Yes it was a great event. Right up there with first solo, first student sent solo and Boeing base check.

BEagle I an enjoying myself immensely thank you. I feel the ghost of my not converting my RAF sponsorship into a set of Wings is finally laid to rest.

That said its 6 months or more now since I flew GroupA and I am getting a serious hankering...

WWW

FNG - Please can you email me the name of the instructor you know current on aero's in Pups - regards 'mfds'

Email : [email protected]

mfds, you have mail

Absolutely right chaps, used to count down the trips on the syllabus to my next Solo GH wazzex, I still remember the first, post spin aero check, GH, the strangest part was coming out of a sequence with a bit of energy left because the dead weight had been removed from the RHS :D :D

On the Hi-Rot thing,

A brand new, fresh out of CFS, instructor was posted to us in my second year.

On the first two GH trips he did the students sent him High Rotational, so I'm sure if he's out there he's got a good "I Learnt About Spinning Bulldogs" story to tell.

FNG: Old Sarum have operated a number of Bulldogs but currently have G-BULL (ex-Hong Kong) and G-BCUV (ex-Ghana, I think!).
They've been very popular, mainly for aeros and formation training but also some people choose to do PPLs and IMCs in them (both airways equipped). Because of the handling people also like them for solo hire.
There haven't been any type-specific problems and I haven't heard that maintenance is any more difficult than the other types on the fleet.

BEAGLE: I agree that the Bulldog spins "properly" and needs correct recovery actions but maybe your post slightly overstates the situation - although I certainly wouldn't spin without a chute. During aeros courses I teach "academic" spins, precision (1 1/2 turn) spins and spin-from-manoeuvre - after a very large number of spins in 4 airframes and with a very large range of entry energy states, control positions, attitudes, etc I've only had a couple of brief surprises and both were down to mishandling.
The only things I'd say are that it's difficult to get it to depart from manoeuvre because you have to be so ham-fisted and precision spins are hard work because there seems to be variability between airframes.

[ 15 August 2001: Message edited by: hugh flung_dung ]

hfd - you are probably quite correct with reference to the ex-foreign air force aircraft. The ex-RAF ones may be slightly different, but RAF Bulldog spin techniques were learned the hard way.

People with sufficient experience for the type of aero courses you describe could probably cope with the dynamic entry techniques you allude to. The RAF had to ensure that the 'average Bloggs' could cope, hence the very regimented approach to the subject.

Having flown an ex-foreign air force Bulldog, I noticed that it seemed far quicker than one of HM's at the same power setting; perhaps both mass and centre of mass are significantly different?

I agree that it takes huge abuse to make the Bulldog spin off manoeuvre; the correct incipient recovery within the first 360 deg of undemanded roll rate stops the problem dead in its tracks! In fact the T67A is probably a very good aircraft for teaching aircraft handling on the edge of buffet nibble; its gentle but definite departures make the point very firmly. Not much use for serious aeros, but an excellent aircraft for teaching stall/spin avoidance - although it does take all day to get to a safe height for fully-developed spin training!

BEAGLE:
After my first "interesting" spin I discussed it with David Scouller (the boss) and Bob Cole, both were involved with re-clearing the 'dog at Boscombe after the spinning incidents. The general view seemed to be that the spin was normal and that the problems were caused by mis-handling during recovery.

People start the AOPA aeros course at all levels of experience, occasionally pre-gft but usually with a couple of hundred hours.
How much specific aeros training would a typical UAS/RAF stude have before being signed off for solo aeros? The AOPA course is 8 hours min but it's rare to get people through in this unless they've had some experience beforehand.
Some of the ex-UAS people that we get say that HM 'dogs were faster than ours (we get about 110kts at 70%), but ours are probably heavier because of the instrument fit. There are rumours that one of the other 'dogs is faster because the flaps-up stops are set to give a slightly negative flap position - don't know if this is true (or legal).

Very good point about the T67A; until someone taxied it into a concrete pilot(!) we used one for aeros and spin training - it was excellent for demonstrating the effect of a little bit of yaw at the buffet, even in steep turns!

HFD,

I don't know if i was typical (some would say I was very average :D )but I think I was within a couple of hours of the programmed syllabus.

When I was cleared for solo aeros I had a TT of 29hrs30min of which 9hrs 30 was GH/Spinning in preparation for and including the Independant Spin/Aeros check.

However whenever you flew solo you would only be cleared to carry out any manouever solo, which you had carried out Dual in the previous 30 days, I think you also had to have flown a dual trip (of any kind) in the previous 9 days (the memorys a bit hazy now), so the currency requirements were a LOT stricter than those for ppl's. (And I am not trying to start a mil: civvie fistfight :) )

Incidentally what (if any) are the currency requirements for ppl's before solo aeros, are thay any different from normal currency rules??

Some years ago a very good friend of mine was killed in a Bulldog spinning accident, the aircraft belonged to a UAS based at RAF Abindon. Coincidentally, another, more senior, good friend was a member of the BOI. During the Board of Inquiry a representative from Boscombe Down gave evidence to the effect that the spinning characteristics of the Bulldog were well understood and that it was accepted (by Boscombe)that the aircraft would, from time to time and for no apparent reason, enter an unrecoverable spin. However, since the incidence of this unrecoverable spin was so rare, it was considered that it was an acceptable hazard.

This information was, of course, not communicated to we poor QFIs who were required, as part of our SCT, to deliberately carry out one high rotational spin per month. It is hardly surprising, therefore, that anyone involved with Bulldog spin testing at Boscombe Down is held in the utmost contempt by the majority of Bulldog pilots.

Rolling Circle - quite right!

I remember only one instance of a Bulldog taking longer than expected to recover from a spin - in this case to the right. No apparent reason - student did all the right things and the fuel was perfectly in balance.

Some months later the groundcrew were surprised when a Bulldog was refuelled and one wing tank was almost empty. The student swore blind that he'd had no more than 1 gallon imbalance, the gauge was checked and found to be reading substantially in error. So all the student's careful balancing had done nothing more than to create a dangerous imbalance. I checked my logbook....yes, the very same aircraft which had been reluctant to recover from the spin! Did they have the fleet checked? Did they hell! If we just flew with the fuel selected to 'Both' and left it there throughout the flight, perhaps there would have been less imbalance problems induced in Bulldogs?

Why were the gauges so utterly unreliable?

[ 17 August 2001: Message edited by: BEagle ]

hugh flung dung, do you happen to know if the Bob Cole you mention is the same Bob Cole who now sells Cap 10s?

BEagle - thanks for the info earlier in the thread, about the bunting sensation on recovery being normal in the Bulldog. I always found the manoeuvre distinctly uncomfortable, and thought I was pushing further or faster than required for the recovery. No QFI ever mentioned that the sensation was 'normal' and I always had the nagging suspicion I never got the spin recovery quite right.

I'm revalidating my PPL at the moment, and my present instructor is most complementary about my flying, all of it taught by RAF or ex-RAF instructors, and given that it is 15 years since I was at Uni' (and 20 since I got my PPL), it's a credit to standards of instruction that so much seems to have 'stuck'.

Thanks

Fascinating. I can well imagine fuel gauges being inaccurate and was all too aware of the mortal dangers of fuel imbalance on the type...

A high rotational on each SCT - that really is taking things 'seriously'.

I greatly lament the fact that the PPL now includes nothing about spinning. When I say nothing I mean that from my experience the spin awareness consists of nothing more than the FI's at many clubs/schools muttering something about not using the rudder during stalls. If it were a requirment to be at least demo'd a, say, 3 rotation spin then I think a much more healthy respect would be fostered amongst new PPL holders and an occasional greater degree of professional preparation amongst FI's would be evident.

WWW

Rolling circle, I'm sorry, but I believe that you are in error. I was (rather later than either Bob Cole or David Scouller) involved in one of the many revisitations of the Bulldog high rotational spin at BDN.

It was never the conclusion of Boscombe that the type was capable of entering an unrecoverable spin. It was the conclusion (and I've read all the reports, one of which has my name in the front) up to 1996 when I left the place that the aircraft could (usually through mishandling) enter a high rotational spin. The spin always recovered - and hundreds were done in a series of aircraft, but the recovery was very unpleasant and often protracted. Thus, the requirement for instructor currency on the high-rotational spin and it's recovery.

What was discovered on the trial that I was running, was that with the later mod-state engines, the spin, especially the high rotational spin, caused a complete loss of oil pressure and an associated risk of engine failure later in the sortie.

Bob Cole is, at least until he retires next month, the CAA's senior light aircraft test pilot. I doubt that he also sells CAP 10s! Like David Scouller, he has 10k+ hrs, 20+years instructing experience, and a good knowledge of the mighty Bloodnot.

If you want to see a real BDN balls-up, it was the Tincano spin recovery work, which sadly I was also involved in, but too late to do more than minimise the damage done by my esteemed former employer.

G

[ 17 August 2001: Message edited by: Genghis the Engineer ]

Just by the way, please don't think I'm a BDN apologist - the place has made many grevous errors over the years, several of which I had close sight off (the F3 for example). I just don't believe that the Bulldog spinning was one of them.

Yes, the fuel guages were appauling.

G

Genghis - Believe what you will. All I can say is that such was the evidence presented by Boscombe to the BOI, as related to me by a member of that Board.

I finally spun my Beagle Pup last week, it seemed to recover nicely with standard spin recovery, although I only held it in for one rotation on each go. I suspect the CofG of the Bulldog is signifiacntly different and maybe explains the ferocity on them ?

FNG: it's a different Bob Cole that runs Cole Aviation (and sells CAP10s)

WWW an interesting observation on how the stall/spin recovery is being taught in some flying clubs ,how about you open this can of worms on another thread i would like to see the results !.

A & C - ok then.

WWW