DH RAF Moth
 

I understand that the Tiger Moth was a much nicer aircraft before the RAF changed the wing stagger and made a few other changes - is this how it came to be the DH 82a?

Does anyone have specific knowledge of this matter or, perhaps, first hand experience of having flown the original?

Probably left the question too late. I imagine that the pilot would have to be older than me and I'm up there with Methuselah . . . .:ugh:

Gippo.

The DH-60 Moth was a nice aeroplane and became the DH-60T for the RAF. However, exit from the front cockpit with a parachute was tricky, hence the shift forward of the upper wings with sweep back to maintain the C of G - the lower wings have slightly different sweep to adjust the C of G slightly.

Also the inverted Gipsy Major came into the story somewhere and the whole lot became the DH-82. A few detail differences led to the DH-82A - the main one was an increase in dihedral of the lower wings to improve ground clearance by shortening the interplane struts.

The whole lot was done by modifying a DH-60T, sawing off bits of spar here and there, back of a fag packet stuff!

Read the Tiger Moth Story by Bransom and Birch - good stuff!

It's not really that bad an aeroplane is it? A challenge to fly well perhaps? Some people seem to love them...

As said above the Tiger moth was a bit of a lash up but it was the aircraft in production at a time of crisis and like so much of the UK infrastructure it was set in place for the duration of WW2.

Can't you just see the Campaign Against Aviation allowing that same attitude today? Yeah, sure you can! :ugh:

A bit more to it
 

The aircraft designers of the 1930's were very clever people, all the critical structure had multiple load paths and the failure of one major item would be very unlikely to result in a catostraphic structural failure.

The Tiger Moth may look like a bit of a lash up but it was well up to the job in hand.

As for what the CAA might think.............The place has a number of very clever engineers who try to take a practical view of things, the problem is that they have to get this practical thinking past a bunch of lawers and administrators who don't have a clue about aviation........Oh and EASA the peope who want to fit ASI's to balloons !

No, I don't believe that one... no... Really?

By the way, I think the sawn-up DH-60T was by way of an engineering mock-up to get everything right AND ensure His Majesty's Orficers could squeeze their way out easily should things go badly awry. I'm sure the prototype, G-ABRC, was quite properly built to the usual DH standards!

Some were on these pages you will find the draft document form EASA with a requirement for balloons to be fitted with an ASI.

and guidance that they should land into-wind.

Thanks, Treadigraph - I hadn't realised that the Tiger had evolved from another model.

My negativity mostly is received from others but I have to confess to not being a big fan of the DH82a and have often wondered why it was not improved in a way anticipating the SV4, for example - I never found it a particularly satisfying aircraft to fly. Dev Deverill once let me loose in The Deacon and I found that a bit disappointing too. Perhaps it's just that the DHC1 ruined me for other ab initio trainers.

I don't have Bunny Bramson's book - must buy a copy.

The DHC1 is a design of a totally different era, so it's no surprise that it's a "nicer" aeroplane to fly.

The DH82a was the result of a number of design change specifications requested by the military, as I understand it. These were based on modifications to the DH60 as already discussed, and resulted in an effective compromise to meet the needs for training.

The DH82a remains a superb trainer inasmuch as it teaches you to fly accurately and manage energy appropriately. The DH60 is, imo, a much nicer aeroplane to fly. It's lighter and the control harmony seems better than the DH82a.

But to compare these aeroplanes with the DHC1 is like comparing a DHC1 with a Bulldog. Different era, different needs, different design. Or maybe you could compare them with the original Cub, still taildragger, contemporary design, but totally different performance and role spec. Or comparing a C152 with a Decathlon... Fact is different aeroplanes are designed to meet different needs.
Older ones are more likely to be quirky, but even newer ones have "nice feel" or not, for different people.

Another good author to look for is Stuart McKay, who has written a number of books on deHavilland types. They make interesting reading and are delightfully written.