Slingsby Firefly
Thread Starter
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
From: Cambridge
Slingsby Firefly
Can anybody shed any light on the aerobatic capabilities of the 130 hp firefly.
I am looking to start some aerobatic training, and a local club i have found uses (i believe)130 hp fireflys , as opposed to the 260 hp ex-military variants.
Any opinions out there, as i would like to learn on an aircraft that is fit for the job ?
I am looking to start some aerobatic training, and a local club i have found uses (i believe)130 hp fireflys , as opposed to the 260 hp ex-military variants.
Any opinions out there, as i would like to learn on an aircraft that is fit for the job ?
Joined: Oct 1999
Posts: 3,325
Likes: 2
From: UK
We used to have a couple on the fleet at Barton, and one is still there now group-owned. They are very capable machines that aerobat well, albeit a bit underpowered. But that's no bad thing for a trainer - teaches energy conservation.
Go for it - you'll learn more in a fixed-pitch lower powered machine than you will in the 'hot ship'. It will give you a much better grounding than a machine with loads of power and and a CSU which takes away the need to worry about over reving the engine.
SSD
Go for it - you'll learn more in a fixed-pitch lower powered machine than you will in the 'hot ship'. It will give you a much better grounding than a machine with loads of power and and a CSU which takes away the need to worry about over reving the engine.
SSD
Guest
Posts: n/a
The LAC Slingsby's were 118hp A models with fixed pitch props so even more demanding in the aerobatic role.
With high aspect ratio wings rolling and flicking was a lethargic affair and the powerful elevator coupled to low power /low penetration made falling out of loops as easy as ....well falling out of loops.
130hp seems wrong; surely the B model was 160 hp and the C 230hp?
Sir George Cayley
With high aspect ratio wings rolling and flicking was a lethargic affair and the powerful elevator coupled to low power /low penetration made falling out of loops as easy as ....well falling out of loops.
130hp seems wrong; surely the B model was 160 hp and the C 230hp?
Sir George Cayley
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 329
Likes: 0
From: Home
Don't think there is a 130hp version.
I haven't flown the T67A, but have flown aeros in the B (118hp) and C (160hp) and M (200hp) variants.
The B and C models don't have inverted fuel systems, so you're limited to positive G manouvers. Both are pleasant to fly, but the B model climbs slowly (especially with 2 on board), and you'll need to dive to gain speed before all manouvers. The C is significantly better, having a much better climb and a cruising speed that is closer to the entry speed for basic manouvers.
They have quite a slow rate of roll, which I think is a good thing when learning aerobatics. You can fly a passable roll in something like a Pitts just by moving the stick to one side for a couple of seconds. To roll a Slingsby without changing height or heading needs a lot more finesse. However, they suffer from aileron stall if you use full deflection - although I seem to recall that this was more of a problem on the M than on the B or C.
They spin nicely, but on very rare occasions can take longer to recover than expected.
They have superb visibility, but are draughty unless you find one of the later split-canopy models. They are among the easiest aeroplanes to land, which is another benefit when learning aeros; in the early stages you use so much of your mental capacity that you don't need any extra challenges when landing.
I like them. Go and try one - you'll enjoy it!
I haven't flown the T67A, but have flown aeros in the B (118hp) and C (160hp) and M (200hp) variants.
The B and C models don't have inverted fuel systems, so you're limited to positive G manouvers. Both are pleasant to fly, but the B model climbs slowly (especially with 2 on board), and you'll need to dive to gain speed before all manouvers. The C is significantly better, having a much better climb and a cruising speed that is closer to the entry speed for basic manouvers.
They have quite a slow rate of roll, which I think is a good thing when learning aerobatics. You can fly a passable roll in something like a Pitts just by moving the stick to one side for a couple of seconds. To roll a Slingsby without changing height or heading needs a lot more finesse. However, they suffer from aileron stall if you use full deflection - although I seem to recall that this was more of a problem on the M than on the B or C.
They spin nicely, but on very rare occasions can take longer to recover than expected.
They have superb visibility, but are draughty unless you find one of the later split-canopy models. They are among the easiest aeroplanes to land, which is another benefit when learning aeros; in the early stages you use so much of your mental capacity that you don't need any extra challenges when landing.
I like them. Go and try one - you'll enjoy it!
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 198
Likes: 0
From: London
I have the M200 version and its a lot of fun for aeros. Rolls a bit slower than the CAP10B but pitch manoeuvres are more fun. I don't think there is a 130hp unless its the oldest A model or something. Bs and Cs were both 160hp I think. If you want to try the highest powered model, Stapleford isn't far from you and they have a M260 they use for aero training.
