|
Tiger Moth
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? |
What is your opinion about that plane and learn to fly on it? Cannot help with locations. |
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!
|
I have flown in a Tiger Moth at Headcorn Aerodrome, Kent, about 45-50 km west of Dover, far closer to Prague than Canada!
|
Try the Cambridge Flying Club....
|
^ 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!
|
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? |
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!
|
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.
|
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!
|
The "Wind in the face" feeling was precisely why I wanted to fly in an open cockpit aeroplane 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. |
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. |
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!
|
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! |
Originally Posted by Shaggy Sheep Driver
(Post 8278604)
But he's right about the Tiger's ailerons and the trimmer!
Ahhhhh, it just doesnt get any better than that. |
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.
|
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/wikipedi...oth_D-EBKT.jpg |
[quote 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!][/quote]
Including Tiger Moth flights Trial flying Lessons in Cambridgeshire & Vintage Flights from £109 |
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. |
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.
|
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.
|
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!
|
Yup, a great photo!
|
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...2/P1060086.jpg http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y82...2/P1060085.jpg |
Nice, think it was LN-BDM I saw in the Tiger Club hangar at Redhill back in the 1970s...
|
That might very well be. It's ex-RAF DE248, then it became G-ANSC before coming here as LN-BDM. deHavilland serial # 85294.
|
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!
|
To think that when I joined the RAF, Tiger Moths trained our future pilots.
http://i145.photobucket.com/albums/r...TigerMoth2.jpg A beautiful aircraft ...until things went wrong! http://i145.photobucket.com/albums/r...g_1280x742.jpg |
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. |
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. |
Originally Posted by joy ride
(Post 8300068)
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. 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. |
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? :) |
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!) |
|
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: |
It has done more to develop my flying skills than anything else I have done in my flying career so far |
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 In the right hands it's capable of this and it's not too shabby at all. Tiger Moth biplane aerobatics - YouTube 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. |
The Buecker Jungmann looks very directly comparable, and I think there are still some around. Any comparisons?
|
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. |
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. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 00:10. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.