Warbird Information Exchange

DISCLAIMER: The views expressed on this site are the responsibility of the poster and do not reflect the views of the management.
It is currently Mon May 29, 2017 11:58 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Click here to goto Amazon.com


Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 66 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Dec 05, 2007 9:40 am 
Offline
Co-MVP - 2006
User avatar

Joined: Fri Nov 18, 2005 10:39 am
Posts: 4468
Location: Midland, TX Yee-haw.
daveymac82c wrote:
Can anyone tell me what a Tiger Moth is like to fly?


Well, I'm by far no expert, as I've only flown one once...and consider myself quite fortunate to have done that. While visiting New Zealand a couple of years ago, I was introduced to a fella that had one out at his own private strip. He asked if I wanted to fly it, which I readily said YES to, and he jumped in the front seat just as a safety pilot. He let me do everything, and I was plenty nervous about it. I didn't want to tear up his beautiful airplane! Here we are as we were about to launch...

Image


I'll start with the most difficult thing to me during this whole excersise, was taxiing it. Originally, this airplane had only a tail skid, and ours just had a small tail wheel. But that didn't help much. You have to plan ahead and make big arcs when turning around. Oh, and did I mention that there were no brakes?!?

But once we got lined up on his grass strip, I added power and everything felt really comfortable to me. The airplane is obviously not gonna set you back in the seat with massive G forces from the acceleration, but it just kind of putts along, slowly gaining speed. I found it to be incredibly easy to keep straight down the runway, but the trees about 20 feet from either side of each wing were incintive for that.

You're not going to break any time to climb records with the Tiger Moth, but it doesn't matter, as you simply cannot have any other emotion besides happiness while slowly climbing to altitude........

Image


After climbing three thousand feet or so up, I went through some stall series with the airplane (with the owner making sure I didn't screw anything up). The Tiger is just as docile as it looks. Oh, and we had no intercom, so to talk, we would simply pull the power back to idle and yell at one another. For some reason, I couldn't help but laugh when we were doing that, so I'm sure it was tough for him to understand me. Plus, they talk funny down in those parts of the world, so I was struggling to understand him as well. I eventually did manage to make out what he was trying to tell me and made out the words, "Wring it out a bit, mate!" So who was I to not heed his instructions. ;-)

Since we already had the power back to idle to talk to each other and had plenty of altitude, I told him I'd start with a one turn spin, followed by a loop, roll, wingovers, etc. He gave me the thumbs up and we went for it! The airplane handled absolutely fantastic! The spin was a non-event and was completely controllable all the way through. I don't recall ever thinking "what have I gotten myself into here?" The loop was like any that you'll do with an underpowered airplane. Kind of pinched at the top, as I didn't want to push too much at the top and go negative. The roll was quite slow in it's rate, but just an absolute blast to perform. I'm sure there are people out there that may not agree with me, but I found it to be a complete joy to fly throughout all of it's realms of flight. As a matter of fact, I'd say it was Stearman like in it's roll rate and height & style of it's loop, only it didn't have the heavy stick forces that a Stearman has.

After I did my maneuvers, David took over the controls to repeat what I'd done (only he did them MUCH better), so that I could snap some pictures during the sequence. After that, he decided to go do a "river run" as well.....

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image


Once we got done playing, we headed back to the strip. Like all biplanes, this one is quite blind on landing, and with his strip being so narrow, I wanted to make sure I got it right. I made a fairly high approach and just side slipped the airplane down. That enabled me to see the strip all the way down to about 20 feet or so. I then straightened the airplane out and simply "plopped it" down on the grass surface. The Tiger just rolled straight forward with very little need for correction with the rudder.

Man, I kind of wish I hadn't written this report now, as I just want to go fly a Tiger Moth again....NOW! :D And now that I think about it, the taxiing wasn't the worst part about flying the airplane. Having to get out was.......

Image
:wink:

Gary


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Dec 05, 2007 11:27 am 
Offline
3000+ Post Club
3000+ Post Club
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 10:10 pm
Posts: 4173
Location: Pearland, Texas
One more time, Gary, you've done it again. Great read ! :lol:


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Dec 05, 2007 12:45 pm 
Offline
Group Captain
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2007 6:35 pm
Posts: 681
Location: Johnson City, TN
Hard to beat Gary's excellent PIREP and dashing good looks as a swashbuckling aviator/babe magnet, but just for another opinion here's
Budd Davisson's version:

http://www.airbum.com/pireps/PirepTigermoth.html


Steve G


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Dec 05, 2007 1:24 pm 
Offline
Co-MVP - 2006
User avatar

Joined: Fri Nov 18, 2005 10:39 am
Posts: 4468
Location: Midland, TX Yee-haw.
Well, like I mentioned in my report, there are surely folks that won't agree with my pleasant experience in the Tiger Moth, and Budd Davidson is surely one of them. Seems to me that he was more concerned with what his airspeed indicator was showing than just enjoying the opportunity to fly such a neat old airplane. But that's just my take on it. :wink:

Gary


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Dec 05, 2007 1:26 pm 
Offline
Group Captain
User avatar

Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2007 7:58 am
Posts: 469
Location: Montreal
Here's a couple of pics from the Yale at Pima:

Image
Image

Very similar looking as the T-6 indeed...

Edit: Have just read Gary's account. Great read, again !!! Awesome. But hey, your description almost sound as a description of my 1948 Cessna 140: Slow fun, all the way !

8)

_________________
Michel C
Thousands of a/c pics at Passion-Aviation


Last edited by Michel C-GNCJ on Wed Dec 05, 2007 6:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Dec 05, 2007 1:42 pm 
Offline
Group Captain
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 29, 2005 10:19 am
Posts: 429
Location: new York
bipe215 wrote:
Hard to beat Gary's excellent PIREP and dashing good looks as a swashbuckling aviator/babe magnet, but just for another opinion here's
Budd Davisson's version:

http://www.airbum.com/pireps/PirepTigermoth.html


Steve G

Is anyone else here as *sick* of Budd Davission as I am? If I have to read one more clichéd pilot report from him I think I'll puke.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Dec 05, 2007 1:50 pm 
Offline
Group Captain
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2007 6:35 pm
Posts: 681
Location: Johnson City, TN
skybolt2003 wrote:
bipe215 wrote:
Hard to beat Gary's excellent PIREP and dashing good looks as a swashbuckling aviator/babe magnet, but just for another opinion here's
Budd Davisson's version:

http://www.airbum.com/pireps/PirepTigermoth.html


Steve G

Is anyone else here as *sick* of Budd Davission as I am? If I have to read one more clichéd pilot report from him I think I'll puke.


Sorry I brought it up. Of course, you don't have to read it.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Tiger
PostPosted: Wed Dec 05, 2007 1:55 pm 
Offline
Probationary Member

Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2006 7:53 pm
Posts: 3803
Location: Aspen, CO
It is called a Tiger Moth; but there is a whole lot of Moth and not much Tiger. I only had one flight, but I got to land it at Duxford. A tiger makes you think of a dangerous powerful muscular beast coiled to strike. This thing should be renamed the Golden Retriever Moth, docile and friendly. Good airplanes have good wings; the Moth has a perfectly good wing and another one right below it, for flights at speeds not much faster than a race horse. There is no shortage of lift. Some planes don't have much wing and depend on a powerful engine to fly, the Tiger is not one of those. Really fine airplanes like a Spitfire have got a nice wing and a fine engine. Getting in the Moth takes some doing and when you close the little wrap up door around you it is snug. The instruments are standard British, some like the compass are familiar from the Spit. The airspeed indicator is out on the wing and looks about as sophisticated as a farmer's rain gauge, but there is not much airspeed to indicate anyway. No GPS, no autopilot, this is flying, not riding. We were already at the runway, so just open the throttle. It has about the same takeoff roll as a blimp, it just goes up. It has more engine than a Cub, feels more powerful and noisier. Mainly I was cold!! Dressed to the gills in wool, but remember England is an island in the North Sea, those brisk winds aren't long away from some iceberg. Visibility is great, and the green fields below are beautiful. An Aussie Tiger had come to grief so there was an emergency AD and we could not do any acro. The controls were light enough, not twitchy but with plenty of elevator just like a Spit. Someone had told the demo pilot that I owned a Spit, so he signaled me to do the landing with no guidance as to airspeed or power or attitude. Fortunately I had seen previous landings while waiting my turn. I just flew down near the runway, very aware of men like Douglas Bader and Alex Henshaw that had flown there. At some moderate speed probably under 40, I closed the throttle and kept easing back on the stick. The Tiger touched 3 point and sat there with the manners that indicted good breeding so as not to embarrass a novice.

_________________
Bill Greenwood
Spitfire N308WK


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Dec 05, 2007 2:02 pm 
Offline
Co-MVP - 2006
User avatar

Joined: Fri Nov 18, 2005 10:39 am
Posts: 4468
Location: Midland, TX Yee-haw.
bipe215 wrote:
Sorry I brought it up. Of course, you don't have to read it.


Personally, I'm glad you posted the link to Budd's report. I found it interesting to see someone else's thoughts from the same type airplane. Even though I obviously didn't agree to everything he said, it's still his opinion and was interesting to read. The same goes with Bill's report and anyone else who's flown the same type airplane.

I'd also be curious to read if anyone else's experience in the Sea Fury was like mine, or if they had other thoughts about how that airplane flew.

Gary


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Dec 05, 2007 2:15 pm 
Offline
Group Captain
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2007 6:35 pm
Posts: 681
Location: Johnson City, TN
retroaviation wrote:
bipe215 wrote:
Sorry I brought it up. Of course, you don't have to read it.


Personally, I'm glad you posted the link to Budd's report. I found it interesting to see someone else's thoughts from the same type airplane. Even though I obviously didn't agree to everything he said, it's still his opinion and was interesting to read. The same goes with Bill's report and anyone else who's flown the same type airplane.

I'd also be curious to read if anyone else's experience in the Sea Fury was like mine, or if they had other thoughts about how that airplane flew.

Gary


Gary,

I think the Moth you flew and its owner were both top quality. It sure looked good in your photos. Every plane and pilot is different. I can think of so many instances where pilots' views of the same plane are different.
Its part of what makes old airplanes so interesting.
If you could get me a Sea Fury ride, I'd be glad to post my thoughts 8)

Steve G


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Dec 05, 2007 2:37 pm 
Offline
Group Captain
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 29, 2005 10:19 am
Posts: 429
Location: new York
[quote="]

Sorry I brought it up. Of course, you don't have to read it.[/quote]

I read it – I actually get addicted to reading his old stuff. It reminds me of being a kid and waiting for the next Air Progress and dreaming of what it would be like to fly all those cool things. The old ones are like eating cheese puffs – you can't stop, but you don't feel particularly nourished afterward. I re-read recently his articles about Junior Burchinal and loved 'em. It just seems that every magazine you pick up these days he is writing for and it all seems the same. I much prefer the writing of Mr. Austin.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Dec 05, 2007 3:12 pm 
Offline
Group Captain
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2007 6:35 pm
Posts: 681
Location: Johnson City, TN
skybolt2003 wrote:
[quote="]

Sorry I brought it up. Of course, you don't have to read it.[/quote]

I read it – I actually get addicted to reading his old stuff. It reminds me of being a kid and waiting for the next Air Progress and dreaming of what it would be like to fly all those cool things. The old ones are like eating cheese puffs – you can't stop, but you don't feel particularly nourished afterward. I re-read recently his articles about Junior Burchinal and loved 'em. It just seems that every magazine you pick up these days he is writing for and it all seems the same. I much prefer the writing of Mr. Austin.[/quote]


Skybolt,

Yeh, I got hooked on Budd's and Mike Dillon's Air Progress Stuff in the 70's. In fact, Budd's Fly Baby pirep in 1970 prompted my Dad to order plans and build one. I flew that Fly Baby for about 10 years.
I'm assuming you read his Skybolt pirep. I flew that 160 hp 'bolt back in the 80's.

I'd love to see a permanent warbird pirep page on WIX. Lot's of experience here.

Steve G


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Dec 05, 2007 3:37 pm 
Offline
Co-MVP - 2006
User avatar

Joined: Fri Nov 18, 2005 10:39 am
Posts: 4468
Location: Midland, TX Yee-haw.
skybolt2003 wrote:
I much prefer the writing of Mr. Austin.


Hey, thanks! :D Heck, I like flying these ol' airplanes and then telling y'all about the experience, so its a win-win situation, huh? :lol:

Gary


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Dec 05, 2007 4:32 pm 
Offline
Squadron Leader
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2007 5:34 pm
Posts: 179
Location: NW Mississippi
Not to defend anyone's opinion, afterall it is an opinion, but;

Put three of any rebuilt/restored aircraft on the same field at the same time and fly them all. One will be a dog in comparison.

There is so much to final rigging, especially a biplane, as well as the quality of the rebuild.

A customer bought a rebuilt taildragger which had changed hands and been through a reputable dealer. The thing was a handful to land on asphalt. Grass was more forgiving. I suppose neither the dealer's people nor the rebuilder realized it could be different.

Turned out that one main wheel was toed in and the other toed out. After correcting the problem landing was a breeze. I've also seen wings that were so warped in the recovering process that they almost wrinkled the fabric when pulled into position.

I would say Gary and Bill both flew a quality rebuild.

Sully


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Dec 05, 2007 5:21 pm 
Offline
2000+ Post Club
2000+ Post Club
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 25, 2006 9:18 pm
Posts: 2262
Location: Vancouver, BC
Thank you Gary, Bill for posting your opinions on the Tiger Moth. And thank you for Steve for posting Budd's opinion. They are all interesting to me.

I think reviews definitely depend on the kind of flying you are used to and/or comfortable with. I can see both sides. The Tigermoth is certainly not a racing plane (but wasn't it raced, or at least the Gypsy Moth in the 1920's-30's?). In any case, It must have been a sturdy enough airplane or at least easy enough to fix in order for it to have been so widely used as a trainer.

My air museum (Canadian Museum of Flight) has a beautiful DH-82C Tigermoth, the "C" denoting that it was the Canadian version, with standard equipment including brakes, a steerable tailwheel, and something to do with the landing gear being slightly different... oh and a big plexi-glass canopy. I have been able to go for a flight in it once, and only got to do a couple turns myself, medium at best. But, going for the ride in it does give me the "kite" kind of feeling. I also had to admire how those wings do a terrific job of creating lift. Eventually I hope to get checked out on it. :)

I totally agree with Sully about how it really depends on the airplane you fly. I used to be a glider instructor with the Royal Canadian Air Cadets and in our regional fleet we had 11 Schweizer 2-33A's it was easy to see that aach and every 2-33A was different. Some were a dream to fly, others were a real pain in the @ss. One wouldn't spin to the Left no matter how hard you tried.

When I look at warbirds these days I often wonder... "Was that the plane in the squadron that the crews enjoyed the most, or did they loath it?"

It's probably too late to ask silly little questions like that, but it's just one of those things I think about.

If anyone is interested to know, in the Pacific Region Air Cadet Gliding School, Glider 10 is the best. Or, at least it was. After all the thrashing the gliders get with cadets, who knows, maybe she's not the same bird.

Cheers,

David


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 66 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Fouga23 and 20 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group