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

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

JW - does not compute.

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

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

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



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

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

kluge,

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

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

http://www.airplane-pictures.net/ima...10/12/7555.jpg

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

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

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

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

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

Kluge wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

Now smile and everything will be ok :ok:


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

Wander00

Interesting article on the Maggie here.

Miles Magister - Flight Tests - Pilot

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

kluge,
Are these notes available on the web?

Kluge- VMT- W-00

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

http://www.tigermothclub.co.nz/wp-co...embersform.pdf

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

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

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

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


All taildraggers do to varying degrees, but I never found it to be an issue with the Chipmunk - a superb aircraft IMHO.
I loved flying the Harvard but the Chipmunk's beautifully harmonised controls and excellent handling qualities are rightly famed.


FL

1965.

I will always remember what my instructor said:

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

He was right.

A quaint read for the record.

de Havilland Tigermoth Pilot Report

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

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

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

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

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

The other one I like:

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