Taildragger - in Tiger Moth or Chippie?
I don't get why you would seek out an airplane with crap handling when you can fly ones that are pleasant to handle.....
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 158
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ask all those people who fly vintage aircraft, or some microlights, or even Cessnas. One man's meat is another man's poison. And in the case of vintage stuff, the "interesting" handling is indeed a part of their appeal since to fly one well takes a bit of effort. And some people enjoy that, even if it's not everyone's cup of tea / coffee / beer / wine / gin.
I don't get why you would seek out an airplane with crap handling when you can fly ones that are pleasant to handle.....
now there's a spectactularly good Test Pilot School aeroplane
MJ
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Oop North, UK
Posts: 3,076
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
W.R.T. Austers - excellent aeroplane with a definite requirement to fly it well,
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Surrey, England
Posts: 731
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Auster Tiger Chipmunk Cub
I did my PPL on the Auster in 1960 and then subsequently did a few hours on the Tiger and then perhaps twenty or so in the back seat of an acquaintance's Chipmunk. More recently I had an hour in the back seat of a Cub.
I feel that for all basic training, (in which I include taildragger differences training,) you need an aeroplane with generic handling characteristics but which is intolerant of poor pilot technique. Such a relatively difficult to fly aeroplane will set you up well for any subsequent, more forgiving type. However, I would say that if it is your intention to fly vintage, then try to train on vintage.
Personally, I favour the Auster Autocrat. It has no electric starter and so has to be swung. It has heel brakes but you must avoid using them if possible to stop the aeroplane when in motion on concrete. This is because on concrete she rolls like H3ll so you have to taxi very, very slowly and apply the brakes gently and separately one at a time. In the air, the rudder is very sensitive, so you have to learn to use it properly. On landing, as someone else has remarked, the rubber suspension can produce some spectacular bounces if you don't land properly. On a hot day and in ground effect you can float for ever. Somebody said it has a high fuel consumption. The ones I flew consumed no more than four and a half Imperial gallons per hour. I wouldn't call that high.
The Tiger Moth is a very easy aeroplane to fly and to land but a very difficult aeroplane to fly accurately. The only difficulties it presents are that it is very 'draggy' and can lose speed very quickly in a gliding turn if you don't watch out and of course the reduced forward visibility. In the pre-war years aeroplanes were designed to be flown with the coming almost up against the horizon. This provided a poor level of forward vision that we wouldn't be happy with today. On the landing approach I seem to remember that I used to lean over and look around the nose now and again to see where I was going. The one I flew had balloon tyres with only 16 lbs pressure, (which is why it didn't need brakes; it rolled to a halt in a few feet,) and a thing like a giant steel serving spoon as a tail skid. (In the dusk, if someone else was taxiing one of these aeroplanes you could see this thing sparking as the pilot taxied the aircraft across tarmac or concrete to the hangar). To me, the Tiger is too non-generic unless you are going to specialise in flying vintage taildraggers. It really is a relic of the 1930s.
I found the Cub to be much like the Tiger accept less draughty, a bit more responsive to controls in the air and a bit more difficult to taxi. For my liking, its a bit too easy to fly to use as a training taildragger.
The Chipmunk is a lovely aeroplane to fly in every way. It's flying characteristics are about as generic as it is possible to get. It certainly demands good flying and tells you if you do something wrong, but is less likely to bite than the Auster. My only criticisms are that the control column was, for my liking, too far forward from the seat and too short. This made it uncomfortable for me on longer trips. I found taxiing difficult also because, like all these aeroplanes it has to be weaved on the ground and it rolls like H3ll on concrete - and those differential brakes take some time to master.
Well that's my two penneth.
BP.
I feel that for all basic training, (in which I include taildragger differences training,) you need an aeroplane with generic handling characteristics but which is intolerant of poor pilot technique. Such a relatively difficult to fly aeroplane will set you up well for any subsequent, more forgiving type. However, I would say that if it is your intention to fly vintage, then try to train on vintage.
Personally, I favour the Auster Autocrat. It has no electric starter and so has to be swung. It has heel brakes but you must avoid using them if possible to stop the aeroplane when in motion on concrete. This is because on concrete she rolls like H3ll so you have to taxi very, very slowly and apply the brakes gently and separately one at a time. In the air, the rudder is very sensitive, so you have to learn to use it properly. On landing, as someone else has remarked, the rubber suspension can produce some spectacular bounces if you don't land properly. On a hot day and in ground effect you can float for ever. Somebody said it has a high fuel consumption. The ones I flew consumed no more than four and a half Imperial gallons per hour. I wouldn't call that high.
The Tiger Moth is a very easy aeroplane to fly and to land but a very difficult aeroplane to fly accurately. The only difficulties it presents are that it is very 'draggy' and can lose speed very quickly in a gliding turn if you don't watch out and of course the reduced forward visibility. In the pre-war years aeroplanes were designed to be flown with the coming almost up against the horizon. This provided a poor level of forward vision that we wouldn't be happy with today. On the landing approach I seem to remember that I used to lean over and look around the nose now and again to see where I was going. The one I flew had balloon tyres with only 16 lbs pressure, (which is why it didn't need brakes; it rolled to a halt in a few feet,) and a thing like a giant steel serving spoon as a tail skid. (In the dusk, if someone else was taxiing one of these aeroplanes you could see this thing sparking as the pilot taxied the aircraft across tarmac or concrete to the hangar). To me, the Tiger is too non-generic unless you are going to specialise in flying vintage taildraggers. It really is a relic of the 1930s.
I found the Cub to be much like the Tiger accept less draughty, a bit more responsive to controls in the air and a bit more difficult to taxi. For my liking, its a bit too easy to fly to use as a training taildragger.
The Chipmunk is a lovely aeroplane to fly in every way. It's flying characteristics are about as generic as it is possible to get. It certainly demands good flying and tells you if you do something wrong, but is less likely to bite than the Auster. My only criticisms are that the control column was, for my liking, too far forward from the seat and too short. This made it uncomfortable for me on longer trips. I found taxiing difficult also because, like all these aeroplanes it has to be weaved on the ground and it rolls like H3ll on concrete - and those differential brakes take some time to master.
Well that's my two penneth.
BP.
Such a relatively difficult to fly aeroplane will set you up well for any subsequent, more forgiving type.
An increasingly large proportion of pilots, initially trained on the more benign modern nosewheel types, will be left behind by a demanding taildragger and soon loose interest, or be put off trying at all by what they see as it's fearsome reputation.
If we are to draw these people into our world of taildraggers, we need to ease them into it with something a little less 'scary'.
MJ
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 3,325
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Chipmunk is a lovely aeroplane to fly in every way. It's flying characteristics are about as generic as it is possible to get. It certainly demands good flying and tells you if you do something wrong, but is less likely to bite than the Auster. My only criticisms are that the control column was, for my liking, too far forward from the seat and too short. This made it uncomfortable for me on longer trips. I found taxiing difficult also because, like all these aeroplanes it has to be weaved on the ground and it rolls like H3ll on concrete - and those differential brakes take some time to master.
Those brakes did take a bit of getting used to, but they are of so good for maneuvering on the ground once you do!
The Yak52 also has 'odd' ground steering, with differential brakea and a castoring nosewheel. A single lever on the stick operates the mainwheel air (hiss! hiss! hiss!) brakes in proportion to the rudder position. Awful at first, but second nature once you master it.
I don't get why you would seek out an airplane with crap handling when you can fly ones that are pleasant to handle.....
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Surrey, England
Posts: 731
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Final tip to Okavango
Hi Okavango,
When doing my PPL (back in 1960 on the Auster) there was one thing my instructor said to me that I always remember. He said that, even after I had passed my general flying test, for some short time only about three in every ten of my landings would be much good. It would take time and practice to be able to make a decent landing every time.
In the early stages therefore I should not be too bothered if I frequently have to do a go-round, perhaps even twice, before finally landing the aeroplane.
For example, if you land a bit heavily and bounce, don't try to correct the landing - go round and come back for another go. You will learn how to recover a slightly inelegant landing later when you've got a bit of experience.
Good luck!
BP.
When doing my PPL (back in 1960 on the Auster) there was one thing my instructor said to me that I always remember. He said that, even after I had passed my general flying test, for some short time only about three in every ten of my landings would be much good. It would take time and practice to be able to make a decent landing every time.
In the early stages therefore I should not be too bothered if I frequently have to do a go-round, perhaps even twice, before finally landing the aeroplane.
For example, if you land a bit heavily and bounce, don't try to correct the landing - go round and come back for another go. You will learn how to recover a slightly inelegant landing later when you've got a bit of experience.
Good luck!
BP.
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: England
Posts: 245
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Personally I think you'd have far more enjoyment doing it in a Chipmunk, they are a delight!
The Tiger Moth on the other hand, isn't. In fact I'd go as far as to say I can't think of a worse aircraft that I've flown or flown in. Yes they have a certain appeal on the eye both flying and on the ground, but personally I wouldn't give one hangar space.
The Tiger Moth on the other hand, isn't. In fact I'd go as far as to say I can't think of a worse aircraft that I've flown or flown in. Yes they have a certain appeal on the eye both flying and on the ground, but personally I wouldn't give one hangar space.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 3,325
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, I agree the Tiger is an awful aeroplane from the handling viewpoint, but it scores millions of plus points for its character!
And they are aerobatic. Easy to fly (for a taildragger) while, like the delightful dHC1, difficult to fly well.
If I had a hangar, there'd be space in there for a Tiger.
One thing you will learn on a tailwheel course is a bounce recovery. The instructor will do a deliberate 'mains on hard' landing which will result in a nose high (and nose rising) bounce, then hand over control.
There are two possible recoveries; power and forward stick and a go-around, or, if runway length permits, power and forward stick and a second power-off hold-off to landing. A refinement of the latter for the experienced pilot is a 'power-cushioned' second hold off. This keeps all your limbs occupied; feet on rudder eliminating any yaw, left hand on throttle, right hand on stick. All co-ordinated.
And they are aerobatic. Easy to fly (for a taildragger) while, like the delightful dHC1, difficult to fly well.
If I had a hangar, there'd be space in there for a Tiger.
One thing you will learn on a tailwheel course is a bounce recovery. The instructor will do a deliberate 'mains on hard' landing which will result in a nose high (and nose rising) bounce, then hand over control.
There are two possible recoveries; power and forward stick and a go-around, or, if runway length permits, power and forward stick and a second power-off hold-off to landing. A refinement of the latter for the experienced pilot is a 'power-cushioned' second hold off. This keeps all your limbs occupied; feet on rudder eliminating any yaw, left hand on throttle, right hand on stick. All co-ordinated.
Last edited by Shaggy Sheep Driver; 2nd Dec 2014 at 20:47.
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Oxford, UK
Posts: 1,546
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
First, I flew gliders. only one wheel. Only one chance to land it right every time.
Then I flew C152, etc etc etc. Did tailwheel conversion on the 150 Supercub at Clacton, good place to learn.
Then I flew the Supercub 180 horsepower glider tug at Booker. Didn't do a lot of tugging there, owing to a mishap. No it WASN'T MY FAULT! And thank goodness that was the first thing the tugmaster said, when there was a cracking sound and one main gear folded up on my perfectly decent landing....when it went to the workshop, the entire frame was found to be rusted out! So if you are going to invest in a Cub, get a younger model...
I then went to Texas and bought a lovely 150 hp Supercub built in 1977, had it boxed and sent to the UK. GOFER and I were very happy together, over a thousand hours, mostly pulling up gliders, though trips to France, Spain, and Ireland were also undertaken - though once we did arrive arse end up in an Irish Bog....due to a surprising crosswind. As by the time it groundlooped, we were traveling only about 5mph, there was no damage at all. Nice soft bog.
The joy of the 150 Supercub is balance (the 180 is nose heavy), easy handling, and a wonderful power to weight ratio. Never any doubt that your climbout will be enormously satisfying....and when the Cub is earning its keep by pulling up gliders, it is also very satisfying to do that well, to deliver the glider to a nice thermal and expeditiously return for the next.
The other complete joy is flying with both upper and lower doors open, and doing a steep right turn....you KNOW you are up in the air, nothing at all between you and that ground way way down below....
You can do tailwheel training on GOFER at West London Aero Club, White Waltham. Say hello to her and a kiss on the nose from me.
I've only had a couple of rides in the Chipmunk, we have one now at the gliding club with a Lycoming, and it is well regarded by all who fly it. I have a lot of trouble climbing in and out, however.
Then I flew C152, etc etc etc. Did tailwheel conversion on the 150 Supercub at Clacton, good place to learn.
Then I flew the Supercub 180 horsepower glider tug at Booker. Didn't do a lot of tugging there, owing to a mishap. No it WASN'T MY FAULT! And thank goodness that was the first thing the tugmaster said, when there was a cracking sound and one main gear folded up on my perfectly decent landing....when it went to the workshop, the entire frame was found to be rusted out! So if you are going to invest in a Cub, get a younger model...
I then went to Texas and bought a lovely 150 hp Supercub built in 1977, had it boxed and sent to the UK. GOFER and I were very happy together, over a thousand hours, mostly pulling up gliders, though trips to France, Spain, and Ireland were also undertaken - though once we did arrive arse end up in an Irish Bog....due to a surprising crosswind. As by the time it groundlooped, we were traveling only about 5mph, there was no damage at all. Nice soft bog.
The joy of the 150 Supercub is balance (the 180 is nose heavy), easy handling, and a wonderful power to weight ratio. Never any doubt that your climbout will be enormously satisfying....and when the Cub is earning its keep by pulling up gliders, it is also very satisfying to do that well, to deliver the glider to a nice thermal and expeditiously return for the next.
The other complete joy is flying with both upper and lower doors open, and doing a steep right turn....you KNOW you are up in the air, nothing at all between you and that ground way way down below....
You can do tailwheel training on GOFER at West London Aero Club, White Waltham. Say hello to her and a kiss on the nose from me.
I've only had a couple of rides in the Chipmunk, we have one now at the gliding club with a Lycoming, and it is well regarded by all who fly it. I have a lot of trouble climbing in and out, however.
Okovango,
My advice is go for the Chipmunk and then maybe do a couple of flights in the Tiger for fun and to see the differences - particularly what profile drag is all about!
As most Chippie pilots on here have commented, it is a delight to fly, once you have mastered its eccentricities.
I was lucky enough to get 170 hours in UAS Chipmunks at the start of my flying career and that has stood me in good stead for all of the taildraggers I have flown since then -mainly Citabrias and Scouts and a few circuits in a Super Cub and a Stearman.
Someone earlier commented on the Chipmunk being closer to the Spitfire end of the spectrum. I've had a flight in a Spitfire and I have to say the Chipmunk is much more pleasant to fly - the Spit is very sensitive in pitch but has very heavy ailerons - you would definitely need two hands on the spade grip for high speed max-rate turns!
My advice is go for the Chipmunk and then maybe do a couple of flights in the Tiger for fun and to see the differences - particularly what profile drag is all about!
As most Chippie pilots on here have commented, it is a delight to fly, once you have mastered its eccentricities.
I was lucky enough to get 170 hours in UAS Chipmunks at the start of my flying career and that has stood me in good stead for all of the taildraggers I have flown since then -mainly Citabrias and Scouts and a few circuits in a Super Cub and a Stearman.
Someone earlier commented on the Chipmunk being closer to the Spitfire end of the spectrum. I've had a flight in a Spitfire
and I have to say the Chipmunk is much more pleasant to fly - the Spit is very sensitive in pitch but has very heavy ailerons - you would definitely need two hands on the spade grip for high speed max-rate turns!
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 3,325
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I-42 I have heard from quite a few fellow Chippy pilots who have also been lucky enough to fly a Spitfire that from a handling point of view, the humble dHC1 has the edge.
From a power, performance, and capability angle of course they are chalk and cheese.
My few years of Yak ownership gave me a taste of an 'unlimited' aeroplane and it does make aeros a lot easier when you have 360hp on tap, no u/c drag, and a big VP prop! You just leave the power on full, the RPM at 98%, use 2 hands on the stick, and point the big, unburstable brute of an aeroplane absolutely anyway you want, including straight up or down!
Nonetheless, I was glad to go back to the Chippy! The delightful energy-conservation flowing sort of aeros it performs I found to be more pleasant than the Yak's more staccato style.
From a power, performance, and capability angle of course they are chalk and cheese.
My few years of Yak ownership gave me a taste of an 'unlimited' aeroplane and it does make aeros a lot easier when you have 360hp on tap, no u/c drag, and a big VP prop! You just leave the power on full, the RPM at 98%, use 2 hands on the stick, and point the big, unburstable brute of an aeroplane absolutely anyway you want, including straight up or down!
Nonetheless, I was glad to go back to the Chippy! The delightful energy-conservation flowing sort of aeros it performs I found to be more pleasant than the Yak's more staccato style.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Oop North, UK
Posts: 3,076
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flown the Chippie and the Spit and personally I thought the Spit actually DID have the edge, but for affordable flying and Chippie handling I think the RV8 is a bit like a Chippie on steroids - but with the rudder set up in the rear I would not want to be teaching someone Tailwheel on it!
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Utterly insignificant little blue-green planet, unregarded yellow sun, unfashionable end, western spiral arm, Milky Way
Age: 38
Posts: 276
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Step Turn
I certainly second that! I think that in those first few hours, you're still flying on luck. There is a large attitude shift required over tricycle flying, in that directional control is vital, and you don't stop flying the aircraft until it is tied down. For most tricycle pilots, it's going to take more than 5 hours to assure these careless habits are trained right out for good.
There's a difference between being on your best behavior, new flying a type, and being ready to take it somewhere solo, and deal with whatever might come up along the way. If after "checkout" a few hours of solo circuits in different wind conditions, on different days, then okay. But you're not checked out, until you're comfortable with it all.
I had to check myself out in a Tiger Moth a few years back. It had not flown in ten years, and a maintenance test flight was required. There was no one else to do it. I was on my very best behaviour, and waited until the wind was perfect on the grass runway. I did my few flights (and a few circuits for my sake) and all went fine, but I never yet the conditions gang up on me!
You should feel comfortable when you can happily land on one main wheel first in a light cross wind, hold it there for a moment, land the other main wheel, pause more, then the tail wheel. When you are equally content to threepoint or wheel land, then you're ready....
There's a difference between being on your best behavior, new flying a type, and being ready to take it somewhere solo, and deal with whatever might come up along the way. If after "checkout" a few hours of solo circuits in different wind conditions, on different days, then okay. But you're not checked out, until you're comfortable with it all.
I had to check myself out in a Tiger Moth a few years back. It had not flown in ten years, and a maintenance test flight was required. There was no one else to do it. I was on my very best behaviour, and waited until the wind was perfect on the grass runway. I did my few flights (and a few circuits for my sake) and all went fine, but I never yet the conditions gang up on me!
You should feel comfortable when you can happily land on one main wheel first in a light cross wind, hold it there for a moment, land the other main wheel, pause more, then the tail wheel. When you are equally content to threepoint or wheel land, then you're ready....
The good thing about learning on the Cub is that the undercarriage is spine-compressingly bouncy. Thus, your wheel landings have to be spot-on, and the stick brought forward the instant you hit to keep the kite down. A Tiger Moth has soft springs and a low rebound rate in the undercarriage, so it will just gently set itself on the ground and stay there during a wheelie. Also, for learning, keep in mind that the Moth is very noisy due to the open cockpit, so a Cub or a Chip is a better learning platform. Personally, I'd say learn on the Cub, then get checked out on the others.
the humble dHC1 has the edge.
In terms of control harmonization, yes. Otherwise no. You don't have the seemingly unlimited power, nor the spade grip, complete with gun button, nor the view out the window of that wonderful elliptical wing nor the response to ATC from opposite direction traffic: "Tally-ho the Spitfire".
Bugga! Now I'll have to go fly a Spitfire to form my own opinion! 
The delightful energy-conservation flowing sort of aeros it performs I found to be more pleasant than the Yak's more staccato style.