Slingsby Fireflys

[topcat450]

Anyone got any comments on the Slingsby Firefly...any general info appreciated.. from handling...to performance & (importantly.... costs $$)

Ta in advance

[Aerobatic Flyer]

Very nice to fly. Light controls. Excellent visibility. Particularly easy to land, even in quite strong crosswinds. Roll rate is not that fast by aerobatic standards. On some examples I've flow, you can get noticeable aileron stall if you enter a roll too enthusiastically.

The B model (118hp) is a bit underpowered, especially 2 up. You will lose a lot of height in aerobatics, and it takes an age to climb back up. You can expect a cruise of around 95kts.

The C model (160hp) is a lot better. I haven't flown the injected models, but were I looking to buy one an injected 160hp version would be what I'd look for first. Cruise around 105-110kts. Some 160hp version have the full canopy of the B model, which is a bit drafty, and which can kill you if you don't make sure you've closed it properly before flying. Later models have the split canopy, which is more civilised and safer - but spoils the view a bit.

I have flown a few hours on the M200, which was a lot of fun. Fuel injection and a constant speed prop made aeros much easier - no height loss in simple sequences. The slow rate of roll limits what you can do slightly (or rather, limits what I could do! :rolleyes: ). Try as I might, I couldn't get more than half a vertical roll. Cruise is around 120kts.

I've never tried the 260hp version. I've watched Alan Wade flying displays in one, though, and in his hands it's a very capable aerobatic machine.

As for costs..... I was always renting, so I can't really help there.

[maggioneato]

I have flown the T67 B and C, and agree the B is a bit underpowered, I did have a canopy come open on me just after take-off but survived to tell the tale. I don't do aerobatics, I just used them for touring, easy to land, nice to fly.
The daddy of them all is the 260M, what performance, I was only a passenger in that, but wow, what an aircraft, the rate of climb just amazing. As to costs, I used to pay around £90 per hour, for the B, and about £109 for the C, that was a few years ago, both very cold, and draughty in winter, also very noisy, The 260 much warmer since the canopy was modified.
On visiting the flight Academy in Colorado Springs, the entire fleet had been grounded due to numerous spinning accidents, last I heard they were all due to be cut up as they could'nt sell them on due to fear of litigation. Sad.:{

[camaro]

topcat450

Next time you are at Netherthorpe ask Nick Riddin to give you the low down on the T67 - he flies them for a living with Babcock HCS at Barkston/Cranwell.

Regards

Camaro

[Blind lemon]

Clocked a few hours in the B and found it to be a very accomplished a/c. In my opinion a bit of a latter day
Pup (100hp model) which was also underpowered but
very pleasant to fly.

[topcat450]

Cheers chaps & I may well try to have a word with Nick R next time I'm up there Camaro...cheers.

[Miserlou]

I asked a chap I know very well for a briefing on the B model before I had a go. He said, "It's a very nice aeroplane and you will like it!"

I pushed for a little more information by way of preparation. So he said, "The elevators are quite powerful so don't over-rotate when you take-off, but it's a VERY nice aeroplane and you WILL like it!"

He was right!

I found it's handling delightful and even when deliberately mis-handling to provoke some nasty response it behaved impeccably.

The B is the best handling of them as this is closest to the original design. I've also flown the 200M which has great performance.

I believe the C model with the 160hp and fixed pitch propeller is the best all rounder when you take maintenance and running costs into the equation.

You may get some more info from Richard Brinklow who, I believe has a few of them. Contact him through the Tiger Club at Headcorn.

[BEagle]

I flew the T67A a few years ago. My opinion:

1. Nice control harmony
2. Underpowered
3. Abysmally slow roll rate
4. Nice view
5. Low fuel state only to be able to aerobat with 2 PoB

It was fine for teaching stall/spin awareness, particularly manoeuvre stall. It was very poor for teaching aeros, the main difficulty being keeping the engine from over-revving and constantly having to change throttle setting and rudder in even the simplest manoeuvre such as a loop.

No doubt the later models - particularly with a 260hp engine and CS prop - will make aeros vastly easier. But they still have the woefully slow roll rate inherent in anything with a glider wing!

The Bulldog is a much, much better all-round aerobatic trainer.

[Snakecharmer]

Comparing the T67A with the Bulldog is a bit of an 'apples and oranges' game. Compare the T67M / M200 with the Bulldog and the Bulldog comes out much weaker.

I've flown the A,B,C,M and M200 but not the M260. I would recommend both the C and the M as nicely balanced aeroplanes - just depends whether you want inverted systems and / or wobbly prop.

[DB6]

The Firefly 260 is les ballons du chien! It is one of the best all-round training aircraft I have flown - will get to 10,000ft in 10 mins. The ones we flew at Church Fenton were kitted out with 2 VHF Nav/coms, ADF, DME, transponder, UHF radio and will fly 2-up (lard-arses like me) with full fuel to +6/-3g, maintaining height through an aeros sequence up to about 6-7000ft. There will be around 16 of them up for sale in the near future as the JEFTS base at Fenton closes on July 7th :{ . I can't imagine they'll be much more than £60-90k at a guess although I'm told they were around £260,000 new. Bargain! If you buy one and want someone to check you out give me a call :D .
BEags, while I have yet to have the pleasure of flying the 'Dog myself, I haven't met anyone who has flown both and doesn't prefer the Firefly. In a big way. They really are excellent aircraft.
And to top it all they're British :ok: .

[BEagle]

But have they improved the dismal roll rate? And I don't include flick manoeuvres......

£60-90K? You must be joking, mate. Perhaps half that, tops!

Not that I'm jingoistic, but the Bulldog was all-British. Whereas the Fruitfly was based on the French Fournier RF6.......

"Towards the end of 1970, renowned French designer Rene Fournier began work on the RF6. This was to be a side-by-side training aircraft of wooden construction. A slightly smaller version, the RF6B Club first flew on March 12, 1974. This aircraft was powered by a 90hp Rolls-Royce Continental engine, although production aircraft were powered by a 100hp engine. Between 1974 and 1980 Fournier’s company, Avions Fournier, built 45 100hp RF6B-100s and one RF6B-120 – this aircraft being powered by a 118hp Lycoming engine.
Slingsby Engineering Ltd (subsequently renamed Slingsby Aviation) obtained a manufacturing and marketing licence from Avions Fournier and flew its first RF6 (now designated T67) in May 1981. The T67A was powered by a 160hp Lycoming and, like its predecessors, was constructed primarily from wood. With the T67B and all subsequent variants, Slingsby switched to constructing the airframe primarily from GRP."

(From an article in the April 2001 edition of 'Today's Pilot'. The full article can be viewed at http://www.todayspilot.co.uk/index.html?http://www.todayspilot.co.uk/flight_tests/apr01/2p2.html)

[DB6]

Yes I know about the French connection but we don't speak about it in polite company (actually I have something of a grudging admiration for the French aviation industry - it pisses all over ours anyway). And I suppose the Bulldog was the ultimate i.e. Scottish :ok: :ok: :ok: :ok: :ok: :ok: :ok: :ok: .
Roll rate - a chap I spoke to last night flew both at UAS/JEFTS and doesn't think there's much in it. When I said I'd heard the Bulldog rolled faster he said not but then reiterated that the Firefly is a much better trainer. And he was ex-OC BBMF!
For £30k I'll buy one myself!
More info at Slingsby's website. (http://www.slingsby.co.uk)

[BEagle]

Well actually the Bulldog was developed from an English design, the Beagle Pup..... Jockistani Aviation only stepped in with an eye for a good deal when Beagle went bust.

I can state quite categorically that the T67A rolled far slower than the Bulldog - and full aileron applied firmly in the wretched T67A caused considerable aileron snatch!

Presumably that's why you rarely see a Fruitfly display where the aircraft is rolled by aileron alone - normally it's all looping manoeuvres and flick manoeuvres.... Which it does very well - but so did the Bulldog. Allegedly...

[DB6]

Agree with you on the T67A but the 260 has a Va of 140 kts which is pretty much the A's Vne as I recall. With a Vne of 195 kts you can get the 260 to roll reasonably well and Alan's display does include some rolling - 4 point and vertical rolls. You should try one - you might like it!:p

[hugh flung_dung]

The T67A is "OK" but underpowered, wooden, weight limited for aeros, has a propensity (there's a nice word to slip in) to flick out if pulled too hard and slightly out of balance, has an interesting spin, slow roll rate and has a canopy that's been known to open at undesirable moments. Reportedly cheap to operate, ours suffered from a bit of trailing edge rot but ultimately came to grief by bumping into a concrete pilot(!) when an oily one got confused about throttles, brakes and other assorted complexities.

The T67B has a plastic airframe but the same small engine as the A, 'haven't flown one but I would expect it to be a bit lacking in go.

The T67C is supposedly quite nice, plastic with a bigger motor and fixed pitch prop.

The T67M is very pleasant with C/S prop and a sensible windscreen and sliding canopy (maybe the C has this too).

The M260 is reportedly very nice but presumably the fuel bill is a bit heavy.