Bulldog v. Grob
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: El Glasgow, Scotland
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bulldog v. Grob
Why is it when ex-UAS here that I am now a member they say (after laughing), "Sorry about the aircraft mate!"
Is the Grob so bad??? Or was the rusty old Bulldog just so great?
Thanks
Steve
Is the Grob so bad??? Or was the rusty old Bulldog just so great?
Thanks
Steve
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: NW England
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
God, I wish this stupid argument would go away!
Having flown both the bulldog and the tutor for approximately the same number of hours, I hopefully will provide an unbiased view on the subject.
Firstly, the Grob is better. MILES better. Now im not going to make a statement like that without justifying it, otherwise i would get shot down, like many others in this forum seem to for expressing an educated opinion. My justifications for this are as follows.
1) the training package supplied with the A/C are second to none. Try and say that about the Bulldog. the bulldog flight manual was lets face it, something to keep on the bookshelf to fill it up. The Tutor manual on the other hand, is comprehensive and extremely useful.
2) The navigation/radio suite is more in-line with what the air force requires for upcoming aircraft (training and front-line). It hasnt got an NDB reciever. So what? be honest, when was the last time you used an NDB? The GPS NEAR AIRPORT does exactly the same function, and gives you a range. The aircraft is restricted VFR NOT due to a design flaw (lets be honest guys, I feel much happier flying IF on the Tutor than I ever did the Bulldog, especially ILS's. Those bennedix king jobs the Bulldog had were a piece of crap), but due to beaurocracy and translation difficulties between the German and British flight manuals. It certainly has nothing to do with "different power sources" for the AI's, which it actually has.
3) The Tutor is far more reliable in terms of number of aircraft available on the line, there were days I can remember there were only two out of a total fleet of six available.
4) Roll rate. The aircraft does have a lower roll rate than the Bulldog, however the Bulldog couldnt throw a 540 flick roll in a cuban either! The decision to not allow flick manoevers recently, in a large number of peoples opinions is ludicrous. The aircraft has been CLEARED in its flight testing to ensure this, otherwise it would have not been certified safe to do so.
5) aerobatics - Grob climbs in aerobatics. The Bulldog fell like a brick. Nuff said.
6) Climb Rate from takeoff, spin package is generally complete in 5-6 minutes. you were lucky to do it in 10-15 in the Bulldog.
6) The Grob does not have in irrecoverable spin. The Bulldog, apparently did, and caught out a fair few very experienced instructors. The spin recovery if it all gets pear-shaped simply involves removing your hands from the controls.
These opinions are not formed due to loyalty to the aircraft, purely due to the fact the Grob meets the training requirements of the EFT sylabus, and in fact exceeds it (GPS navigation can be introduced for example whenever EFT fancy, DGPS ILS is fantastic for practasing approaches to airfields without the kit (most!).
[ 28 November 2001: Message edited by: UAM ]
Having flown both the bulldog and the tutor for approximately the same number of hours, I hopefully will provide an unbiased view on the subject.
Firstly, the Grob is better. MILES better. Now im not going to make a statement like that without justifying it, otherwise i would get shot down, like many others in this forum seem to for expressing an educated opinion. My justifications for this are as follows.
1) the training package supplied with the A/C are second to none. Try and say that about the Bulldog. the bulldog flight manual was lets face it, something to keep on the bookshelf to fill it up. The Tutor manual on the other hand, is comprehensive and extremely useful.
2) The navigation/radio suite is more in-line with what the air force requires for upcoming aircraft (training and front-line). It hasnt got an NDB reciever. So what? be honest, when was the last time you used an NDB? The GPS NEAR AIRPORT does exactly the same function, and gives you a range. The aircraft is restricted VFR NOT due to a design flaw (lets be honest guys, I feel much happier flying IF on the Tutor than I ever did the Bulldog, especially ILS's. Those bennedix king jobs the Bulldog had were a piece of crap), but due to beaurocracy and translation difficulties between the German and British flight manuals. It certainly has nothing to do with "different power sources" for the AI's, which it actually has.
3) The Tutor is far more reliable in terms of number of aircraft available on the line, there were days I can remember there were only two out of a total fleet of six available.
4) Roll rate. The aircraft does have a lower roll rate than the Bulldog, however the Bulldog couldnt throw a 540 flick roll in a cuban either! The decision to not allow flick manoevers recently, in a large number of peoples opinions is ludicrous. The aircraft has been CLEARED in its flight testing to ensure this, otherwise it would have not been certified safe to do so.
5) aerobatics - Grob climbs in aerobatics. The Bulldog fell like a brick. Nuff said.
6) Climb Rate from takeoff, spin package is generally complete in 5-6 minutes. you were lucky to do it in 10-15 in the Bulldog.
6) The Grob does not have in irrecoverable spin. The Bulldog, apparently did, and caught out a fair few very experienced instructors. The spin recovery if it all gets pear-shaped simply involves removing your hands from the controls.
These opinions are not formed due to loyalty to the aircraft, purely due to the fact the Grob meets the training requirements of the EFT sylabus, and in fact exceeds it (GPS navigation can be introduced for example whenever EFT fancy, DGPS ILS is fantastic for practasing approaches to airfields without the kit (most!).
[ 28 November 2001: Message edited by: UAM ]
UAM, I would have said:
1) Good point. Very important in a training aircraft.
2) NDB is very important. I have done at least a dozen NDB/DME or DME only approaches (from vectors and procedural) in the last 3 months. I first learnt these things in the Bulldog although now I fly 737 - no idea how often the military use NDB but its still common in the EU civilian world. The skills involved in NDB work are of a far higher standard than their VOR or GPS brethern. If you can cope with a wobbly dip-infested needle you can cope with anything else aviation is going to throw at you in terms of non-visual approaches.
3) Hmmm, perhaps unfair to compare the Bulldog at the end of its life against a new aircraft fresh out of the wrapper. The Scottish Aviation product was built to the proverbial brick out house philosophy and if you take its service life as a whole I think its reliability was good. If you look at the last Grob product the RAF purchased ( Grob 109b motor glider for the Air Cadets ) it was plagued with quality and reliability issues after its honeymoon period... We shall have to see how shiny those plastics after 20 odd years on the Tutor.
4) I'm sure the Tutor with its better Power Weight ratio and higher G clearance is the better hooligan manchine.
5) Part of the Finesse of Aeros is to minimise height loss when that is a challenge. Any old fool, me included, can hurl an Extra 300 around. The dark arts of energy management that the Bulldog demanded were valuable lessons in themselves.
6) Yep.
7) Oh do come off it. The Bulldog after modification did not have an irrecoverable spin if correctly loaded.
I am sure the Tutor is in many ways a fine ab initio aircraft. Just as the Bulldog was.
I hope it has such a good service life as its forebear.
I just wish they had bought the Zlin 242 instead - much nicer than Tutor or Bulldog I am told (haven't flown Tutor).
Cheers,
WWW
1) Good point. Very important in a training aircraft.
2) NDB is very important. I have done at least a dozen NDB/DME or DME only approaches (from vectors and procedural) in the last 3 months. I first learnt these things in the Bulldog although now I fly 737 - no idea how often the military use NDB but its still common in the EU civilian world. The skills involved in NDB work are of a far higher standard than their VOR or GPS brethern. If you can cope with a wobbly dip-infested needle you can cope with anything else aviation is going to throw at you in terms of non-visual approaches.
3) Hmmm, perhaps unfair to compare the Bulldog at the end of its life against a new aircraft fresh out of the wrapper. The Scottish Aviation product was built to the proverbial brick out house philosophy and if you take its service life as a whole I think its reliability was good. If you look at the last Grob product the RAF purchased ( Grob 109b motor glider for the Air Cadets ) it was plagued with quality and reliability issues after its honeymoon period... We shall have to see how shiny those plastics after 20 odd years on the Tutor.
4) I'm sure the Tutor with its better Power Weight ratio and higher G clearance is the better hooligan manchine.
5) Part of the Finesse of Aeros is to minimise height loss when that is a challenge. Any old fool, me included, can hurl an Extra 300 around. The dark arts of energy management that the Bulldog demanded were valuable lessons in themselves.
6) Yep.
7) Oh do come off it. The Bulldog after modification did not have an irrecoverable spin if correctly loaded.
I am sure the Tutor is in many ways a fine ab initio aircraft. Just as the Bulldog was.
I hope it has such a good service life as its forebear.
I just wish they had bought the Zlin 242 instead - much nicer than Tutor or Bulldog I am told (haven't flown Tutor).
Cheers,
WWW
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Down t' south
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WWW
Some good points, not sure about NDB though. I don't consider this to be an important approach to master on EFT at all! Better to get handling skills sorted and some basic understanding of IF work prior to BFJT - without a doubt, the Grob's instrument suite provides this!
Your point about aeros is also a little misguiding - the skill with aeros on a more powerful machine remains the same; working to a base height requires throttle management so you don't climb and come out of each manoevre at the correct speed - think about the Tucano/Hawk!
I think the Grob is probably a better EFT machine, but it does look like a motor glider (unlike the mighty bulldog!)
Some good points, not sure about NDB though. I don't consider this to be an important approach to master on EFT at all! Better to get handling skills sorted and some basic understanding of IF work prior to BFJT - without a doubt, the Grob's instrument suite provides this!
Your point about aeros is also a little misguiding - the skill with aeros on a more powerful machine remains the same; working to a base height requires throttle management so you don't climb and come out of each manoevre at the correct speed - think about the Tucano/Hawk!
I think the Grob is probably a better EFT machine, but it does look like a motor glider (unlike the mighty bulldog!)
KD - very very good point. Wish I had remembered that.
WWW
ps does the Tutor have a F700 and if so do students get to do battle with it. It was a useful experience for future aircraft commanders I would imagine...
WWW
ps does the Tutor have a F700 and if so do students get to do battle with it. It was a useful experience for future aircraft commanders I would imagine...
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: **VN
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
UAM! What planet are you from?
Don't start me on this one cos I will probably get in trouble.
You are quite right about the Bulldog being a potential (and actual) killer. Its spin could be difficult to recover from if mishandled, but correct recovery actions always worked. It was a dragmonster an needed all of its 200 gee gees to get up to 120 kts. It glided like a Hunter and if you let it get below 75kts dead stick it fell out of the sky. It had no crashworthyness to speak of and, when I first instructed in it, only minimal nav and comms fit.
However, it had stability, a reliable fuel system, a rate of roll that was very much better, could do all of the IFR, Low Level and Aerobatic training is the syllabus, held a speed with constant power and attitude, had predictable pre-stall performance, good cockpit visibility, good conspicuity, could carry two bulky QFIs and their landaway kit, I never had an engine failure in one, none of my students had an engine failure in one, it had military clearances and an F700 which told you the mod state, the last few snags, and exactly what fuel was in it, it did real max rate turns on the buffet and it did not run out of trim in the glide or on finals!!!
Can't talk about the Tutor though. Nuf said.
Don't start me on this one cos I will probably get in trouble.
You are quite right about the Bulldog being a potential (and actual) killer. Its spin could be difficult to recover from if mishandled, but correct recovery actions always worked. It was a dragmonster an needed all of its 200 gee gees to get up to 120 kts. It glided like a Hunter and if you let it get below 75kts dead stick it fell out of the sky. It had no crashworthyness to speak of and, when I first instructed in it, only minimal nav and comms fit.
However, it had stability, a reliable fuel system, a rate of roll that was very much better, could do all of the IFR, Low Level and Aerobatic training is the syllabus, held a speed with constant power and attitude, had predictable pre-stall performance, good cockpit visibility, good conspicuity, could carry two bulky QFIs and their landaway kit, I never had an engine failure in one, none of my students had an engine failure in one, it had military clearances and an F700 which told you the mod state, the last few snags, and exactly what fuel was in it, it did real max rate turns on the buffet and it did not run out of trim in the glide or on finals!!!
Can't talk about the Tutor though. Nuf said.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Darn Sarf
Posts: 130
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I guess UAM's from Planet Ainsdale, where QGH approaches rule!!! No NDB's required, just good old fashioned DF and stopwatch!!! The arguments here are all valid, provided that you consider the Bulldog's thirty years older than the 115 and that's why it was replaced.......... Still, met some chaps on a landaway at Perth once who were buying a Bulldog (or two) off the Guadeloupe (sp) Air Force I think it was and they were complaining that the airframes had 800 hrs on them!!! We got out our 700s to prove the hours on our Bulldogs and they nearly had a coronary!!!
Join Date: Dec 1997
Location: Suffolk UK
Posts: 4,927
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's interesting how the appearance of newer technology aircraft instantly makes the obsolete aircraft, and its associated techniques, fit for heroes!
I flew the 'Dog from 87 to 91. When I first flew it, it had no avionics whatsoever. None - with the sole exception of a 12-channel UHF radio. We used to fly over 8/8 cloud ('overcast' it's called now) using the plumes from the various power stations in the Vale of York, plus a bit of clock and general spacial awareness, to navigate by. With the amount of practice we got, we were rarely far out from where we thought we were.
In 89/90, they fitted the Dog with what we thought of as an all-singing, all-dancing nav kit. It didn't actually improve our navigational accuracy much, but it totally changed the conduct of navigation teaching. It also allowed us to do ILS approaches in the South Yorkshire smog, but didn't actually change our flying rate in poor weather - we just got more legal!
As for the Bulldog's spin characteristics, there were problems occasionally. The recovery from (not easily recognised) inverted or oscillatory spins often required the pilot to enter a normal spin before attempting a conventional recovery. Some didn't manage it, for whatever reason, so the aircraft got a bit of a bad rap. Personally, I loved it.
At the same period in my career I had to occasionally airtest Chipmunks fettled by our UAS's engineers. While the aircraft was fun, as a teaching platform it was far inferior to the Bulldog, and had a few 'interesting' handling characteristics that wouldn't be referred to so charitably if the aircraft was to attempt certification now.
I'm sure the Grob is a great aeroplane. If it's built well, and can survive the rough life of an elementary trainer, you'll be talking about it with great affection in years to come. I just hope that the fun-detectors don't remove all reason for flying it before then....
I flew the 'Dog from 87 to 91. When I first flew it, it had no avionics whatsoever. None - with the sole exception of a 12-channel UHF radio. We used to fly over 8/8 cloud ('overcast' it's called now) using the plumes from the various power stations in the Vale of York, plus a bit of clock and general spacial awareness, to navigate by. With the amount of practice we got, we were rarely far out from where we thought we were.
In 89/90, they fitted the Dog with what we thought of as an all-singing, all-dancing nav kit. It didn't actually improve our navigational accuracy much, but it totally changed the conduct of navigation teaching. It also allowed us to do ILS approaches in the South Yorkshire smog, but didn't actually change our flying rate in poor weather - we just got more legal!
As for the Bulldog's spin characteristics, there were problems occasionally. The recovery from (not easily recognised) inverted or oscillatory spins often required the pilot to enter a normal spin before attempting a conventional recovery. Some didn't manage it, for whatever reason, so the aircraft got a bit of a bad rap. Personally, I loved it.
At the same period in my career I had to occasionally airtest Chipmunks fettled by our UAS's engineers. While the aircraft was fun, as a teaching platform it was far inferior to the Bulldog, and had a few 'interesting' handling characteristics that wouldn't be referred to so charitably if the aircraft was to attempt certification now.
I'm sure the Grob is a great aeroplane. If it's built well, and can survive the rough life of an elementary trainer, you'll be talking about it with great affection in years to come. I just hope that the fun-detectors don't remove all reason for flying it before then....
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: The 4th Quark Galaxy
Posts: 162
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WWW,
How could you learn your NDB/DME skills from the Bulldog when it wasn't equipped with an ADF?
I've flown the Bulldog for a few years (started in 1984, ended in 2000 when we got rid of them from the AEF/UAS) and have to say that in all I think the Tutor is the better machine.
The avionics are undoubtedly far superior and the cockpit much better laid out with a view to ergonomics. I love the fact that the ginger beers can't use petrol to clean it, so it doesn't constantly smell of fuel and induce the queaze on a hot summer's day. It does a LOT more on 180 hp than the 'Dog ever did on 200 and for a significant reduction in fuel flow.
The current problems regarding min landing fuel and IMC clearances will be ironed out and we will be left with the aircraft the RAF supposedly bought in the first place. The problem with the roll rate will never be sorted and, while you can flick the thing, it's so pedestrian in its roll rate and lack of rudder area that I find myself dropping off to sleep during aeros (okay, a little bit of exageration
).The 'Dog definitely won there.
I don't share UAM's enthusiam about all the documents. True, the training manual is good (and one day I'll get one) but the FRCs and Flying Manual were/are appalling. Just scrubbing out Bulldog and writing Tutor just doesn't wash. Admittedly we were the first bunch to get the Tutor so had to suffer the initial issues, but ammendments like 'delete Fuel Sytem. Insert Electrical' smacks of a certain lack of proof reading
Shame on you BD crowd.
As an instument platform I find both aircraft comparable. The Bulldog and Tutor are lovely and stable once you get them trimmed out, but with its lack of rudder area the Tutor does tend to 'fish-tail' a lot when disturbed in yaw, something the 'Dog never did.
It's a shame they decided to put a civvy reg on the side (or at least make us comply to civvy rules) since 250' IS significantly different to 500', but I suppose in these PC days of lack of noise it may have come to that anyway.
We ALL know that the nicest aircraft to fly was the Hunter
and, as far as light military aircraft are concerned, in terms of pure pilot pleasure, I think the Chippy beat the 'Dog and the Tutor, but in this race, my money has to go on the Grob.
Now, if only they'd let us fly them with just a headset......
And....
Recover
How could you learn your NDB/DME skills from the Bulldog when it wasn't equipped with an ADF?
I've flown the Bulldog for a few years (started in 1984, ended in 2000 when we got rid of them from the AEF/UAS) and have to say that in all I think the Tutor is the better machine.
The avionics are undoubtedly far superior and the cockpit much better laid out with a view to ergonomics. I love the fact that the ginger beers can't use petrol to clean it, so it doesn't constantly smell of fuel and induce the queaze on a hot summer's day. It does a LOT more on 180 hp than the 'Dog ever did on 200 and for a significant reduction in fuel flow.
The current problems regarding min landing fuel and IMC clearances will be ironed out and we will be left with the aircraft the RAF supposedly bought in the first place. The problem with the roll rate will never be sorted and, while you can flick the thing, it's so pedestrian in its roll rate and lack of rudder area that I find myself dropping off to sleep during aeros (okay, a little bit of exageration
).The 'Dog definitely won there.I don't share UAM's enthusiam about all the documents. True, the training manual is good (and one day I'll get one) but the FRCs and Flying Manual were/are appalling. Just scrubbing out Bulldog and writing Tutor just doesn't wash. Admittedly we were the first bunch to get the Tutor so had to suffer the initial issues, but ammendments like 'delete Fuel Sytem. Insert Electrical' smacks of a certain lack of proof reading
Shame on you BD crowd.As an instument platform I find both aircraft comparable. The Bulldog and Tutor are lovely and stable once you get them trimmed out, but with its lack of rudder area the Tutor does tend to 'fish-tail' a lot when disturbed in yaw, something the 'Dog never did.
It's a shame they decided to put a civvy reg on the side (or at least make us comply to civvy rules) since 250' IS significantly different to 500', but I suppose in these PC days of lack of noise it may have come to that anyway.
We ALL know that the nicest aircraft to fly was the Hunter
and, as far as light military aircraft are concerned, in terms of pure pilot pleasure, I think the Chippy beat the 'Dog and the Tutor, but in this race, my money has to go on the Grob.Now, if only they'd let us fly them with just a headset......
And....
Recover
I flew the Bulldog (for more than a hundred happy, carefree hours) back in the 'pre avionics days' and I loved it. I was a spotty herbert fresh from school, however, and I'd have loved anything with a stick rather than a yoke, with a roundel on the wing, and a serial rather than a registration, mind you. Having to wear a bone-dome and flying suit just seemed to add to the 'military' experience - at least 'til the novelty wore off.
But it had its faults and it will probably never go down in history as a classic. It was as over-engineered as the Pup (which I still fly and love) and just as over-weight. The spin problems, the inadequate prop clearance for taxying on bumpy grass, were real enough, but the aircraft was difficult enough to fly an aerobatic sequence in to teach all of those useful lessons about energy management which others have outlined more effectively than I could (whereas the Chipmunk really was under-powered!). And in its 'yoof', when looked after by service engineers, and with adequate spares support, it seemed reliable enough for us always to have as many as we needed on the line - and enough for OUAS to be forever nicking one!
Max R8 summarised the beast very nicely, IMHO.
Someone asked us to "consider that the Bulldog's thirty years older than the 115 and that's why it was replaced" - my understanding is that the Bulldog could have gone on (with a 112FI(?) Spar mod which was designed, cleared and even fitted to one 'Dog - hope they're keeping that one for display use!) and that the reason it didn't was that they wanted a PFI solution, in which operating costs were the driving force, and where a modern gf llightplane was bound to be procured. Moreover, the costs of spares and support for the 'Dog had been escalated by the DA to a barely sustainable level (thanks BWoS), as anyone operating a civil one today will be finding.
Now who's going to take me up in a Grob and make me eat my words?
Dunno about EFTS, but anyone lucky enough to be on a UAS should be bloody grateful for whatever they're flying, although a bit of envy for what went before seems traditional. Some of us, I'm sure, wished we'd been able to experience the Chipmunk, and some of the Chipmunk studes could have looked back to the days when Harvard and Balliol 'advanced' flights were attached to UASs, or to the open cockpit magic of the Tiger and Hart! In 20 or 30 years, old farts like me will be getting all nostalgic about the Grob, too, I have no doubt.
But it had its faults and it will probably never go down in history as a classic. It was as over-engineered as the Pup (which I still fly and love) and just as over-weight. The spin problems, the inadequate prop clearance for taxying on bumpy grass, were real enough, but the aircraft was difficult enough to fly an aerobatic sequence in to teach all of those useful lessons about energy management which others have outlined more effectively than I could (whereas the Chipmunk really was under-powered!). And in its 'yoof', when looked after by service engineers, and with adequate spares support, it seemed reliable enough for us always to have as many as we needed on the line - and enough for OUAS to be forever nicking one!
Max R8 summarised the beast very nicely, IMHO.
Someone asked us to "consider that the Bulldog's thirty years older than the 115 and that's why it was replaced" - my understanding is that the Bulldog could have gone on (with a 112FI(?) Spar mod which was designed, cleared and even fitted to one 'Dog - hope they're keeping that one for display use!) and that the reason it didn't was that they wanted a PFI solution, in which operating costs were the driving force, and where a modern gf llightplane was bound to be procured. Moreover, the costs of spares and support for the 'Dog had been escalated by the DA to a barely sustainable level (thanks BWoS), as anyone operating a civil one today will be finding.
Now who's going to take me up in a Grob and make me eat my words?
Dunno about EFTS, but anyone lucky enough to be on a UAS should be bloody grateful for whatever they're flying, although a bit of envy for what went before seems traditional. Some of us, I'm sure, wished we'd been able to experience the Chipmunk, and some of the Chipmunk studes could have looked back to the days when Harvard and Balliol 'advanced' flights were attached to UASs, or to the open cockpit magic of the Tiger and Hart! In 20 or 30 years, old farts like me will be getting all nostalgic about the Grob, too, I have no doubt.
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Stansted
Posts: 108
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Jacko! I worked on Bulldogs and Chipmunks at Marshalls' in the Seventies and Eighties (God I feel old now!) and purely from the grease monkeys' aspect, the Chipmunk was more reliable, if only because it was simpler. The biggest problem we seemed to have with the Dog was with the awful fuel injection, which kept a lot of aircraft in the hangar when the 'munks were happily blatting around the skies.
I've no experience of the Grob at all, except they fly over my house at the weekend, and noisy little beasties they are, but I love to see a bit of flying activity at Wyton these days, if only to annoy the nimbys
But it's probably easier to work on; we had a couple of Pups to look after too, and I loved 'em, but they were a right pig to look after compared with one of Mr. Piper's equivalents.
I've no experience of the Grob at all, except they fly over my house at the weekend, and noisy little beasties they are, but I love to see a bit of flying activity at Wyton these days, if only to annoy the nimbys
But it's probably easier to work on; we had a couple of Pups to look after too, and I loved 'em, but they were a right pig to look after compared with one of Mr. Piper's equivalents.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: El Glasgow, Scotland
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well looks like I really touched one off!
Sorry for bringing it up again, I should've known that this topic would have been exhausted by now.
Thanks much anyways for the answers...very informative I must say
Maybe one day someone will be asking why my gen. laugh at their Skoda DIY Kit Plane and I will be able to answer as you fair gents have.
Thanks,
Steve
Sorry for bringing it up again, I should've known that this topic would have been exhausted by now.
Thanks much anyways for the answers...very informative I must say
Maybe one day someone will be asking why my gen. laugh at their Skoda DIY Kit Plane and I will be able to answer as you fair gents have.
Thanks,
Steve
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: England
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One good point is that the bulldog was not easily damaged. Recently wasted a whole day flying because of an inch wide hole in the
aileron sending the frame u/s. Can't fix the hole due to fantastic composite materials and so have to wait for whole new part which will cost how many thousands to aquire and repair.
aileron sending the frame u/s. Can't fix the hole due to fantastic composite materials and so have to wait for whole new part which will cost how many thousands to aquire and repair.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Darn Sarf
Posts: 130
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
See ya point Egg. I used to fly those Vigilant thingys on a VGS (Grob 109) and I'm just waiting for all those horrible cracks to appear in the gel coat around all the stretchy parts of the airframe.......
Pilot Officer PPRuNe
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 396
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fortunately I have never flown the dog, so I can justifiably keep out of this argument, which is a good job as I keep getting in the pooh each time I mention how great our aircraft is.
Doh................
Tonks
(big, happy, tongue-in-cheek smiley faces)
Doh................
Tonks
(big, happy, tongue-in-cheek smiley faces)
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Not... far... enough... along....
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Okay, so is the Grob better than the Bulldog? My specialist subject!
No, it's not.
Answering UAM's comments first. The flight manual is good? Well, can't say I had any problems with the Bulldog one. I've not picked up anything from the Tutor one that I think a student with an ounce of common sense couldn't withdraw from the Bulldog one. Yes, tidier written perhaps, but colour photos a manual do not make!
Studes these days may get it all bound together in a nice red folder, but studes from my era had no problem finding everything they needed; plus those who have gone on to better things are hardly disadvantaged!
Navigation suite?? Hang on, that's a bit daft. GPS is all well and good, and I'm sure in a GR7 on fire with my leg broken while I'm drunk I'd be very glad of a "nearest airfield" facility, but the fact remains that UAS studes aren't taught to use it. It seems to be there as an aid for QFIs, so whether or not it's in line with future RAF front line aircraft is immaterial if proper techniques in its use aren't covered. Besides, the Tucano and Hawk don't have a GPS capability, so if they were instructed in its use, they'd swiftly forget about it before they ended up sitting in a Typhoon! Give me NDB any day!
VFR restrictions? Without getting into an arguement about why they're there, the fact is they are; and all those "actual" hours we used to get in the 'dog are gone for now, and definately gone are they days of punching through an irritating layer of 8/8 to do some work with a decent horizon/cloud base above.
On that subject, what happened to PIFGs for UAS studes? Just another useful thing we've lost; I know bringing us into line with JEFTS is good, but it's still a shame..
Aircraft on the line? I'd rather have 2 of 8 'dogs and be able to get through the 8/8 cloud than 7 of 7 Tutors and be left on the ground........
Nope, the 'dog couldn't throw a 540 flick through a Cuban. But then again, QFIs aren't meant to "teach" that to students. It's not a valid instructional comment when you're not allowed to flick any other aircraft in the RAF, is it? I'd rather learn aerobatics in an aircraft which has a sensible natural roll rate.
Yep, the Bulldog did fall like a brick; but as someone else has mentioned, it's not a problem. Modify your sequence to maintain height; probably is better practice than having a ridiculous plastic aircraft which sits wherever you put it without you having to worry about a base height.
Spin package in 6 mins as opposed to 15? At least you had to think about it in the 'dog.... no comment as to whether or not that's a good thing though, we've all been bitten by a Bulldog in the spin before!
On that thread, it's nice having a light aircraft which maintains height during aeros and doesn't plummet during a spin. However, if that makes the aircraft a bloody mess to land, it's a shame to the studes who are meant to be building confidence doing their first landings in it. As confirmed by several students who have only flown the Tutor, you flare.... and wait.... and then hit the upwind threshold. Whooops, shame the Bulldog actually landed sensibly when you wanted it to; and in the same county as where you started!
Higher G limits? Who in EFT actually needed 6G to fly a decent loop?? I can do a decent Bulldog aeros sequence in the Tutor sticking happily to Bulldog limits.
Yes, it's fun sitting in a +6G max possible rate turn (not that I'd know because it's another thing we're not allowed to do) but is it really necessary for an EFT student?
Oh, and it's civilian registered; 250ft low level was a very handy skill to learn!
People moaned about the Bulldog fuel system, but having fuel minima that mean they have to land with something bizarre like 65% of your initial fuel left. Plus, 20 litres unusable fuel in each wing?? Even a Cessna can get by with 7! Oh, and if you get a slight fuel imbalance, I'm reliably informed it starts rolling a bit to that side... which reminds me, it's annoying not having rudder trim too!
While I remember, your formation references were better. And you had more space inside. The canopy arch wasn't the size of an A4 sheet of paper. It was easy to taxy about.
Oh, and you could see the Bulldog in the CCT when it was painted black. White Tutors are an utter 'mare to spot anywhere, and I challenge anyone to disagree with that! Oh, and which machine had better wind limits?
Jackonicko makes some interesting points about cost driving the adoption of the Tutor. I won't comment on that, it'd probably drive me apoplectic!
As a final thought, at least Bulldogs sounded better than Tutors. Someone needs to take the Tutor fleet to a few thousand and blow the baffles out of the exhausts to give them a decent sound!!
Hello Tonks, don't chop me.
Edited to remind everyone that some ridiculous bureaucratic reason we can't do any advanced aerobatics either, and you can't squeeze into it unless either you or your QFI is a beansprout.
---------------------------------------
PLVS ETIAM POLLEMVS QVAM CREDIMVS!
[ 30 November 2001: Message edited by: Woz ]
No, it's not.
Answering UAM's comments first. The flight manual is good? Well, can't say I had any problems with the Bulldog one. I've not picked up anything from the Tutor one that I think a student with an ounce of common sense couldn't withdraw from the Bulldog one. Yes, tidier written perhaps, but colour photos a manual do not make!
Studes these days may get it all bound together in a nice red folder, but studes from my era had no problem finding everything they needed; plus those who have gone on to better things are hardly disadvantaged!
Navigation suite?? Hang on, that's a bit daft. GPS is all well and good, and I'm sure in a GR7 on fire with my leg broken while I'm drunk I'd be very glad of a "nearest airfield" facility, but the fact remains that UAS studes aren't taught to use it. It seems to be there as an aid for QFIs, so whether or not it's in line with future RAF front line aircraft is immaterial if proper techniques in its use aren't covered. Besides, the Tucano and Hawk don't have a GPS capability, so if they were instructed in its use, they'd swiftly forget about it before they ended up sitting in a Typhoon! Give me NDB any day!
VFR restrictions? Without getting into an arguement about why they're there, the fact is they are; and all those "actual" hours we used to get in the 'dog are gone for now, and definately gone are they days of punching through an irritating layer of 8/8 to do some work with a decent horizon/cloud base above.
On that subject, what happened to PIFGs for UAS studes? Just another useful thing we've lost; I know bringing us into line with JEFTS is good, but it's still a shame..
Aircraft on the line? I'd rather have 2 of 8 'dogs and be able to get through the 8/8 cloud than 7 of 7 Tutors and be left on the ground........
Nope, the 'dog couldn't throw a 540 flick through a Cuban. But then again, QFIs aren't meant to "teach" that to students. It's not a valid instructional comment when you're not allowed to flick any other aircraft in the RAF, is it? I'd rather learn aerobatics in an aircraft which has a sensible natural roll rate.
Yep, the Bulldog did fall like a brick; but as someone else has mentioned, it's not a problem. Modify your sequence to maintain height; probably is better practice than having a ridiculous plastic aircraft which sits wherever you put it without you having to worry about a base height.
Spin package in 6 mins as opposed to 15? At least you had to think about it in the 'dog.... no comment as to whether or not that's a good thing though, we've all been bitten by a Bulldog in the spin before!
On that thread, it's nice having a light aircraft which maintains height during aeros and doesn't plummet during a spin. However, if that makes the aircraft a bloody mess to land, it's a shame to the studes who are meant to be building confidence doing their first landings in it. As confirmed by several students who have only flown the Tutor, you flare.... and wait.... and then hit the upwind threshold. Whooops, shame the Bulldog actually landed sensibly when you wanted it to; and in the same county as where you started!
Higher G limits? Who in EFT actually needed 6G to fly a decent loop?? I can do a decent Bulldog aeros sequence in the Tutor sticking happily to Bulldog limits.
Yes, it's fun sitting in a +6G max possible rate turn (not that I'd know because it's another thing we're not allowed to do) but is it really necessary for an EFT student?
Oh, and it's civilian registered; 250ft low level was a very handy skill to learn!
People moaned about the Bulldog fuel system, but having fuel minima that mean they have to land with something bizarre like 65% of your initial fuel left. Plus, 20 litres unusable fuel in each wing?? Even a Cessna can get by with 7! Oh, and if you get a slight fuel imbalance, I'm reliably informed it starts rolling a bit to that side... which reminds me, it's annoying not having rudder trim too!
While I remember, your formation references were better. And you had more space inside. The canopy arch wasn't the size of an A4 sheet of paper. It was easy to taxy about.
Oh, and you could see the Bulldog in the CCT when it was painted black. White Tutors are an utter 'mare to spot anywhere, and I challenge anyone to disagree with that! Oh, and which machine had better wind limits?
Jackonicko makes some interesting points about cost driving the adoption of the Tutor. I won't comment on that, it'd probably drive me apoplectic!
As a final thought, at least Bulldogs sounded better than Tutors. Someone needs to take the Tutor fleet to a few thousand and blow the baffles out of the exhausts to give them a decent sound!!
Hello Tonks, don't chop me.
Edited to remind everyone that some ridiculous bureaucratic reason we can't do any advanced aerobatics either, and you can't squeeze into it unless either you or your QFI is a beansprout.
---------------------------------------
PLVS ETIAM POLLEMVS QVAM CREDIMVS!
[ 30 November 2001: Message edited by: Woz ]