Bulldog better than a Chipmunk? That's heresy! I must agree with you on the Hawk though, the most fun jet I've ever flown.

Aaah - I think I know who you are! Yes, the 242 was the best of the JEFTS candidates - the only one which had military trainer characteristics. Very much like the Dog, but with better handling.

There's a guy I know who thinks most taildragger pilots are sissies.
He has a Europa monowheel. :p

Let's face it - some of the "most fun" aircraft don't even have wheels....

DeltaV, is your name inspired by an Emerson controls product by any chance?

Is that the one with a new prop on it!!!

Is very true, though each of those different types demands its own special attention, which "stuck pedals" and autorotation practice, sailing and docking skills, and judging snow depth and characteristics from above.

As I say, whatever gets people flying!

Any chance of having the subject corrected to: controversy?

Just a thought!

I quite liked the Chipmunk, I just think that the Bulldog is a much nicer aeroplane. Better view, easier to manage, better power:weight...

If it was tandem seating, it'd be close to perfect!

G

That could be considered a controvosial move.:=

Doesn't matter what you fly, tailwheel, nose wheel, centre wheel, skids, skis or floats. In this day and age with avgas costing a fortune, airfields getting housed over we should consider ourselves lucky to be able to line up, power in and wait for that excellent moment we leave terra firma and do what we love, FLY!

Well, some folks would say that if it doesn't have a round engine manufactured by P&W, or Curtis Wright, it's just a toy.

DHC-2 was fun, but actually, a T-34 with an IO-550 is a blast. I've also got 50 minutes at the controls of a T-39, which was also a joy to fly. (no, we did NOT fly it straight and level.)

Ha ha. But it's still a taildragger. I used to own a Fournier RF3. I often successfully negotiated 50% discount on landing fees as it only had one wheel!

With about a thousand hours on the Chippy and less than a hundred on the 'dog, I'm bound to be biased! And I only flew the Bulldog at CFS and never in anger with a real student. The qualities you mention were an improvement on the Chippy, particularly the power. But I never liked side by side for a military trainer, and the stick with the left hand was a disadvantage. It's was easier to fly (apart from the way the RAF contrived to use the CS prop) but this isn't necessarily a good thing. The RAF used the Chippy up to 1993 at EFTS, which still had an element of grading, and for that the Chippy was brilliant. It had it's problems - a prehistoric engine, limited crosswind capability and maintenance issues. But we still used it in preference to it's replacement. And neither of the two aircraft that followed were as good as pilot trainers.

Why haven't we been able to evolve training aircraft at the same rate as the rest of the industry? Could be a good subject for a paper!

Dan, you were fortunate enough at Swinderby to have several runways from which to fly, so the crosswind issue was less of a problem. As a student I flew Chippies at White Waltham and again, plenty of runways and even better, all were grass.

At RAF Abingdon even with 2 runways at right angles, there were days when the Bulldogs could fly, but the Piston Engined Agressor Squadron AEF cowboys were grounded.

Flying with the left hand didn't seem to present any difficulties to our students when I was QFI-ing.

When the MoD flogged off the Chippies, it was suggested that I should acquire one for the station flying club. Much to my regret, I refused - we only had one RW and I was also pretty sure that someone would probably overstress, someone else would over-rev and quite a few would probably groundloop as there was only one RW.... A Chippie is fine as a privately-owned aeroplane looked after by doting owners familiar with the breed, but too much of a risk for a club owned aeroplane. We also considered a Bulldog - until we thought about the maintenance costs and fuel burn.

But both the Chipmunk and Bulldog were infinitely better military trainers than the T-67 or das Teutor!

On that last point, I most certainly agree.

At every level, from the Tinano onwards, the RAF just abandoned anything that looked like assessment and procurement best practice. There may have been good political reasons for this with the Tincano itself - but those two and the Vigilant were all masterpieces of mis-acquirement by people playing at what should have been someone's core professional activity.

G

The choice of aircraft is always political. The replacement for the Chippy and Bulldog in the JEFTS contract was always going to be about the total package and not just the aircraft. The T67 probably would not have been the choice had it been based on aircraft alone. Mind you, I'm not sure how Huntings became the choice of provider, except on price.

The JP replacement was specified as a turboprop - there were only ever going to be 2 contenders. The choice was political and in the end, I don't think it was a bad one. By the time I got to fly the Tucano, most of the issues had been sorted out (we were up to the Mk16 version of the Engine Electronic Control!) and in the end, the RAF ended up with a good training aircraft. It's certainly better than the JP, and from my few flights in a PC9, I get the impression there is little to chose between them - except that I consider the Tuc to be a slightly better training environment - particularly compared to the Swiss built PC9s with their engine control.

Had the procurers listened to the RAF, we would have probably ended up with something like the S211.

Speaking of the political procurement of the Tucano, the aircraft were built my Short's mostly Roman Catholic workforce and when the aircraft were delivered from the factory, they were left on a remote stand on the other side of the airfield for four weeks just in case they had a bomb built into them! (The longest duration timer available to the IRA was 28 days allegedly!

Not sure that I understand the nonsense about the location of the 'little wheel'.

Flying is flying and each type has its own pleasures.

I loved the Cub for a local fun fly, but a serious touring tool 4/5 up, she wasn't.

Anything that will fly is good news. :)

There was a hangar queen Tincano at CFS Scampton during my time there. They took the ejection seats out for servicing and they couldn't get them back in again. Seemed that someone at Shorts had a setsquare that was well past its best!

If you want to land in odd places an aeroplane with the little wheel at the back, like a Pilatus Porter might well be good. Otherwise one with the wheels placed sensibly for runway landing and which disappear from view when not required is much better.

The PAC 750XL can land pretty well anywhere that a PC-6 can land, it has a wheel up front...!!!

Since we digressed briefly towards Tuncano/PC9 territory I always rather liked the BN Firecracker.