Bulldogs
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: North England
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bulldogs
Read that the cost of the mod to increase fatigue life is about £12000 plus £4000 for tooling and 500 manhours ( at £30 per hr that makes an additional £15000). That makes the cost around £31000 plus vat, is any body intending to have this work done and how much extra life does it give. Is the purchase of a Bulldog still a good idea?
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The cost will come down as soon as some practicly minded GA licenced engineers get a look at the problem.
The price quoted by british wasteofspace is what they can get away with charging the military who are also not noted for the most practical and cost efective engineering practices.
The price quoted by british wasteofspace is what they can get away with charging the military who are also not noted for the most practical and cost efective engineering practices.
Not so N, but still FG
Join Date: May 2000
Location: London, UK
Posts: 1,417
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, someone must be giving it a go, as two ex UAS Doggies are parked at North Weald waiting to be fiddled with. As well as the rather high sounding figures bandied about for the mod, the various bits and pieces that break and fall off cost a lot because of the military thang, but, as A and C suggests, it may be possible to bring the costs down a bit. You might have a word with Roger Hayes of Skysport who is very knowlegeable on the the subject of Bulldogs and their little ways. He may have a clue as to the prospect of obtaining realistic prices.
Here's an ironic contrast: apparently the US may be an active market for the Dogs, as the FAA is said to be quite relaxed about tired-out hoonds blatting about in the friendly skies. Meanwhile the USAF plans to scrap its large fleet of barely used Slingsby T 67s because they are worried about getting sued if they sell them to people who then crash them (you may recall that the fleet was grounded after some accidents, one of which led a typically stupid US jury to accept that it was Slingsby's fault that the Lycoming stopped in a spin). So, it's alright to let lose aircraft that have been pounded and thrashed by generations of UAS studes, but not OK to sell perfectly good and almost new aircraft, even to us non-litigious Brits.
Returning to topic, if the costs do come down then it may well be worth getting one as they are such good fun to fly. Such a pity that you can't get another seat or two in the back.
Here's an ironic contrast: apparently the US may be an active market for the Dogs, as the FAA is said to be quite relaxed about tired-out hoonds blatting about in the friendly skies. Meanwhile the USAF plans to scrap its large fleet of barely used Slingsby T 67s because they are worried about getting sued if they sell them to people who then crash them (you may recall that the fleet was grounded after some accidents, one of which led a typically stupid US jury to accept that it was Slingsby's fault that the Lycoming stopped in a spin). So, it's alright to let lose aircraft that have been pounded and thrashed by generations of UAS studes, but not OK to sell perfectly good and almost new aircraft, even to us non-litigious Brits.
Returning to topic, if the costs do come down then it may well be worth getting one as they are such good fun to fly. Such a pity that you can't get another seat or two in the back.
presumably you can save a bit of weight by removing the mil spec front seats - stressed to 50 g or whatever - and replace them with flimsy civil spec ones.
BTW I see from this month's Flypast mag that one of the Dogs I used to fly has gone to France.
2 questions:
1. does this make them a Frogdog?
2. do the Frogs bother with the main wing spar mod?
BTW I see from this month's Flypast mag that one of the Dogs I used to fly has gone to France.
2 questions:
1. does this make them a Frogdog?
2. do the Frogs bother with the main wing spar mod?
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: London UK
Posts: 231
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I might be wrong but as far as I know - if the manufacturer (as opposed to an airworthiness authority) comes out with an AD or, indeed, quotes a life for an airframe it must be adhered to by the regulators.
The rules may well be different in the experimental category but it would be foolish to just assume that the aircraft 'looks strong, therefore it is'.
Seats are classed as aircraft structure so you might end up with a major mod on your hands to sling them away. Also, since they are the things that will save your life and/or your ability to walk again after an accident why replace them with inferior models?
Like many British Aircraft the Bulldog is overbuilt in some respects almost causing its own problems. It's so stiff that things crack rather than flex and wear. A sideload on the Undercarriage, for example, can crack the rear spar onto which it is mounted.
The rules may well be different in the experimental category but it would be foolish to just assume that the aircraft 'looks strong, therefore it is'.
Seats are classed as aircraft structure so you might end up with a major mod on your hands to sling them away. Also, since they are the things that will save your life and/or your ability to walk again after an accident why replace them with inferior models?
Like many British Aircraft the Bulldog is overbuilt in some respects almost causing its own problems. It's so stiff that things crack rather than flex and wear. A sideload on the Undercarriage, for example, can crack the rear spar onto which it is mounted.
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I,m told that the USAF getting rid of the T67 has more to do with the fact that slingsby could not get there act together and supply the spare parts and so could not get the use out of the aircraft.
As for the engine stopping in the spin the USAF have taken the aircraft to 24 turns in the spin without problems so i think that the court ruling is just a face saver for the USAF who dont want to admit that they delt with a company that was unable to support its (very good)product to the required standard.
As for the engine stopping in the spin the USAF have taken the aircraft to 24 turns in the spin without problems so i think that the court ruling is just a face saver for the USAF who dont want to admit that they delt with a company that was unable to support its (very good)product to the required standard.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: The fairy tale Land of Uk
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This info comes either from the horse’s mouth or was published in June’s Pilot mag.
The RAF worked to a Fatigue Index of 114 which equates to 5000 civvy hours.
The major mod BH193 plus some minor mods (at the sort of prices previously mentioned) gives an extension of the FI to 200 or 4320 extra hours but with an overall total of 8760 airframe hours. Most of the ex RAF Bulldogs are at or near FI 114. Because the RAF incorporated many mods, these aircraft are not considered the same as series 120 so are being re-certified as series 121. The Bulldog Owners Group seem to be driving this and expect to recoup costs by a c£4K fee on those ‘planes that eventually reach the register. Contact for the BOG is [email protected] or [email protected]
I've flown some ex-Botswana ones and I've got to say they could be expensive for their owners. ADs on the most unlikely things; a pig for the engs. to work on. Fuel consumption high. Roll cuff on the LE to achieve washout = draggy. Compare with a non-aerobatic PA28 Arrow on the same engine and there is no comparison. They're aerobatic that's all.
The RAF worked to a Fatigue Index of 114 which equates to 5000 civvy hours.
The major mod BH193 plus some minor mods (at the sort of prices previously mentioned) gives an extension of the FI to 200 or 4320 extra hours but with an overall total of 8760 airframe hours. Most of the ex RAF Bulldogs are at or near FI 114. Because the RAF incorporated many mods, these aircraft are not considered the same as series 120 so are being re-certified as series 121. The Bulldog Owners Group seem to be driving this and expect to recoup costs by a c£4K fee on those ‘planes that eventually reach the register. Contact for the BOG is [email protected] or [email protected]
I've flown some ex-Botswana ones and I've got to say they could be expensive for their owners. ADs on the most unlikely things; a pig for the engs. to work on. Fuel consumption high. Roll cuff on the LE to achieve washout = draggy. Compare with a non-aerobatic PA28 Arrow on the same engine and there is no comparison. They're aerobatic that's all.
Agree - nice to fly but very expensive to look after. Where will you get the canopy repaired/replaced, for example? Expensive to maintain as it has a VP prop, not much use for touring with relatively high fuel consumption, minimal avionics and only 2 seats. So fine if you're rich and want one for personal use, but to operate one for hire would be difficult. There is a limited market for aerobatics and the high operating cost would be a deterrent to a club wanting one for use by their members.
Excellent roll rate, benign handling (but know what you're doing in a spin!!) and terrific visibility. Nice aircraft, but just not very practical to operate at club level unless you've got plenty of folk prepared to pay a lot of dosh!
PS - I mean the ex-RAF ones. The folk operating ex-overseas air force ones seem to be doing OK - and good luck indeed to them!
Excellent roll rate, benign handling (but know what you're doing in a spin!!) and terrific visibility. Nice aircraft, but just not very practical to operate at club level unless you've got plenty of folk prepared to pay a lot of dosh!
PS - I mean the ex-RAF ones. The folk operating ex-overseas air force ones seem to be doing OK - and good luck indeed to them!
Not so N, but still FG
Join Date: May 2000
Location: London, UK
Posts: 1,417
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
mfds, BEagle will probably be along in a bit with a much better informed answer than I could give, but in the meantime search the instructors and military fora for Bulldog/spinning threads, as the spin characteristics of the aircraft have been discussed there a few times. There were some incidents with Bulldogs going high rotational and not recovering, some of which had amusing endings (eg the "Bulldog cabriolet" story about the instructor flying back to base minus canopy and student after the canopy jettison and/or student jumping out had recovered the spin), others with consequences that were not funny.
As for the Pups, you should not intentionally spin a Pup 150 unless it has spin weights fitted. Recovery is conventional. The Pup 100 is OK to spin if you can get coax it to climb high enough before your licence comes up for a biennial.
BEagle probably has a point about the distinction between the ex RAF aircaft and other ones. I assume that Old Sarum makes a living renting its Bulldogs, but believe that they are ex-Botswana. The Skysport Bulldog is also operated, successfully I believe, as a club rental. It formerly led an fairly easy life in Hong Kong and is a relatively unfatigued airframe.
[ 11 August 2001: Message edited by: FNG ]
As for the Pups, you should not intentionally spin a Pup 150 unless it has spin weights fitted. Recovery is conventional. The Pup 100 is OK to spin if you can get coax it to climb high enough before your licence comes up for a biennial.
BEagle probably has a point about the distinction between the ex RAF aircaft and other ones. I assume that Old Sarum makes a living renting its Bulldogs, but believe that they are ex-Botswana. The Skysport Bulldog is also operated, successfully I believe, as a club rental. It formerly led an fairly easy life in Hong Kong and is a relatively unfatigued airframe.
[ 11 August 2001: Message edited by: FNG ]
My memory is slightly hazy, but in the RAF Bulldog it was absolutely essential that the fuel balance limits were carefully observed. NEVER spin one with suspect gauging!
Observe the Centre of Mass limits meticulously.
After HASELLs and a 360 deg clearing turn, decelerate in straight flight with idle power and ensure the aircraft is in trim at 70 kts, do not trim below this speed. At 60 kts, briskly apply full aft control column AND simultaneously apply full rudder, ensuring that ailerons are held neutral. MAINTAIN THIS FULL PRO-SPIN CONTROL POSITION!!
There will be some oscillatory activity as the aerodynamic and inertial forces reach a balanced state and the stable spin is achieved. During this phase, MAINTAIN FULL-PRO SPIN CONTROL. If the control column position is relaxed slightly, the ac WILL enter a high-rotational regime with much greater loss of height and longer recovery time.....
To recover, keeping full pro-spin control applied, check height (if you have the luxury of a 'chute), then check throttle closed, ailerons neutral and direction of turn. Apply FULL anti-spin rudder and using BOTH hands on the control column, at the same time firmly move the control column CENTRALLY FORWARD UNTIL THE SPIN STOPS. Do NOT stop this forward movement until it does so! It is easiest to say out loud "Spinning Left, recovering. Full-right-rudder-and-control-column-centrally-forward-until-the-spin-stops" because that will give you roughly the right cadence for the recovery. Then centralise the rudder, level wings, ease out of the dive and select the S&L attitude, carefully opening the throttle until S&L flight is regained. There will be a slight bunting sensation and increased rotation as the spin is 'broken' but that'll indicate that recovery is becoming effective.
Not a particularly pleasant manoeuvre, but not dangerous if the CORRECT technique is used. In the RAF we used to practise the fully-developed spin from manoeuvre which could result in a spin with aileron and/or full power applied. It was then VITAL to do the 'throttle closed, ailerons neutral, full pro-spin applied check' as soon as the fully-developed spin was identified!
This is NOT a substitute for proper training, nor a replacement for handling advice in the POH. But it may help.
Observe the Centre of Mass limits meticulously.
After HASELLs and a 360 deg clearing turn, decelerate in straight flight with idle power and ensure the aircraft is in trim at 70 kts, do not trim below this speed. At 60 kts, briskly apply full aft control column AND simultaneously apply full rudder, ensuring that ailerons are held neutral. MAINTAIN THIS FULL PRO-SPIN CONTROL POSITION!!
There will be some oscillatory activity as the aerodynamic and inertial forces reach a balanced state and the stable spin is achieved. During this phase, MAINTAIN FULL-PRO SPIN CONTROL. If the control column position is relaxed slightly, the ac WILL enter a high-rotational regime with much greater loss of height and longer recovery time.....
To recover, keeping full pro-spin control applied, check height (if you have the luxury of a 'chute), then check throttle closed, ailerons neutral and direction of turn. Apply FULL anti-spin rudder and using BOTH hands on the control column, at the same time firmly move the control column CENTRALLY FORWARD UNTIL THE SPIN STOPS. Do NOT stop this forward movement until it does so! It is easiest to say out loud "Spinning Left, recovering. Full-right-rudder-and-control-column-centrally-forward-until-the-spin-stops" because that will give you roughly the right cadence for the recovery. Then centralise the rudder, level wings, ease out of the dive and select the S&L attitude, carefully opening the throttle until S&L flight is regained. There will be a slight bunting sensation and increased rotation as the spin is 'broken' but that'll indicate that recovery is becoming effective.
Not a particularly pleasant manoeuvre, but not dangerous if the CORRECT technique is used. In the RAF we used to practise the fully-developed spin from manoeuvre which could result in a spin with aileron and/or full power applied. It was then VITAL to do the 'throttle closed, ailerons neutral, full pro-spin applied check' as soon as the fully-developed spin was identified!
This is NOT a substitute for proper training, nor a replacement for handling advice in the POH. But it may help.
I vividly recall misshandling a dual Bulldog spin above Telford power station. I relaxed the back pressure during the entry (or so I was rather pointedly informed in subsequent de-brief!) and it went high rotational. Not a big deal from a very conservative 8,500ft but it stays with me to this day.
One of the best days of my flying career remains being checked out for solo spin/aeros on the Bulldog. It really was very nice for aeros - even when latterly compared to the higher performace composite types out there.
However, I did have the benefit of mastering (just!) the Bulldog with many many hours of RAF QFI time beside me...
One wonders.
WWW
One of the best days of my flying career remains being checked out for solo spin/aeros on the Bulldog. It really was very nice for aeros - even when latterly compared to the higher performace composite types out there.
However, I did have the benefit of mastering (just!) the Bulldog with many many hours of RAF QFI time beside me...
One wonders.
WWW
WWW - the Spin/Aeros check cleared you only for solo practice of those aeros which you had been taught dual. And NOT for intentional solo spinning!!
Yes I was very well aware that solo intentional spins were not permited - thats not how my post should have read. The high rotational incident was dual.
WWW
WWW
Not so N, but still FG
Join Date: May 2000
Location: London, UK
Posts: 1,417
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
mfds, I am not aware of any suggestion that Pups as a type have a history of unusual spin characteristics (although NB each individual airframe can have its quirks). It's the Bulldog that has, very occasionally, misbehaved itself, and despite the similarities to a Pup it is heavier and has a different CofG. It is of course sensible to be reluctant to aerobat an aircraft that you have not spun, but why not have an instructor demonstrate Pup spins and recoveries to you before going aerobatic? As for the Bulldog, I gather that there is a school of thought that you shouldn't spin one without a parachute. All of my pre-ppl spinning was done in a civvie Bulldog without wearing a parachute but now that I have a parachute I would wear it just in case.
If you are near London I can recommend a good aerobatic instructor who is current on Pup and Bulldog.
If you are near London I can recommend a good aerobatic instructor who is current on Pup and Bulldog.
Sorry WWW - I wasn't having a dig at you. Just didn't want the impression to be gained by anyone that the UAS Spin/Aeros check was anything more than a pre-solo aeros safety check! I'm quite surprised that you had a high-rotational experience as your QFI should have made damn sure that he took control as soon as he realised that you weren't applying full pro-spin - we were absolutely forbidden to let students induce, or even witness, a high-rotational spin; all spinning had to be 'by the book'!!
But it was a great day indeed when one was cleared for aeros the first time, wasn't it!
Back in the days when we had Chipmunks at our UAS at White waltham, we were cleared for solo intentional spinning. The first time I did so there was a clattering noise from behind which nearly caused me to have a heart failure! It turned out to be the ends of the rear seat Z-harness straps which were banging against the seat pan. No-one had warned me that that could happen!!
Hope you're enjoying the jet job!
[ 12 August 2001: Message edited by: BEagle ]
But it was a great day indeed when one was cleared for aeros the first time, wasn't it!
Back in the days when we had Chipmunks at our UAS at White waltham, we were cleared for solo intentional spinning. The first time I did so there was a clattering noise from behind which nearly caused me to have a heart failure! It turned out to be the ends of the rear seat Z-harness straps which were banging against the seat pan. No-one had warned me that that could happen!!
Hope you're enjoying the jet job!
[ 12 August 2001: Message edited by: BEagle ]