Beach moth

[Andy_G]

Story in todays news, A lady put a Tigermoth down onto Blacksmith's beach near Newcastle. All intact and nobody hurt, really good effort by the pilot after engine issues.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-02-...beach/10797928



Well done Ma'am, well done.:-)

[cowl flaps]

Do those things run on Mogas ??

[aroa]

Can do. Made for 80 octane. 95 mogas +additive. Never had a vapour lock problem.
Other folk may have used and had alternative
Life's a beach. Pleased to see it not busted. good one

[aroa]

ps ...wasnt a lost prop was it ? l pic looks ?? up front

[Capt Fathom]

Just the angle! Saw a news video and the prop was there positioned horizontally.

[5th officer]

Originally Posted by aroa

Can do. Made for 80 octane. 95 mogas +additive. Never had a vapour lock problem.
Other folk may have used and had alternative
Life's a beach. Pleased to see it not busted. good one

Operated my Cessna 170A and Auster J5F on unleaded fuel with an approved STC, never experienced any vapour lock problems and virtually eliminated lead fouling of spark plugs.
Great outcome for the Tiger pilot, excellent skills.

[megan]

Do those things run on Mogas ?

The original Gypsy manual (circa 1933) recommended a good quality automotive petrol, with no particular octane rating mentioned.

[sheppey]

Great outcome for the Tiger pilot, excellent skills.

I noticed the top mainplanes appear not to have the slats on the leading edge. All RAAF Tiger Moths were fitted with slats. When close to the stall they would move forward off the leading edge and a clacking noise could be heard as they bounced in an out depending on airflow direction. While the stall speed only reduced by three knots, the big safety factor was the clacking noise which was a reliable stall warning device and saved many a life.

I understand civil registered Tiger Moth owners had DCA approval many years ago to remove the slats completely - ostensibly to save maintenance costs. Beats me why the then DCA failed to consider the resultant flight safety issues of removal of the slats and their very effective mechanical stall warning advantage. I remember being taught short field landings by RAAF instructors and as the slats clacked in and out you knew not to reduce airspeed any further.

Many years ago, a fatal accident involving the Point Cook RAAF Museum Tiger Moth may have been prevented had the slats been available. That was a simulated engine failure during initial climb out at a speed ten knots less than the manufactures POH. There has been other stall/spin fatal accidents in Tiger Moths which may have been prevented had the slats been available as a stall warning device. Penny wise, pound foolish, comes to mind.

[megan]

de Havilland manufactured the Tiger with and without slats, it was a buyers option.

[aroa]

Sheppey.....corollary to that.
Early 2000 and ? In WA, loop pull-out
Wing failure in a Tiger with slats due to lock/unlock cable eroding the spar hole and crack developed .
Loop recovery xs stress and the wing failed . Aeros and NO parachutes.!! 2 fatalities.

In the good old days ...when Tigers came to the Aero Club new out of the box,(50 Pds) flew with both.
had to remember to Lock and Unlock when appropriate.
Stalling and spinning was all part of the syllabus...now 'de riguer'... sending some people to an early grave.

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

Hey 'aroa'
I have heard it said, in the most 'hallowed halls' of 'Tiger Moth' knowledge, that the 'real' cause for that one, may have been a 'delamination' of the spar (s) due to the ageing of the 'animal based' glue holding said laminations...….

i.e. The 'slats' had nothing to do with it...……

And, being a 'DH-82A' owner, I am inclined to give it some credence...…

'Old' history now, and unable to be substantiated either way.....but...….

Cheers

[Seagull V]

Slats or no slats?

May the lighting of this photo makes it appear that the aircraft is slatless. A Google search for recent images of this Tiger clearly show it to be fitted with slats. So if has been "deslatted" it must have been done quite recently. Maybe technically proficient wizard (aka Geek) could enhance the image to answer the question. Or maybe a PPruner who knows the Tiger personally could answer the question.

[Capt Fathom]

One of the videos from the beach clearly shows the slats and the 3 underwing fairings. But why aren’t they extended? Possibly deactivated?

[sheppey]

But why aren’t they extended? Possibly deactivated?

.

You may be right re deactivated. The RAAF Museum Tiger Moth that crashed at Point Cook, I understand had its slats permanently locked closed (for some reason)

de Havilland manufactured the Tiger with and without slats, it was a buyers option.

Thanks Megan. I didn't know that

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

Maybe 'cause they are normally 'locked' for taxying, and the lady did the right thing after the rather successful result, when maybe she 'tidied up' and locked them
correctly to prevent wind damage perhaps..??
Just pure speculation....I wasn't there....

Cheers

[sheppey]

I remember being taught short field landings by RAAF instructors and as the slats clacked in and out you knew not to reduce airspeed any further.

Slight thread drift but here goes. When I learned to fly in the early 1950's, short field landings (sometimes called Precautionary landings) were usually conducted at much lower airspeeds than normal landings. For example normal landings in a Tiger Moth were a fixed IAS of 58 knots to the flare. Short field landings were flown hanging on to the prop (powered approach) at 48 knots.
Short field landings in other types were conducted almost universally by knocking off 10 knots from normal over the fence speeds and the Devil take the hindmost.

Todays flying schools syllabus includes short field landings but the airspeed is never reduced below Vref or 1.3VS which is normal landing speed. That being so, why is it called "short field landing" when clearly it isn't ? Is it illegal to deliberately approach at a speed less than Vref or 1.3Vs? Does that risk CASA legal action if caught in the act? Just wondering..

[roundsounds]

Originally Posted by Capt Fathom

One of the videos from the beach clearly shows the slats and the 3 underwing fairings. But why aren’t they extended? Possibly deactivated?

unless there is sufficient airflow at a high enough angle of attack the slats will be retracted. Unlocking them simply does that, it allows them to extend if required it doesn’t extend/deploy them. I would generally lock them during crosswind ops greater than 10 kts, then unlock them airborne and lock them again on short final. I would always lock them taxiing.
Quite a few Tigers have had the slats removed during restoration over the past 30 years or so.

[cowl flaps]

It's hard to believe that the Tigers were once used for crop dusting.
So under powered that I can't imagine them carrying much of a load. Minimum fuel would be the first consideration.

The owner / CFI who taught me to fly in 1970, - (Wally Knight, Nepean Flying School, Camden), actually did crop dusting in Tigers in his younger days.

[thorn bird]

"Is it illegal to deliberately approach at a speed less than Vref or 1.3Vs? Does that risk CASA legal action if caught in the act? Just wondering."

Depends entirely on the opinion of the FOI of the day.
Whether its "legal", "illegal", safe or unsafe has no bearing on CAsA's actions, the FOI's opinion is the prime consideration.

CAsA are not subject to the law as we know it. If they determine that a legal case may be flimsy, the always have "Administrative" action to fall back on.

A simple example is Mr Carmody's actions in regard to Angel Flight, in his own words "He does it because he can" like little Johny sitting in the garden pulling wings off butterflies.

What motivates him to do as he does is another matter....and No I'm not suggesting for an instant that brown paper bags are involved!!

All passing strange but.

[djpil]

Originally Posted by sheppey

Todays flying schools syllabus includes short field landings but the airspeed is never reduced below Vref or 1.3VS which is normal landing speed. That being so, why is it called "short field landing" when clearly it isn't ? Is it illegal to deliberately approach at a speed less than Vref or 1.3Vs? Does that risk CASA legal action if caught in the act? Just wondering..

The objective is to achieve the distances given by "the book" not to win at the upcoming short field contest - so you know whether you can get in and out of a particular airstrip. CAO 20.7.4 is quite clear on the subject:

10.1 Subject to paragraphs 10.3 and 10.4, an aeroplane must not land unless the landing distance available is equal to or greater than the distance required to bring the aeroplane to a complete stop or, in the case of aeroplanes operated on water, to a speed of 3 knots, following an approach to land at a speed not less than 1.3VS maintained to within 50 feet of the landing surface. .....
10.3 Subject to paragraph 10.4, where there is an approved foreign flight manual or a manufacturer’s data manual for an aeroplane that sets out the landing distance required for that aeroplane, then that aeroplane must be operated so as to comply with the requirements set out in paragraphs 10.1 and 10.2 or the requirements relating to landing distance set out in either of those manuals.

For my airplane, the manufacturer's manual has a landing approach speed not much above the stall speed so that's what I must use when doing tailwheel endorsements per Part 61 MOS.

I look forward to seeing what is in the new Part 91 MOS as the draft was diabolical on this subject.