Bulldog vs. Tutor
 

Does anyone have any opinions on how the Bulldog and Grob compare to each other as aerobatic training aircraft? (having flown both I feel inclined to favour the Bulldog)

Firefly and Bulldog would be a closer comparison rather than that characterless effort from the Germans

The Tutor does not roll. Can't do aeros without roll.

Is it an aerobatic training aircraft or a training aircraft?

If the latter, grob over 'dog over chippy (no idea on firefly), even if all were new.

The Firefly doesn't roll to well either.

Das Teutor rolls pretty well, it just doesn't have any ailerons! Roll rate from a 100kt flick entry is reasonable. Hence the reason most Tutor aero sequences you'll see involve a lot of flick manoevres in the place of conventional rolling. Well, that and the fact it's pretty much the only service aircraft you can intentionally flick.

Bulldog :ok:

At least in its day... then they started sticking silly 'This airframe will fall apart if you move the control column stickers' on 'em.

Though Tutor is easier to fly them in...

I've not flown the Firefly for any great length of time but have it on good authority it's the best of that bunch.

Tutor is 'FUN' to fly, Firefly - more fun for aeros, but lacks the 'nice' kit to go on a comfortable cross country.


(.......AEF Plt).

At least the Bulldog didn't need to be flicked to roll pretty well! As did the Chipmunk - it just lacked enough power.

The only Firefly I flew was the T67A - dreadful roll rate and I'm told the Plastic Spastic isn't any better. Hence both Firefly and Das Teutor have to be abused by flicking to roll quickly. Which is a bit pointless since no other service aeroplane is cleared for such manoeuvres.

BULLDOG vs TUTOR
 

As my Prune handle implies I have lots of time on the Bulldog on the venerable Bulldog, I have also flown the Tutor for a few hours. Given that the role of both is ELEMENTARY flying training (or sadly, mainly AEF, these days) the need is for an aeroplane that manouevres well in all axis. This makes it easy to learn the basic pitching and rolling manoeuvres which foster confidence whilst manoeuvering and teach the need to monitor G and engine limits. For this the 'Dog won hands down IMHO. The Tutor and Firefly have their individual merits but as aforementioned require to be flicked to produce rapid rates of roll, a manoeuvre which is not pertinent on any operational aircraft. As an aerobatic trainer give me a (Low FI) Bulldog any time.

Was the TSR-2 better than the Tornado GR ?




.....

Is Rocky Balboa as good as Rocky 1?

My only real gripe about the Bulldog was its fuel system - ISTR it has a quasi-injection system, rather than a carb a la Chipmunk, but it still can not maintain power if continuously inverted for more than a few seconds.

The gripe about the Tutor, which I've not flown, is far more basic. It's not painted like an RAF aircraft, and looks far too much like a weekend flier's steed as a result. Why can't they have a colour scheme that is a bit more military?

I'm far too young to have ever seen the TSR 2 but to me as someone who has an interest in military hardware the Tornado always seemed like a slightly mushy compromise plane compared to the TSR 2 which looked like a real thoroughbred.

A_A the tutor needs to be white as it reflects heat and if it were painted the skin would absorb heat and warp the material it is made from. That was what i was told when i asked the same question as you.

And why isn't it on the military register? Is it legal to have military markings on a civil registered aircraft?

And it can't have a military colour scheme because the carbon fibre doesn't like absorbing too much heat - allegedly (not sure how that fits with TypHoon and GR7/9 having carbon fibre bits though!!!)

Wasn't the Bulldog 30 seconds inverted once the inverted oil system had been fitted?

The reason the Tutors are on the G- reg is because they where one of the first examples of this government's Private Finance Initiatives, the planes are not property of the RAF (or the crown) simply on long term lease (this makes them much easier to get rid of when the RAF has finished with them)

I think it is fair to say that, for all sorts of reasons, the Tutor isn't being worked nearly as hard as the Bulldog was. Nevertheless, the Dog was a solid piece of engineering and could cope with a whole spectrum of the usual abuse, and more, associated with ab-initio training. Tutor and Firefly are 'soft' by comparison and will never last as long, given the same sort of use. Nowhere near as long.

Methinks you are confusing 2 issues. DHFS helicopters are civil owned and military registered (COMR) as (now) are the King Airs. Just because they are leased does not mean they have to be on the civil register. Unfortunately being on the civil register means you have to operate them to all civilian rules, as an example you cannot fly the Tutor with miniflares fitted in your LSJ.

Back to the original question, IMHO the Tutor is just the better aircraft. Better avionics fit than the Bulldog, better climb performance with the 3 bladed prop (as long as all three blades remain attached:E ) better flick ability (and who cares that this has no military application) but less forgiving undercarriage, lower x-wind limit and a m u c h s l o w e r roll rate. Horses for courses really, but I think the Bulldog was more fun!!

Give me a lycoming engined 'munk over all three!

Can you expand on the no miniflares in your LSJ rule please. I was told it was due to restrictions on storing the LSJs on the ground when fitted with flares

Fluffy Bunny I totally agree.

The Lycoming Chipfire is a great machine to fly. Unfortunately the engine installation was never certified for aerobatics over here because most conversions were for glider towing.

From a pure handling point of view, I think the control harmonization of the humble Chippy approached perfection. The Dog wasn't too far behind but the Tutor is not even an also ran in this respect.

The Tutor wins hands down in the comfort and instrument/avionic fit but it's rate of roll is not even up to Citroen 2CV standards.

A certified Lycoming Spitmunk with a CSU would be the most fun you could ever have with clothes on.

PS A taildragger is a mans machine, wheelbarrows are for wimps.

Having flown a Bulldog, Grob and T67A and T67M, I can say that the T67M is streets ahead of the others. Yes it has a slow roll rate, but it has the performance for higher energy maneuvering and station keeping in formation at high AoB.

The T67M had a very comprehensive avionics suite making it a great trainer.

As for 'frame longevity, I'd wager our plastic friends will long outlast the Aloominum ones.

I believe Slingsby went bust after the grob deal. Great shame.

How about Extra 300s with Gipsy Major engines? :}

Who cares.

Ahhh, the Chipmunk.

"Pull the yellow toggle to release the flap, pull back on the yellow handle until the canopy reaches its first stop then pull back on the yellow handle again and slide the canopy to the rear."

"Jump jump Johnny."

"Jump jumping Sir."

It all looked so easy on the video....:ok:

My flying club has just aquired a Chipfire, I assume I will have to show the 'Jump, Jump John' video to all prospective Passengers?:)

Bulldog
 

Excuse the thread drift guys. I'm about to reaquaint myself with the Dog (albeit in civvie hands) after many years away from it, and whilst still in possesion of my FRC's (AP101B-3801-140) I don't have any handling notes. Would like to read up on things before strapping back into the beast and wondered if anybody has got any top tips on where to pick up a copy. Ta.:)

Wasn't the Bulldog 30 seconds inverted once the inverted oil system had been fitted?
 

Hi Roland,
Can I dip in here?. I first flew the Dog in the early 80's when doing my best to drink myself through UAS and a degree. My liver survived both (god bless it) and I now fly a Bulldog in my spare time.

Apart from my liver my Bulldog FRC cards survived and I can reassure you that under card 8 limitations the Bulldog under neg G is cleared for:

8 seconds Max continuous
Min 10 seconds between applications.

The limiting feature is the fuel feed and not the oil.

Regards Bulldog v Firefly v Grob. What can I say? All are good trainers but the Bulldog is just that little bit more - British". Sorry Slingsby, that's harsh but do you have a central glove compartment for a chap's pipe and favourite tobacco? No! Come on now, there's more to becoming a RAF pilot than a few fancy dials and a bit of carbon fibre?! How about some good messing and a a game of Fuzzy Duck. Okay, so it's got the air conditioning vents from a Morris Ital - who cares it's built like a brick $hithouse and does what it says on the tin.............thanks Scottish Aviation!

Big Sand:ok:

Hi K.WhyJelly,
If you need any assistance please ask. I first flew the Bulldog in the UAS in the early 80's and have most of the Student Study Guide, FRC's AP101B-3801-14 (Sept1994). I fly regularly with another guy who was a CFS examiner on Bulldogs so recon between us we have a fair knowledge.

Delighted to help. Just let me know any queries you have and we will try and assist.

It's a super aircraft............happy landings!

Big Sand:ok:

I instructed on the Bulldog in the early 80s and never found the hidden brake 'chute which seemed to syphon off about half the advertised 200 horses. It was an embarrassment when out of the local patch because of the lack of any nav aids and radios that should have been in a musuem. No SSR still in 1984! I have precious few fond memories of it. The Grob buy was entirely about politics I believe. The colour scheme was a disgrace, like other points in it's introduction, given the wealth of evidence that white aeroplanes are virutally invisible in crowded Lincolnshire airspace. For more visible plastic airframes visit Barkston Heath!
The 260hp Firefly is doing a good job in Jordan and Bahrain, even despite the power loss to essential air-conditioning. All light aircraft benefit from bigger engines in my experience, and I have never had to cancel a trip due to excess sunshine or drooping wings.

Hi Ray,

When I first started instructing in the 'Dog in 1989, it was as you described. An ancient crystal tuned UHF box (12 channels?) and rather an old VHF set. Navaids? UDF and VDF if you were lucky. No SSR either. Tell that to 't lads of today...

When the RAF finally scraped together enough cash to fit the avionic upgrade, we had a good UHF, still the old VHF - but 't looksherry of VOR/ILS/DME! Which worked very well. Later, some ar$e of an engineer alleged that the sticking ILS needles weren't a problem as the ILS had never been intended for use in anger :rolleyes: - so we asked "In that case, why is a glideslope receiver and antenna system fitted? STFU and fix the damn thing, you oily fingered idiot!"

Those who flew the 'Dog at 2400/19 probably found it gutless - but most of us flew it with everything forward for most of the time and it went well enough. Unless you flew it with the canopy open, of course, when it flew as though it had the handbrake on!

I have only flown the Fruitfly in its T67A version and found the handling OK, but the roll rate abysmal. I'm told Das Teutor is even worse...

A 200 bhp Chippie with a wobbly prop, UHF, VHF and a GPS - now that would be nice!

I was told last week that the PFI deal for the Tutor contract is up for renewal soon.

A company has been formed to manufacture the SAH-1 and they intend to bid for the contract to supply the aircraft for the UAS/AEF flying.

I seem to remember the SAH-1 had a good report from the people at Boscome Down but no doubt the cheapest bid won the contract.

Perhaps someone who has flown the SAH-1 (preverably the 160HP) could comment on the aircrafts performance.

i have flown the bullgog, tutor and firefly M260. The firefly with its bigger engine is leaps and bounds ahead of the other two. Especially at JEFTS when a certain Mr Stu McClaren is demonstrating his inverted 30 degree turn whilst you eyes are close to exploding out your head. :eek:

Although i must say that the other two are damn fine a/c as well spent a lot of good time flying the bulldog on UAS and the tutor whilst holding (doesn't roll though).:O

hi does anyone have any time on XX 699

Just the one sortie on XX699 - 5 May 96, 1.10, a De Havilland Trophy competition low level navex with a student from another UAS - I was the safety pilot. I guess the ac must have come from one of the other competing UASs as it was one of ours. I can't remember which one.

As I recall the stude took a bit of a wrong turning and tried to fly right over Grantham at low level.

Yup, I flew 3 trips in XX699 during 2 weeks of hell at RAF Topcliffe in 1992 doing my A2 work-up..... EofC2 on Jun 15, S&L1 on Jun 16 and Desc2 on Jun 18.

But at least I passed my A2 at the first attempt a week later, so I guess it was worth it.

Yes, four flights in 1997. The aircraft was allocated to UBAS at RAF Cosford at that time (although I was not).

Re the SAH-1, I have flown the 120 hp version (G-BVNU) and it is a truly dleightful aeroplane to do aerobatics in, only real grumble is a lack of climb performance, but once up at a suitable altitude it is lovely. By all accounts the 120 hp version a better aerobatic aircraft than the 160 hp version due to better weight balance with the 120 hp engine.

I have flown the SAH1 - with both engines. It's s nice aircraft, but has a tendancy to flick - which could be corected easily. With the 160, it climbs very well. But it has a bit of a homebuilt feel about it. It doesn't really feel like a military trainer.

It was one of the contenders for the EFTS contract in 1993, but wasn't chosen.