Cricket23

Go for it, it's a great, fun aeroplane. I'll pretty much reinforce what others have said. The M160 is a useful performance increase over the average flying club fodder, and in my opinion is nicer for aerobatics than the M260. It is considerably lighter in pitch when loaded up with 'g'.

All the 'M's have inverted systems without limitation (other than a 10 sec zero 'g' limit) and will stay upside-down until you run out of fuel.

The M260 'feels' like it has more than 100 hp up on the 160 and is a real hot rod. It accelerates on a hard runway like a TVR, and as DB6 mentioned, will very quickly get you to FL nosebleed (for a piston trainer).

None of the M Fireflys have a sparkling roll rate, but are capable of some pretty sporty aeros. Go to an airshow this year and try and catch DEFTS' Alan Wade displaying the M260. It's absolutely eye-watering to watch.

Yes, it's great. I sat through it. In the cockpit with him :E He helped brush up my aeros when I did JEFTS, then showed me some of his work, which I can tell you is more eye-watering from next to him than on the ground!

I can't help with information on the T67M - all of my T67 time was on a B model. That also had very nice handling. However, the one minus side was that the seats were a simple metal tray with a thin foam cushion. After an hour or so, it could become a little uncomfortable!

Despite that, I have very fond memories of the T67 and would love to fly one again.

P

This is the briefing I got before flying the T-67a.

"It's a very nice aircraft and you WILL like it!"

Turned out to be entirely correct.

Have also flown the -200M which is also great but heavier in the nose. So, the nicest handling is the 'a' but the performance of the 'M' is much better.

Apparently, the 'c' is the best compromise.

I had a very brief flight in thr 200M and was not altogether impressed by the roll rate.......................Any comments from the floor ?

10 hours in the 67m.. one of the best aircraft I have flown, was just starting to enjoy it when someone bent it taxying... now i have to fly the spam cans again..

Starting takes a bit of practice (need three hands and if you even look at the throttle when starting from hot it overprimes) but once it is going it is a joy. Just remember to bang the canopy with your fist as part of the pre take off checks (see earlier post for why). The M that I flew needed very little rudder with power (or for that matter in turns).

Roll rate a tad slow and sensitive in pitch (go easy with the trim wheel), but all in all a great fun aircraft.. go fly or even better go buy...

Thanks for the feedback
 

Thanks to all for the helpful replies - I haven't been on PPRUNE much lately as I've been preparing for my GFT, which I'm glad to say that I passed yesterday.

Anyway, the Slingsby sounds like a nice aeroplane to fly, and I'll certainly be looking to fly one soonish.

Cheers all.

C23

Well done. Welcome to the fraternity of pilots. You are now a pilot and no-one can ever take that away from you. What an adventure you have ahead of you.
Where did you do the gft?

Thanks for the feedback 18greens - yep I'm still smiling. I've finally fulfilled a lifelong ambition, and if I never fly again (which of course is unlikely!) - at least I've done it.

I did my GFT at Redhill (Nav Redhill - Southend - Lydd), although of course we diverted partway into the 2nd leg.

Cheers,

C23

Loved the RF 6B, enjoyed the T67A, haven't flown the unexciting, heavy 67B (all that grp instead of God's fatique free material - wood.

Hope soon to try the 67M MkII (does this have a power lever like the 260M?).

But am concerned that quite a number of the 67C models have been the subject of spinning accident reports, and I well remember an early one with the 260M where the Instructor could not make a recovery after the student had cocked up, and they threw the aircraft away, as this was service flight with parachutes.

None too confidence building. I gave my students spinning in Airtourer (which is a spiral diver after a couple of rotations anyway), and the delightful Pup, which always behaved impeccably, and made the thought of needing a parachute laughable. But not so the Slingby .....

Flew the T67A. Underpowered, poor roll rate for a semi-aerobatic aeroplane and most of the time during aeros you have to watch the engine RPM like a hawk. Very restricted 2 PoB aerobatic weight.

Nice to potter about in though - but a very small fuel capacity.

I gather later models have more power and a better aerobatic weight - but still the glacial rate of roll unless abused by 'flicking'. Some have a CSU, which makes aeros less hassle...

The Bulldog is a far better aeroplane all round.

The Mk2 Firefly has a proper throttle lever for the LHS and a plunger-type for the other seat i.e. awkward for a short-@rse like me who spends his day at work in that chair stretching for the throttle.

The Firefly will sit all day in a stable spin and will do so all the way to the ground unless the correct recovery is used. The JEFTS Firefly abandonment accident report is in the public domain and involved the stude mishandling a spin recovery inducing a high-rotational spin followed by an unsuccessful delayed recovery.

Share in a Slingsby
 

Just to keep folk updated, indeed if people are interested. The reason that I posted the original question is that I've been asked to join a group forming on a Slingsby. It now appears that a T67M (160hp) has been identified and I've said yes, subject to flying the thing, but from what I've heard I think that I will enjoy it.

C23

T67M 160 is a good machine. Its the one I fly. Very good at basic aerobatics.

I would like to know the costs of the group if you have them. Capital and monthly , hourly costs. I may know some people who are interested in the group.

Finally enjoy it, so much nicer than a 152!!!!

Sent you a pm 18greens