Warbird Information Exchange

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.

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

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

Steve G

[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.

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

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

Gary

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

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

Well, it's been 54 years ago and my 75 year old memory chip ain't what it used to be so if the Dash-1 says approximately 800 HP that's what it is. I looked for my T-28A study guide which I thought I had saved someplace but to no avail. For some reason the number of 125hp per cylinder seems to stick in there which would make it 875 hp. Maybe the engine was derated after the rash of prop shaft failures and maybe not. Anyway, have fun with the "Maytag Messerschmidt"!

Jack Frost

_________________
It's what you learn after you think you know it all, that counts.

Wait ! I always thought that the PT-22 was the Maytag Messerschmidt ?

Same idea, different era, I guess. <G>

_________________
It's what you learn after you think you know it all, that counts.

As long as it keeps running and never breaks just like a Maytag, I don't mind the moniker...

I couldn't agree more. I was on the edge of being disgusted with Budd Davidson's "pirep".

When I was working in Perth, Australia, I got checked out in the Royal Aero Club's Tiger Moth, and over the course of a few months got about 30 hours in it, including an extremely memorable trip flying it from Perth to Albany and back, mostly low level along the coast (about 600 nm total).

I have flown a lot of different planes, from gliders to floatplanes to Pitts Specials in competitions to L-39s to King Airs out of short strips, and will say that the flying I most enjoyed was in the Tiger Moth.

Yeah, it didn't climb very fast, and it brought an entire new meaning to the term "slow roll". But, to me, flying that plane low over the Australian coast, and dropping in on private grass strips, was just magical. I actually felt the controls were surprisingly responsive.

There's not much to add to Gary's report, other than I learned to always keep it in positive G. I was taught aerobatics with the intention of competition flying, where everything is a straight line or a perfect circle. That's great in a plane with inverted fuel, and in a stock Stearman I could slip by over the top of a nearly round loop with just a sputter.

My first solo in the Tiger Moth I did a loop directly over a road. I had done a loop a few times with an instructor, and the engine sputtered a little. When I came over the top alone, the prop just instantly stopped dead. No sputter, no cough; it just stopped.

The instructor had told me you needed a 120 mph indicated for an air start of the prop (it was a hand-prop only model...). I pushed the nose down straight down, and for an eternity the needle was stuck on 110 mph as the wind whistled through the wires. Literally a split second before I was going to pull out and try to land it somewhere, the prop started to just barely move, and then with roar it came back to life. I flew quietly back to Jandakot.

Somehow I think Budd Davidson just missed the whole point of flying a Tiger Moth.

I have a bunch of pictures of flying that plane - will try to get them scanned.