Tiggie Review
Moderators: Guru's, The Ministry
Actually, I found that as long as you used a heavy boot on the rudder to truly coordinate a turn, holding the ailerons in a bank wasn't required. I can only say that I learned how to fly the FS version, and that from what I read, its dynamics reacted similarly to the real thing. Obviously, I would only be able to speak with authority if I had actual stick time in a Tiggie. Sigh. A boy can dream!jonesey2k wrote:Seems to think that a lot of aieleron is required to hold a bank is correct. This was discussed a while ago as being wrong by people who have flown the thing for real.
Last edited by spotlope on 22 Jan 2007, 19:14, edited 2 times in total.
Bill Womack
Hi Trev,calypsos wrote:Hi Bill, nice to see you over in our little home!! Does this change to reviews mean you have retired from making some of the best scenery in MSFS?
That C130 review was very well done, I did the AVSIM review of that product, just after its release.
It is a far better product, with 2007 hardware, than it was then. I also got well flamed by the hawks that post on the Avsim forum, they still 'hate those damn commies'
No way! I'm still very much involved in making FS scenery. In fact, I've been working on some new FSX projects for a while now, and updating some FS9 scenery for the new sim, too. Glad to hear you enjoyed the Herc review!
Bill Womack
Hi Guys,
I do have some hours on the Tiger Moth in real life, but I don't have the AH Tiger. However, some observations on the real aeroplane may help.
I can say that the real thing DOES require rudder to initiate a turn, and requires a small rudder deflection to hold the turn. Aileron is required to coordinate the turn. So far, it sounds not too unusual to the modern pilot.
Where the Tiger differs is that:
(i) the relative powers of the flying controls are radically different from a modern aeroplane; the secondary effect of rudder (to roll the aircraft) is about the same as the primary effect of aileron, and
(ii) the adverse yaw from the ailerons means that if you bank the aeroplane without using the rudder it will just continue on in a straight line with sideslip on: it will not turn. Incidentally, my Dad tells me that the Beverley had exactly the same characteristic - he says that it flew 'just like a great big Tiger Moth'.
(iii) the rudder is not particularly heavy, just powerful: this compares favourably with the modern 'spamcans' which tend to be so stable in yaw that the rudder feels both heavy and spongy.
I would describe the rudder and elevators as 'light and effective' and the ailerons as 'light and limited in effectiveness, with substantial adverse yaw'.
As Bill Womack said, the purpose of the handling was to teach people to fly, and fly properly: the Tiger is still perhaps the best primary trainer out there. When you first sit in the cockpit, the first thing about the panel which you notice is the huge and prominent turn-and-slip instrument; as soon as you fly, you find out why - the aeroplane will fly sideways on you even in the cruise if you don't cooordinate rudder and aileron all the time. The design works well.
Many of the aircraft of that era and earlier had similar handling, which is why they can be sideslipped and spun so well, and it's also why so many modern 'training' aircraft usually have a disappointing sideslip and a limited or non-existent spin .
Cheers,
Kevin
I do have some hours on the Tiger Moth in real life, but I don't have the AH Tiger. However, some observations on the real aeroplane may help.
I can say that the real thing DOES require rudder to initiate a turn, and requires a small rudder deflection to hold the turn. Aileron is required to coordinate the turn. So far, it sounds not too unusual to the modern pilot.
Where the Tiger differs is that:
(i) the relative powers of the flying controls are radically different from a modern aeroplane; the secondary effect of rudder (to roll the aircraft) is about the same as the primary effect of aileron, and
(ii) the adverse yaw from the ailerons means that if you bank the aeroplane without using the rudder it will just continue on in a straight line with sideslip on: it will not turn. Incidentally, my Dad tells me that the Beverley had exactly the same characteristic - he says that it flew 'just like a great big Tiger Moth'.
(iii) the rudder is not particularly heavy, just powerful: this compares favourably with the modern 'spamcans' which tend to be so stable in yaw that the rudder feels both heavy and spongy.
I would describe the rudder and elevators as 'light and effective' and the ailerons as 'light and limited in effectiveness, with substantial adverse yaw'.
As Bill Womack said, the purpose of the handling was to teach people to fly, and fly properly: the Tiger is still perhaps the best primary trainer out there. When you first sit in the cockpit, the first thing about the panel which you notice is the huge and prominent turn-and-slip instrument; as soon as you fly, you find out why - the aeroplane will fly sideways on you even in the cruise if you don't cooordinate rudder and aileron all the time. The design works well.
Many of the aircraft of that era and earlier had similar handling, which is why they can be sideslipped and spun so well, and it's also why so many modern 'training' aircraft usually have a disappointing sideslip and a limited or non-existent spin .
Cheers,
Kevin