Hate you Tiger_Moth?, no way, I just want you to be sensible, your last post here was just that, great!.

OK I realise you only want a PPL, however you will have to have FAR more lessons in a Tiger_Moth than you would in a more sensible trainer (I would reckon at least 10 hrs more)therefore IT MAKES SENSE, to train in a proper trainer just for the cash savings BY FAR.

When you 'land away' in your Nav Qual to be 'signed off' at two 'real' airports have you any idea how difficult it will be to even taxi the Tiger Moth on tarmac let alone land/take off on it, I also have doubts that major airports (where you have to landaway for PPL) would even accept a student solo in Tiger Moth, even if they sent out a 'follow me' truck you would struggle to even see it whilst in front of you let alone follow it!.

At my local club we have a Cessna 140 (1940's)taildragger, solo it costs about £52 per hr with an additional £24 for an instructor, therefore for £76 per hr you could do your PPL in a taildragger anyhow for about £3600!.

You have failed to discuss the problems with cockpit management in an open cockpit, only for the VERY experienced.

Also who on earth are you going to find to swing the prop and remove the chocks at the likes of East Midlands/Newcastle/Humberside/ airports etc whilst on Nav Qual's?.

It's a case of 'get real' or fail or just become a student for ever!.

As the Cambridge Tiger Moth School is a CAA approved training establishment, the problems with the QXC cannot be insurmountable. Oxford, Cambridge and Wycombe are examples of towered fields with grass runways (also Southend? can't remember) and presumably the school phones ahead to let them know that a prop swinger will be required. The recent article about the school in Flyer mentioned that the instrument bit of the course is done in a PA 28.

I'm not trying to underestimate the difficulty involved in doing a PPL in an open biplane, but it's not impossible. TM: don't be discouraged. Other options might include the Cub tailwheel ab initio course at Clacton. Good luck whatever you decide to do.

How do you do the Instrument part of the PPL in a Moth?

Carrier bag?

Cahliban, it is £90 for 40 minutes trial but its only £99.60 for an hour (with instruction), I dont know why but that makes it only very slightly more expensive than a cessna and even if the difference was £1400 I`d still prefer the Moth.
Whirly, I dont expect to get my license in 45 hours! I`m thinking more along the lines of 50-60, hopefully. They say 55-60 is the average. That c140 and the cub at clacton are good deals but im more into the bi plane and open cockpit aspects of the Moth than in it being tailwheel.
Do the navigation bit on a piper! arrggh! whered u hear that? I`ll have to ask them about that but it didnt mention it in the letter they gave me and they didnt tell me that when i phoned them either. I might be able to fly to wycombe for my navigation test. That`d be great because thats where I first saw a Moth and had a ride in it. The pilot of the Moth was the one who told me about Cambridge. Thered be someone to swing my prop there for sure because they have a Moth there.
You say that if im on a budget then i should learn on something else first but why? That is assuming that flying pre ppl is not good but I would enjoy learning on a Moth. Even if it took me 80 hours they would have been on a Moth instead of a cessna which means I would have had more fun.
I`ve worked out that I should be able to keep my license current but it might have to be that I saved up in the first year and then did all the flying in the second year, depending on how much money Id need for university.

Thanks for the advice everyone!

Tiger, can you just explain exactly what it is that you dislike about Cessna`s and Piper`s? They are the best training aircraft in the world, and its for a very good reason.

Why, as Ive said before, dont you train in one of these aircraft, navigation and all, then learn to fly the Moth after? Surely this makes sense?

In another bid to help us all here, does anybody know the crosswind limits on the Moth? - and any other obvious factors as to why doing a PPL in one is lunacy?

Surely its going to be even more limited to the uk met than my lovely warm PA28?

C`mon y`all, lets get the upper hand here.

TM: according to article in Flyer it is just the basic instrument familiarisation part of the course which is done in a PA 28. There is no set number of hours for this. The idea is simply to demonstrate the ability to perform basic manouevres on instruments (essentially the big 180 out of the clag). Presumably in the test the Examiner will look for a level turn made by reference to the Moth's old fashioned turn and slip gauge coupled with the altimeter, in the absence of an AI, DI and VSI (though some Moths have the latter), or maybe you have to do the instrument bit of the test (which lasts about 2 minutes) in a separate Piper sortie.

It seems that the rest of the course is done on the Tiger Moth. No doubt the school can confirm this.

Regarding the whole of the course as flying and as fun is a good attitude.

The cross wind limitation point is a valid one, and you will undoubtedly lose flying days because of winds which would not be a problem in a more modern aircraft, but you'll just have to put up with that, and it's something that will stay with you as long as you fly vintage aircraft. Even very experienced Tiger Moth pilots stay on the ground when there is a cross wind of more than 9 knots or so.

I'm sure that Pipers and Cessnas have many good qualities, but suggest that it may be an exaggeration to describe them as "the best trainers in the world". Aren't they really tourers that have become mainstream trainers by default? The world's air forces don't use them for basic training. Are they missing something?


(edittid for badd speling)

[This message has been edited by FNG (edited 29 April 2001).]

Yeh I agree FNG, maybe "most popular" would be a better description. I can only presume that the military dont bother with them is as most arent aerobatic capable. Why by two when one will do and all that...!

FNG you mention that the Worlds Air Forces do not use Pipers or Cessna's as trainers.

Looking at the USAF they are going back to 'basic' trainers due to the accidents in their Slingsby's, hence their recent decision to scrap over 100 of them rather than 'risk' selling them and being sued for any future accidents with GA owners.

I wonder how many of the USAF fatal accidents were due to the Slingsby dropping the right wing and spinning on the stall?.

Hence their decision to revert to a basic initial training aircraft like their prior to Slingsby aircraft,,,,,C150's!.

The RAF also use 'docile' aircraft, such as the Bulldog, which seems very similar to a Grumman AA5 but with a steerable nosewheel.

I have some 75 hrs in a Slingsby T67, I would NOT have appreciated training in this aircraft due to it's stall characteristics, far better being in a 'docile' staller if it goes wrong when solo training?.

However the T67 is a SUPERB aircraft in the right hands and the USAF trainer was basically a T67 airframe.

Not sure how the Tiger Moth stalls, but surely a point to check before deciding to take PPL in one.

The Slings is a lovely aeroplane, yes. Aircraft seems to handle totally normally. Checking out in one a few years ago, check pilot encourages me to pull harder over the top of a loop. Constant aural stall warning.
'No, Pull harder!'
Pull harder and very obvious buffet is felt.
'This time, pull harder!'
Flicked....obviously. Stopped within 1/4 turn. The aircraft communicates intentions well. We also abused it in various ways to provoke it but it doesn't actually bite without warning.
Problem is these common training aircraft are actually so docile that anything disguise the faults of pilots.
A good trainer is ghastly aeroplane.
Lots of adverse yaw, to show students what their feet are for.
Tailwheel to teach them how to land properly and crosswind techniques.
Obvious buffet and break at the stall. Healthy wingdrop on spin entry. (Condor was good as I recall.)

Please, the Bulldog and AA-5 are not in the same league. A clear case of British is best this one!

My ha'pen'th for TM. Go gliding and join your local UAS. Otherwise, if you don't want to listen to or clearly have no intention of accepting the advise you request-don't bother asking the question!

I gather that USAF Slingsby mishaps were engine related (or pilot induced, or a bit of both), rather than a result of spin characteristics. Hasn't stopped the RAF from continuing with them through their civvie contractors. Odd to compare a Bulldog to an AA 5 (can an AA 5 aerobat, or land in a 25 knot crosswind?). Anyway, RAF Bulldogs had some odd spinning incidents but weren't binned as a result. I've spun a Bulldog and wouldn't necessarily describe it as docile.

Mr Moto's description of the perfect trainer fits something like an, er.... Tiger Moth. David Robson, in the preface to his recent (very good) book on aerobatics, says this:-

"Aircraft such as the Tiger Moth, Chipmunk and the Stearman were effective trainers because they developed good hand/eye coodination, an awareness of and a respect for airspeed, a discipline for flightpath control and a sensitivity to surface winds. They were a challenge to fly accurately and well. They taught correct habit patterns and responses - essential to the automatic correction of flightpath or airspeed deviations. The touring aircraft that currently populate the majority of the world's training fleets are not suitable trainers for other than cross-country and procedural training".

I don't know enough about different types, or flying generally, to judge whether he's right, but his view seems to be a respectable counter argument to the "better learn in a spamcan" idea. Anyway, they're all aeroplanes and therefore by definition wonderful.

Mr. Moto
To say that I should not ask a question unless I am willing to do exactly as I`m told is stupid, especially as everyone is not saying the same thing.
Also I would like to point out that I didnt actually ask the question: this thread is meant to be about the new ppl! All I did was defend why I would like to learn in the Moth when others advised me against it.

Speedbird: I dont hate pipers and cessnas I just prefer Moths a lot more. Its just opinion. The reason I cant just learn on a cessna and then convert is that that would put me at least 7 years away from a Moth. 7 years! I just dont have enough money for that kind of thing, so why not choose the plane I like best? Even if it took ages to get my ppl it wouldnt matter to me because I would have done it in a Moth. I`ve been looking forwards to the Moth for ages and bothered to work all the way through the summer for it and subsequently on the weekends when i went back to school, so why, when I get so near the end should I deny myself my dream when I dont have to?

T_M, your first post on this thread stated that

'If I started to learn to fly in 1 to 2 months and it took me a year'.

Therefore where has the 7 years come from as stated in your latest post?.

We assumed therefore that you intended doing the PPL (or NPL) in a year, hence the advice to train as cheap as possible then do a simple tail dragger conversion in a Moth.

Just go ahead and complete your dream, do your PPL in the Moth.

PS if you want to buy a Tiger Moth let me know, I have a friend who is selling a nice one for £30k.

A thought just occured to me prompted by TM's reference to the NPPL. As the Tiger Moth is an aircraft requiring differences training, will it be permitted as an aircraft on which training for the initial issue of a NPPL may be carried out? (TM - as there is to be no crossover from PPL to NPPL it won't affect you one way or another if you start a JAR-FCL PPL course)

Differences training is a complete red herring - you can learn in a Malibu if you want - or follow Caroline Graces example and learn in a Spitfire (excuse me while I turn green with envy!!), but it seems to me most of the people on this forum would have been throwing up their arms in horror at that suggestion.
To go back to the ORIGIONAL subject, the NPPL is a great idea, but where are you cutting back on the training? You can cut some of the instrument training, but this does not give a 10hr reduction, cutting back on the Nav is not a good idea either as I thought this was an area I understood the CAA was concerned about.
If they restricted the NPPL to say 25 miles of the departure airfield and under the supervision of an instructor (ie. as if it were a student but allowed to carry pax.)then it might make sense, but to just reduce the permitted hours whilst allowing the same freedom to get lost within UK airspace seems nonsense.

Expressed myself badly (as usual) Foxmouth. What I was trying to get at was 'will the powers that be restrict the type of aircraft types which can be used for NPPL training?'

From my understanding,there WILL be a restriction on type of aircraft under the NPPL, but the only restriction I have heard of is in the no. of seats (4?). If this is the case then the Malibu may be out for the NPPL (to many seats), but the Tiger Moth or even the 2 seat Spitfire would still be OK!!

Does anyone know if the NPPL nav test will require radio navigation. If so, what is the minimum radio nav kit required in the aeroplane?

What is the minimum radio nav kit required to complete the JAR PPL?

T_M, the flying school I run used to operate a tiger moth, and we never dreamt of allowing students to use her as a regular training platform, they handle like bricks and the inflight vis is equally as bad. They are a lovely aircraft for trial lessons, or used for differance training, it can be a great experiance, but that is as far as they go.

I have to question your flying schools motives for letting you use the Tiger Moth as a full time training platform.

Solent 01
I've flown with the Cambridge Flying Group - albeit only three times and about 15 years ago. They certainly were then an honest, straightforward bunch with the best of motives. Weird maybe, but...

Way back then they had two real characters who ran the place - the CFI (who's name escapes me) and a lady who might have been called Betty Willink. Or she might not. It was a LONG time ago. They were probably in their sixties back then, so might not be around still, but I always thought they'd easily outlast me. Are they still around at all T_M?