Beach moth
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 https://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....f74af4fdca.jpg Well done Ma'am, well done.:-) |
Do those things run on Mogas ??
|
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 |
ps ...wasnt a lost prop was it ? l pic looks ?? up front
|
Just the angle! Saw a news video and the prop was there positioned horizontally. |
Originally Posted by aroa
(Post 10385766)
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 Great outcome for the Tiger pilot, excellent skills. |
Do those things run on Mogas ? |
Great outcome for the Tiger pilot, excellent skills. https://www.pprune.org/images/status...er_offline.gifhttps://www.pprune.org/images/buttons/report.gif 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. |
de Havilland manufactured the Tiger with and without slats, it was a buyers option.
|
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. |
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 |
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.
|
One of the videos from the beach clearly shows the slats and the 3 underwing fairings. But why aren’t they extended? Possibly deactivated? |
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. |
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 |
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. 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.. |
Originally Posted by Capt Fathom
(Post 10387580)
One of the videos from the beach clearly shows the slats and the 3 underwing fairings. But why aren’t they extended? Possibly deactivated? Quite a few Tigers have had the slats removed during restoration over the past 30 years or so. |
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. |
"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. |
Originally Posted by sheppey
(Post 10387638)
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..
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. I look forward to seeing what is in the new Part 91 MOS as the draft was diabolical on this subject. |
How does that apply to an experimental aircraft for which there is no data? |
Sunfish
The purpose of the Phase 1 flight test programme is to establish that data for the particular aircraft. |
Originally Posted by Sunfish
(Post 10388341)
How does that apply to an experimental aircraft for which there is no data? + what Vag277 said. ;) |
Originally Posted by cowl flaps
(Post 10387687)
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. |
Originally Posted by Ex FSO GRIFFO
(Post 10387510)
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 that was VH-TMK, it had been involved in an accident in Victoria a few years earlier which included the bottom right wing hitting a fence post. Despite the upper right wing being inspected it had sustained damage and it failed during recovery from a loop and the rest of the wings failed as did the tie rods. I took a lot of interest in that accident as I had flown the aircraft for several hundred hours with the previous owner doing flight training and joyflights. ATSB |
Originally Posted by sheppey
(Post 10387638)
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..
|
Griffo...you may be right. crack, delamination due old glue, may have got that wrong. Was by the cable hole the starting point ?
I was told the story many years ago, of that accident by the Tiger builder who used to live at Northam WA and was involved in the investigation...I guess it must also be in an ATSB file someplace. Local hero since passed pioneered air ag in FNQ starting with Tigers. Crashed a few, one into a big tree and survived. "Hairy" anecdotes abound.. All part of the individualism of the early solo operators, living on their 'edge' |
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. We regularly flew (staggered was more like it) with 450 lbs super phosphate in the front which was the equivalent of 2.5 passengers in the front seat. The CG was probably way out of the forward limit and we needed full back cheese-cutter (mechanical elevator trim) for take off. Full throttle was needed to fly. Every landing was seriously short field technique to minimize ground roll as the Tiger Moth did not come with the luxury of wheel brakes. But it had a tail skid which acted as a brake if you kept the stick hard back. Minimum fuel was unheard of. You filled the tank first flight of the day usually 0600 and topped it as required during the day. I don't know what the max structural weight for take off in the Tiger Moth but two pilots and full fuel was normal for sea level. We certainly exceeded that for every take off and then some. On my first take off with full hopper at Guyra NSW, I could barely maintain 200 feet to the drop zone even with full throttle. After having spread the load over the drop zone I returned for a short field landing and pulled up at the loader who quickly poured super phosphate into the hopper while I kept the engine running at idle (no brakes, remember?). I heard a frightful oath from the loader who happened to be the farmer paying for the load, and saw him point to under the Moth. I cut the engine, removed my dust covered flying goggles, and climbed out. I then understood why he was so pissed off. Being a novice crop duster on my first operational mission it turned out I had forgotten to close the bomb bay doors (the dump valve) after the last run. When the phosphate poured into the hopper it went straight through and poured out at the bottom on to the ground. My zero fuel weight was thus only me and my Tiger. No payload. The farmer gave me a dirty look and made me shovel the stuff from the ground into the hopper. That was back breaking work. Phosphate was expensive so I guess he had a point. I finished my two week agreement and went back to Uranquinty a bit richer financially, but to the relative safety of teaching sprog trainee pilots. Postscript: About six QFI's were involved at various times with the Air Farm flying. The Commanding Officer of No 1 BFTS, Wing Commander Keith Bolitho DFC didn't know about it. We just took recreation leave for two weeks at a time. Some recreation that's for sure. One of our bunch was Flight Sergeant Ted Dillon. Ted had hurt his ankle playing football and had it strapped up with plaster. He heard we were making money crop dusting so he hacked off the plaster and went to Tamworth. He pranged a Tiger Moth while crop dusting and broke the other leg. On arrival back at Uranquinty, questions were asked about his two legs being strapped up instead of the one when he had gone on leave. The CO twigged something was fishy about his pilots disappearing for two weeks and coming back with more folding money than when they left. Add that to Ted's broken leg in mysterious circumstances. We all admitted guilt. The CO threatened us with Courts Martial if we did that again. |
What a fantastic career centurious. What changes you saw, tiger moths, P51s, the Avro Lincoln, 737s . Incredible . I am truly jealous . Such variety will never happen again .
|
Originally Posted by aroa
(Post 10385766)
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 This engine long pre-dated the use of "lead" in petrol, and the evolution of "high octane" fuels. "Back in the day", petrol would have been around 60-65 octane. Indeed, the introduction of "leaded" fuel cause all sorts of problems with engines that had brass cylinder heads, they had to be swapped for aluminium heads. Tootle pip!! |
Originally Posted by t_cas
(Post 10388659)
Not if you are flying an Airbus. That's not quite the whole story, is it. The methods of certifying approach speeds in modern large transport aircraft are not based on 1.3CAS, but the way they are done, the results are almost the same as if it was based on 1.3CAS. Why the difference --- because stalling a modern large transport aircraft for real can and probably will do structural damage to the aircraft. The last Boeing aircraft certified based on actual stalling was the B707. Tootle pip!! |
LS - it's a Gipsy. DH purists are offended!
|
I learnt to fly in the Tiger at the RQAC in 1955 - my last year of High School.. We often landed on the beach on South or North Stradbroke Island so my instructor could have a smoke - not many beachgoers then. I continued in the Tiger to get my Commercial Licence. No radios, naviads etc but at least I learnt to recover from spins and unusual attitudes under the hood - with a very limited pannel.
A few of the RQAC Tigers had slats - made short field landings very short! Unfortunately the RQAC and its Tigers are gone. |
LS - it's a Gipsy. DH purists are offended! If you look at this article both spellings are used. https://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarch...0-%200477.html |
The correct answer, as specified by Sir Geoffrey de Havilland, is Gipsy. Any other spelling is incorrect. This is stated in his autobiography "Sky Fever" and all DH advertising refers to Gipsy engines. The RAAF pilot Notes are wrong. In addition, the Gipsy was not named after a group of people but a moth (lepidoptera type) as were most of the DH single piston engine aircraft.
|
Originally Posted by Vag277
(Post 10389286)
LS - it's a Gipsy. DH purists are offended!
The said purists get quite NOOJ (nose out of joint) when you point at it was a Renault engine originally, not a DH design, hence the metric threads. Tootle pip!! |
the Gipsy was not named after a group of people but a moth (lepidoptera type) as were most of the DH single piston engine aircraft https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lymantria_dispar_dispar |
After a little research I find the entire world, save for the UK, call/spell the particular moth as "Gypsy Moth", the UK being the only English speaking nation to spell it as "Gipsy Moth". Trust the Brits to be the odd man out, but one has to ask why? Days of Empire superiority? Ref page 12 common names.
https://www.fs.fed.us/foresthealth/t...antria_web.pdf Brits have now fallen into line. https://www.forestresearch.gov.uk/to...es/gypsy-moth/ |
"Gipsy Moth" or "Gypsy Moth" - one of those used to be my password at work last year - now I know why it would fail sometimes.
Should have used "Puss Moth" instead. |
megan Regardless they are still a Gipsy engine and the DH 60 is the Gipsy Moth |
All times are GMT. The time now is 01:38. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.