Best basic trainer?
Hi Retired BA/BYJP4 Inverted Spins.
Never tried a full inverted, but used to do inverted flick rolls for a bit of fun, back in the 60s before the Mk 4 rudder posts started to crack up and all flick manoeuvres were banned.
Technique was to pull to the vertical and then, at about 120kt, full forward stick and full rudder. The aeroplane departs smartly, rolling in the direction of the applied rudder.. Recovery was interesting as you have to put recovery rudder on in the direction of the perceived roll.
Don’t think it would be a good idea for modern JP owners to try.
Never tried a full inverted, but used to do inverted flick rolls for a bit of fun, back in the 60s before the Mk 4 rudder posts started to crack up and all flick manoeuvres were banned.
Technique was to pull to the vertical and then, at about 120kt, full forward stick and full rudder. The aeroplane departs smartly, rolling in the direction of the applied rudder.. Recovery was interesting as you have to put recovery rudder on in the direction of the perceived roll.
Don’t think it would be a good idea for modern JP owners to try.
Only ever tried it ( only when a solo QFI ) inverting and slowly reducing speed to just before the stall, then applying full rudder, stick fully forward, but with ailerons neutral and trying both full aileron in both directions it just fell into a sort of wallowing spiral with the speed increasing. I guess it was not truly stalled.
Some time later I was walking through the hangar and saw a JP with the fin root fairings removed, revealing the three small bolts holding the fin on, made me very conscious of fin loading, never tried inverted spinning again.
Thought flicks on the JP were always banned, certainly since I first flew it in 1962, 3s and 4s.
Happy days!
Some time later I was walking through the hangar and saw a JP with the fin root fairings removed, revealing the three small bolts holding the fin on, made me very conscious of fin loading, never tried inverted spinning again.
Thought flicks on the JP were always banned, certainly since I first flew it in 1962, 3s and 4s.
Happy days!
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Back in Blighty
Age: 73
Posts: 185
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just to fill in one omission - the best EFT trainer I instructed on was the Firefly T67M260. I was originally taught on the Chipmunk - great fun. JP not fun. Bulldog - invisible tail brake chute and abysmal lack of nav aids/squawk. EFT for all three services was conducted on the Firefly, and I know it coped well in the desert. Tutor a real step backwards, and why the RAF purchased anything else from Grob baffles me. Anyone who saw Alan Wade winning the Wright Jubilee or showing at RIAT & Farnborough knew what the aircraft could do.
Ray
Ray
Just to fill in one omission - the best EFT trainer I instructed on was the Firefly T67M260. I was originally taught on the Chipmunk - great fun. JP not fun. Bulldog - invisible tail brake chute and abysmal lack of nav aids/squawk. EFT for all three services was conducted on the Firefly, and I know it coped well in the desert. Tutor a real step backwards, and why the RAF purchased anything else from Grob baffles me. Anyone who saw Alan Wade winning the Wright Jubilee or showing at RIAT & Farnborough knew what the aircraft could do.
Ray
Ray
My opinions: I'm going to risk uttering 'Jehovah' and sat the Tucano was better than the JP as a trainer. The JP was good, and perfect if your front line aircraft were Hunters and Lightnings, but when I trained on it, it was well past it's sell by date. It was too stable, it was thirsty and had severe range limitations. We could go on about tandem vs side by side (I prefer tandem BTW), but the JP's one instrument panel between the seats was a massive limitation. Having your head turned away from the centre-line is a disorientation inducer. Tucano improved on most of these faults, it produced better pilots for the aircraft they would be subsequently flying. And as for inverted spinning, because it could! And it was possible to get into one inadvertently - as one of my students demonstrated to me one day! The handling was very good, but had enough idiosyncrasies to make good pilots. I blagged a few PC9 rides and couldn't see any real difference between it and the Tucano, except the rear seat view was vastly better in the Tucano.
As for elementary trainers, at that stage, it's the handling aspects which are the most important at this stage, as you are trying to instil to create a good basis for the subsequent training. In my opinion, everything that replaced the Chipmunk didn't do any better and often were far worse. The Bulldog wasn't better than the Chipmunk, the Firefly was worse than the Bulldog. Don't know much about the Tutor, but having instructed in G115s, I don't hold up much hope. I'm sure the Prefect would be fine if the students could stop blowing up the engines and the tall ones fit in it.
As for elementary trainers, at that stage, it's the handling aspects which are the most important at this stage, as you are trying to instil to create a good basis for the subsequent training. In my opinion, everything that replaced the Chipmunk didn't do any better and often were far worse. The Bulldog wasn't better than the Chipmunk, the Firefly was worse than the Bulldog. Don't know much about the Tutor, but having instructed in G115s, I don't hold up much hope. I'm sure the Prefect would be fine if the students could stop blowing up the engines and the tall ones fit in it.
I only flew the T67A, but thought that it had a truly woeful roll rate. Generally the control harmony wasn't bad at all and it was OK for teaching stall/spin awareness and prevention. But I tried my Bulldog aeros sequence and gave up after the first half Cuban. Like the Chipmunk, watching prop rpm during aeros was essential; at least military versions had a constant speed prop.
As for Firefly displays, the one I saw at Farnborough involved mostly looping manoeuvres, but the abysmal roll rate meant that anything involving a roll used a flick entry....
Those who instructed on Das Teutor told me that it had an even worse roll rate than the Firefly. Its saving grace was that it had a better climb rate than the Bulldog, I understand.
During 1970, our UAS CFI went to fly various possible Chipmunk replacements. These were the Bulldog prototype, some Zlin, the SF 260 and a Pitts S-2. Beagle went bust, politics intervened and the Bulldog it was. Of which the RAF ordered 130....
As for Firefly displays, the one I saw at Farnborough involved mostly looping manoeuvres, but the abysmal roll rate meant that anything involving a roll used a flick entry....
Those who instructed on Das Teutor told me that it had an even worse roll rate than the Firefly. Its saving grace was that it had a better climb rate than the Bulldog, I understand.
During 1970, our UAS CFI went to fly various possible Chipmunk replacements. These were the Bulldog prototype, some Zlin, the SF 260 and a Pitts S-2. Beagle went bust, politics intervened and the Bulldog it was. Of which the RAF ordered 130....
Bulldog it was. Of which the RAF ordered 130....
Actually, the RAF ordered zero. The whole order was paid for by the Department for Employment (or whatever is was that week) to provide jobs for Scotsmen who would otherwise have been out of work.
Tutor: yes, dismal roll rate, and a fine bounce-augmenting undercarriage.
Actually, the RAF ordered zero. The whole order was paid for by the Department for Employment (or whatever is was that week) to provide jobs for Scotsmen who would otherwise have been out of work.
Tutor: yes, dismal roll rate, and a fine bounce-augmenting undercarriage.
Those who instructed on Das Teutor told me that it had an even worse roll rate than the Firefly
None of which had much impact on its suitability as a basic trainer.
A much nicer basic trainer piston aircraft was the (unfortunately) tandem seated Socata Epsilon.
Last edited by beardy; 30th Apr 2020 at 12:35.
Can anyone vouch for the SF260 from personal experience ? I've always thought it looked the biz and therefore, should be good.
As for my personal experience, the Piper PA-38 Terrorhawk puts hairs on yer chest
As for my personal experience, the Piper PA-38 Terrorhawk puts hairs on yer chest
There have been quite a few comments on inverted spinning. The Tucano was cleared for inverted spinning because during the release to service trials it was considered that if it spun inadvertently during aerobatics then the probability of the spin being inverted was about 40%. In fact, the first inverted spin that occurred during these trials was on a pilot currency sortie during which he let the navigator who was in the rear seat fly a few aerobatics. His attempt at a 1/2 Cuban 8 (rolling on an up 45 line) resulted in an inverted spin!
I once has a JP5 (no tip tanks) enter an inverted spin from a practise spin from a manoeuvre. On an up vertical line I closed the throttle then at 110 kts (max speed for spin entry) I applied full back stick and full left rudder. The aircraft rotated and started to tumble, generating a noticeable nose down pitch rate. I was about to say "This would be a great display manoeuvre" when it entered a fully developed inverted spin! The Aircrew Manual recovery was to centralise the controls so I tried this. However, there was severe aileron snatch and I could only maintain the stick laterally to within about half deflection. So saying, it recovered fairly quickly. I did some digging and discovered that an inverted spin trial had never been flown in the JP5 and that the advice in the Aircrew Manual was based on the JP4 trial! I did try this entry again and the departure was the same every time but I then recovered before it went fully developed inverted. I did hear stories that others had reported having it spin inverted but they had been told that they were wrong because it doesn't!
Back to the thread, the Harvard was originally an advanced trainer for piston engine fighters, although some Air Forces did use it subsequently as a basic trainer; I think that it is definitely the best trainer for tailwheel piston-engine fighters. With respect to what is/was the best basic trainer, every aeroplane has its good and bad points and they are all a compromise. The question is always then the best for precisely which aspect of flying? But I do have very fond memories of the Harvard, Chipmunk and JP5 - and the Tucano!
I once has a JP5 (no tip tanks) enter an inverted spin from a practise spin from a manoeuvre. On an up vertical line I closed the throttle then at 110 kts (max speed for spin entry) I applied full back stick and full left rudder. The aircraft rotated and started to tumble, generating a noticeable nose down pitch rate. I was about to say "This would be a great display manoeuvre" when it entered a fully developed inverted spin! The Aircrew Manual recovery was to centralise the controls so I tried this. However, there was severe aileron snatch and I could only maintain the stick laterally to within about half deflection. So saying, it recovered fairly quickly. I did some digging and discovered that an inverted spin trial had never been flown in the JP5 and that the advice in the Aircrew Manual was based on the JP4 trial! I did try this entry again and the departure was the same every time but I then recovered before it went fully developed inverted. I did hear stories that others had reported having it spin inverted but they had been told that they were wrong because it doesn't!
Back to the thread, the Harvard was originally an advanced trainer for piston engine fighters, although some Air Forces did use it subsequently as a basic trainer; I think that it is definitely the best trainer for tailwheel piston-engine fighters. With respect to what is/was the best basic trainer, every aeroplane has its good and bad points and they are all a compromise. The question is always then the best for precisely which aspect of flying? But I do have very fond memories of the Harvard, Chipmunk and JP5 - and the Tucano!
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Chicken Run
Posts: 1,057
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Short Arms
Beardy refers to the Tutor and short arms. I will acknowledge his short arms, but must step in with a comment that long pockets were not part of his manner.
Chippy/109
Megan you really need a ME109 as the Chippy wing was a direct rip off
The Americans had Primary Trainers such as the PT-17 Boeing Stearman and the PT-19 Fairchild Cornell, as well as Basic Trainers such as the BT-13 Vultee Valiant (commonly referred to as the Vultee Vibrator).
The performace leap from PT to BT to AT wasn't considered particularly great. As a result, my Father, who trained in the USA in 1943/44 under the British Flying Traing Schools scheme, went straight from the Cornell to the Harvard.
Last edited by ExAscoteer2; 30th Apr 2020 at 17:27.
Chippy/109
Indeed brakedwell I remember a post on this forum outlining how DHC came to 'borrow' the 109 wing sans lift devices. Fancy all those years in Munks and not noticing! Rather like discovering that the famed Spitfire wing originated with Ernst Heinkel the lead aerodynamics guy at Supermarine Beverley Shenstone described the path trodden in several articles.Sorry to be off topic I'll shut up now
you really need a ME109 as the Chippy wing was a direct rip off
There's a Bf 109 - you'll need to be an anorak to understand, it's a common mistake in identification. Agreed Chippy was very tame, but a delight just the same.