Commonwealth forces. Otherwise the Jungmann, Boeing Stearman, Ryan PT22, Polikarpov Po-2 etc were all pretty good rivals.

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

how isn't a Chipmunk a spam can?

In the same way that Chateaux Lafite Rothschild isn't plonk.

[Silvaire1]

Does Chateaux Lafite Rothschild come with a leaky cork?! ;)