Aircraft that come to mind are the Tiger Moth and Piper Cub. An aircraft can't be on a flight permit for PPL(A) although some vintage aircraft could conceivably be considered microlights couldn't they?
What vintage aircraft are there that qualify for a C of A? Piper Cubs are apparently all on flight permits. In the UK it is possible to learn to fly in at least a Chipmunk and a Tiger Moth and presumably there are others?
Vintage aircraft lose competitiveness over modern aircraft when it comes to maintenance (at least on a CofA) but what would be the most sensible choice for a club to operate a vintage aircraft for training.
My own thinking was that a Stampe would be quite a good choice: Gypsy Major Engine is still easy enough to get parts and it is apparently easier to get the hang of compared to a Moth. The Auster gets a lot of praise but it perhaps has a flight permit like the Cub. It just seems to me that there could very well be a market that is not tapped here. In New Zealand where I am from there is a magical place in the South Island called Wanaka which trains pilots on Chipmunks if they wish but then again the scenery and weather is a little different.
Anyone else got vintage suggestions keeping in mind a C of A for PPL A, maintenance, running costs, flight envelope?
I realise that CAACI now part of the ILAA would be the people to talk to but I am just dreaming here and thought a discussion might be interesting.
Not really a runner for a club then. I understand the Tiger Moth is on a C of A and there are sources for parts but yes the high hourly rates (€200 plus per hour) for them is not related to direct running costs but tied up in the maintenance, i.e. engineers.
I wonder if there is such a thing as a vintage (J3/Moth/Auster/Bucker/Pietonpol/Stampe owners close your ears) replica factory-built C of A i.e most of the thrills with less support problems? Probably not otherwise clubs would have seized on this kind of flying training already. I know there is a Bucker Jungmann in Sligo Flying Club but clearly for the owner's use or PPL holders. I just think vintage would be in many cases (like gliders too) a good grounding in rudder control, approach speed control and keeping the head out of the cockpit-itis that as an SPL I have been guilty of up until recently. There is a motivational 'spirit' in flying around in these things that arguably is matched in some microlights but not in modern tricycle composite aircraft.
Guess it is motivation though to progress flying post-PPL. What does the Beagle Pup come under if anyone happens to know?
EDIT: I should of course mention that in answering my own question here that there is the Champion series of aircraft that might fit this description
thanks for any advice
In addition training will require the use of certain instruments which may not be fitted to vintage aircraft. I knew a student in the UK who did his initial hours on a Super Cub (with appropriate CofA) but had to convert to a C172 for the Nav exercises and required instrument time.
good grounding in rudder control, approach speed control and keeping the head out of the cockpit-itis that as an SPL I have been guilty of up until recently
Speed control and keeping your head out of the cockpit are equally important in tricycle aircraft. As for the rudder control, you're right, tailwheel types generally require more attention in that department.
However, the habits (good or bad) you pick up on the way to the PPL can all be unlearned. If I were you, I'd make things easy, do the training on whatever aircraft is available to you. By all accounts converting to tailwheel post-PPL won't be that much of a chore but trying to organise your ab initio PPL training on a conventional gear (tailwheel )aircraft would be.
@clearofcloud on Twitter, Instagram
By approach speed control I was thinking of aircraft without flaps. I was not really thinking of doing all training on vintage types but just thinking that if a portion of training early-on was set aside on tailwheel types it would serve as a good platform.
Keeping the head out of the cockpit was just a reference to having less instruments in some of these types that tends to make it clearer that as VFR pilots we can largely fly a perfectly adequate circuit from our attitude to the horizon, the power setting and occasional reference to asi, alt and vsi. What I tend to find myself fighting from time to time (not so bad lately) is an obsession with watching ASI on climbout, watching DI in the circuit generally (instead of picking up my relation to the runway from the wingtip/guessing the drift) etc. My instructor has on a couple of occasions covered up numerous instruments on approach just to see if I could land without all the attention to the cockpit.
Just the skill of navigating by compass/watch when other instruments are inoperative (how many people actually have the skills from their PPL training to average out compass readings in turbulent/convective air for a workable reading from regularly referencing it throughout the flight?)
But you are right it appears to be a chore. I wonder if there is any yet-to-be decided element of vintage aircraft training in EASA. It would be nice for example to have a small concession made to licensing that allowed say up to five hours dual on a permit vintage aircraft should someone wish to opt for this even if they are not an owner and there is no C of A. It would require the flight instructor to be prepared to offer this too. Could anyone see the IAA granting this kind of concession or is it a no-go territory?
Post-PPL the option is there i.e. tailwheel/differences training but often unless flying variety like this is introduced early on it becomes an unknown experience to many pilots. So many pilots get their PPL but procrastinate over what to get involved in afterwards and just simply hire the club spam can because they never got introduced to anything else and then intimidate themselves into the idea of broadening their horizons beyond what they learnt on.
In a way microlight licensing has brought some of this back to aviation. AFAIK they are permitted to train students in permit aircraft. How many microlights though are flown (unintentionally or otherwise) through a bending of the rules e.g. outside their c of g limits/useful load.
How many microlights though are flown (unintentionally or otherwise) through a bending of the rules e.g. outside their c of g limits/useful load.
In defense of our microlight breathern, I'll lay money that it doesn't happen any more frequently in a microlight than it does when two stocky blokes get into a fully fueled C150/152/[Insert 2-seat trainer name here] and take off.
Just get comfortable with flapless landings, they're really no different from a speed perspective, there's just a different perspective out the window - I think they're fun myself.
As for any overy dependency on flight instruments in the circuit, that will pass.
Nice to see there are still people coming up through the ranks who want to keep the vintage stuff flying. I should be joining the non-gyroed, tailwheel brigade myself very shortly. WooHoo.
@clearofcloud on Twitter, Instagram
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests