Recovery Process
 

Mechta I hear that the actual company that caused the problem is being 'less than helpful' with the recovery.
The company tasked with the 'real work' have an excellent reputation for quality repairs and are also responsible for the ongoing Tutor work.
IT appears the RAF have NO EXPERTISE in the field therefore had no idea of what they had allowed to happen on their watch.
In fact there is expertise in the RAF with the GSA, but of course they had no part in the ATC operation or its tech back up, therefore no input to question the poor decisions being made in the highest echelons of the MOD.

Maybe the time has come for people to walk away and let Air Cadet Aviation fail? I am 60 this year, still fly the Tutor and have written to my MP several times over the mismanagement of Air Cadet Flying to no avail.

Apparently the latest Tutor cock up concerns the failure of the MOD to sign a new agreement with Babcock over the plan to do more with the plastic fantastic fragile Tutor. No doubt some fudge will shortly occur by which Babcock will profit, the taxpayer will get fleeced and the Air Cadets short changed on flying hours.

I cannot see any "light at the end of the tunnel" and judging by many of the posts above I am not alone. To continue to "go the extra mile" to make a patently crap plan work simply lends some thread of respectability to the over-promoted idiots responsible for this mess.

Pob
 

Pobjoy- the only company responsible for this mess is the operator itself - with those fallings going back across both fleets practically from introduction.

The 'contractors' have only done as contracted. They aren't responsible for final oversight of airworthiness.

See the DHAN 86, or foi requests earlier in the thread.

I really feel for the peeps left trying to salvage this having to operate in a bastardised system that's neither sensible BGA /CAA nor appropriately tailored Military.

No serviceable Vigilant for 645 this weekend!

Should have bought the Slingsby T67 Firefly like I told 'em to about 25 years ago.

T67 !!!!
 

Chev methinks the SAH1 with a simple 0320 and fixed pitched prop would have been the way ahead.
An 0 360 option could also have been considered.

The Bulldog was always an expensive (heavy) answer to a simple problem, and the T67 (German design) had issues to the point that the Americans cut up their fleet after service rather than release it to civilian use.

Whilst all this is going on the dear old C172 (decades old) is still training pilots all over the world.

The SAH1 was a 'Pup' without the complexities and expensive doors . It was designed from the outset for simple mass production but retaining the good handling qualities. The Bulldog was just an ongoing (heavy) Pup with no real improvements, other than a canopy.

Sydney A. Holloway apparently designed the SAH 1 after building a flying model Pup in metal. Alan Greenhalgh (One time Beagle designer and very much involved in the Pup) always called the SAH 1 "a reworked Pup." The T67 was originally ex. Fournier ( French) and the USAF experience with the type has been covered on other threads by those with qualified opinions.

The Pup 100 is one of the sweetest handling aircraft I've ever flown (if a bit gutless). I would LOVE to test the SAH-1. Everything I've ever read says it really is superb. Bulldogs are nice, but heavy - and slow for 200hp and a C/S prop. Blatant plug - my test of the only Bulldog 200 ever made hits the High St. soon!

If it looks right...It flies right...
http://1000aircraftphotos.com/Contri...edijk/7007.jpg
...oh, b^gger!

The SAH-1 is uber ugly!!! :yuk:

SAH 1
 

AH LJ thanks for the image; I had omitted to mention the excellent visibility from the superb canopy.
Sid Holloway had worked for Beagle at Shoreham before their demise.
His intention was to produce a machine that was both strong and easy to mass produce, whilst keeping the 'pup like' handling.
The fuselage was simple, smaller and lighter than the pup and led to a rather 'basic shape compared with its 'parent'.
However what emerged was a strong simple machine that handled well and had excellent visibility. The test/development pilot was an ex Boscombe Down
senior TP and i do not recall any adverse reports about the product other than the CAA thought the elevator being 'light'.
Scottish aviation had offered the Bulldog and politics did for the SAH1.

I agree about the Pup except for the 'gutless' bit. It was about the same power and weight as a C150 but with higher wing loading which meant it took longer to unstick, but made it easy to land and at least you felt you were flying it properly as its control response was far better than the Cessna. Unfortunately, I only checked out on it at Blackbushe a few months before increased airfield charges meant the club had to reduce the number of aircraft it operated and as only myself and a young lady were regular users, it had to go.
Never flew the SAH-1 but I believe it's still around under another name, the 'FLS Sprint.' It used to operate around the Fairoaks/Dunsfold area but last I heard it was I think at Old Sarum.
That canopy is of similar size and shape to the Eurostar. This has an 80hp Rotax 912 engine giving about 90kt cruise and a stall speed with flaps in the order of 40kt. It can be had as a microlight or Group A aircraft, so maybe for air experience that would be sufficient.

The FLS Sprint 160 would have been an excellent Bulldog replacement - far better than the wretched Firefly with its glider wing and dismal roll rate, or that plastic pig, Das Teutor.

I have no experience of the FLS Sprint.

I have flown the Firefly and yes it had a slow roll rate, other than that it was (and is) a fine little aircraft well suited to EFTS (where I instructed on it.) The Tutor has had problems with it's prop, principly because of the poor engineering of the initially (poorly) selected model, the current prop is fine. CFS have insisted on some odd procedures for the Tutor which doesn't help, but the airframe is fine. The avionics of both types are over complicated for the AEF ( where I operate it.)

I wonder how many here who proffer opinions have direct operating knowledge of and instruction time on these types, rather than grumbling hearsay from the corner of the bar?

Some interesting points of view here (from some very experienced QFIs too): http://www.pprune.org/military-aviat...-vs-tutor.html

Not much love for the Plastic Pig, it would seem.

And those of us who have flown both have our own opinions, not all identical. I suppose only 12 years basic QFIing including the waterfront don't really count in such august company, but then again I'm not really prejudiced either way.

Bulldog v Tutor
 

Beagle looked up the site and was interested to see that the PP drivers also thought the 'roll rate' was poor (on both) but could be improved by doing a 'flick roll'. I am not entirely sure that Grob cleared the Tutor for that and of course this would have led to extra loading around the tail unit and a consequent spate of cracking. However what was considered the datum machine for 'aileron only roll' !!, as I thought the Stampe took some beating in that regime; but was quite a 'mature' machine by then. Certainly the 'flickable' biplanes had extra bracing around the tail and entry speeds were always relatively slow. On a completely different scale our Beta and Cassut racers at Redhill rolled like a demon with just two fingers. Anyway that's pushed the thread creep up but not assisting the Cadets to get back into some proper glider training unfortunately.

Quite right POBJOY. Enough of innuendo and recycled opinions, lets get the kids airborne!! I am no glider pilot, but I really enjoy the enthusiasm of the cadets that fly with me.

During the '90s when we were running an Air Experience operation at Halton for cadets using Cyclone AX3 microlights (with the full knowledge of HQAC) I took several cadets for their 'first ever' flights and I'm sure they enjoyed this as much as they would have a Bulldog. OK so it was slow (cruise about 50kt) and not aerobattable but at least they were getting airborne and were able to fly the aircraft themselves and they weren't confronted with a huge instrument panel, just one like a Sedburgh but with engine instruments(CHT/rpm) added.

Just a thought
 

Well Beardy At least we have not forgotten what this is really all about.
Whilst this thread continues we will 'remind' those at the top what is possible using volunteers and enthusiasm with real aircraft rather than clip boards facebook and Part Task Trainers.
Before I leave the Bulldog / Grob topic I am reminded that some years back we had a Victa Airtourer (150) at Lands End.
Now I admit it was short on wing area but it could do upward charlies all day and coped with our rather 'windy' location very well.
Does anyone know if the MOD/RAF ever evaluated it !!!
It was slightly different from the 'norm in that it had a centre control stick (with spade grip) and a hand brake, plus nosewheel steering on the rudder.
Built by a lawnmower company (orig in AUS) (later in NZ) there are many still operating over there. The handling was very 'crisp' and I seem to recall the min approach speed 65. Not very forgiving if you let the speed wander off during the final turn, but probably a good lead in to more advanced types as per RAF usage.

Halton Aero Club is flying Air Cadets at RAF Halton with HQAC permission and 2FTS authorisation. The last time I looked they had flown ~180 Cadets since Summer last year. The money is non-taxpayers through fundraising and donations.

https://www.raf.mod.uk/rafhalton/new...1326D50D6B9D94

https://www.raf.mod.uk/rafhalton/raf...369BFE6CC4.jpg

Every little helps!