Talk:De Havilland Tiger Moth

Current Tiger Moth activity
The website  documents current restoration and flying activity of a group of Tiger Moth restoration enthusiasts in Guelph, Ontario. The Moth Club  maintains registers of Moths and facilities. Gullett 04:17, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Seen in Indiana Jones?
There's a plane that looks just like the tiger moth in Indiana Jones: the last crusade, only it's German. Is a German plane, or is it the tiger moth? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.163.95.117 (talk) 19:41, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Your favourite search engine would probably have found http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_types_of_aircraft_are_used_in_Indiana_Jones_and_the_Last_Crusade which says Biplane escaping from the airship is a De Havilland DH 82 Tiger Moth (British) and the German "fighter" is a Pilatus P2 (Swiss trainer) MilborneOne (talk) 19:54, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Disambiguation
Moved the disambiguation page back in keeping with WP:MOSDAB. Aim is to remove (disambiguation) suffixes. Even if most searches go to the plane there is still a choice of aircraft articles. - —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ex nihil (talk • contribs) — Preceding undated comment added 01:11, 27 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Can you explain please? No idea what you are referring to (I do understand DAB pages). Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)    01:49, 27 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I believe what User:Ex nihil is trying to say is that Tiger moth (disambiguation) has now been moved to Tiger moth instead, including links to this page. It is a bit fuzzily written! - Ahunt (talk) 01:09, 28 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Ah, same thing but (disambiguation) missing. I can sleep soundly now! It's an aircraft BTW, not a 'plane' Sheesh! Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)    01:37, 28 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The change did not seem to affect this article at all so why mention it and get us all worried?! Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)    01:45, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Inconsistency
Sections: Operational History and Variants are inconsistent as for naming of DH.60T and DH.82. Which one was Tiger Moth I? Pibwl &larr;&laquo; 23:11, 9 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Hopefully fixed now, the main problem was that the first 35 aircraft ordered were stated as being designated DH.60T where they were actually DH.82s. Have clarified in the variants section as well and cited both facts. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)    19:23, 10 July 2010 (UTC)


 * "DH.60T" was the factory designation of the modified DH.60 machine built for the 13/31 Specification and the one submitted by DH for it. The production aircraft were re-designated "DH.82". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.147.13 (talk) 10:07, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Ureverted Flying Section
I have unreverted the flying section arbitrarily removed by Bzuk. I have added a few references, and tidied it up a bit. But the original was fine IMHO. If Bzuk or others wish to improve the article then that would be most welcome. But to just revert without any discussion is not reasonable. Comments from other people that have actually flow a Tiger would be appreciated. 118.208.60.188 (talk) 09:00, 10 December 2010 (UTC)


 * It was removed because it appears to be mostly original research and contained no citations. I part-own a Tiger Moth and have operated it for the last four years. I have pasted the section in below and added my comments in italics:

The Tiger Moth is easy to fly (disagree) and responds wells to control input (roll control is poor, all controls have heavy forces). Its big "parachute" wings are very forgiving (untrue, spins easily, no pre-stall buffet), and it stall as slow as 25 knots with power (possibly but I wouldn't advise anyone trying this). It has some adverse yaw, and so requires rudder input during turns.

Being a tail dragging bi-plane, taxiing requires care. The pilot cannot see directly ahead, the lower wing can hit obstructions, and it is susceptible to gusts of wind on its inclined, large, upper wing (wind is not a problem when taxiing apart from trying to taxi crosswind as it will try to 'weathercock' into wind and if you are having trouble with directional control then it should be put back in the hangar). The take of is uneventful,(incorrect, yaws quite markedly to the right) and it has a reasonable rate of climb. However, full power should not be maintained for more than a minute or so to avoid damaging the engine.(incorrect, engine can be held at full power indefinitely but I agree that it is not desirable to do this, there is an rpm limit however for diving flight)

The Tiger Moth's biplane design makes it strong, and it is fully aerobatic.(incorrect, classed as semi-aerobatic, can not maintain inverted flight) But surprisingly, it only has ailerons on its bottom wing, which makes it rate of role relatively slow for a biplane. Most manouvers are started at about 90 to 110 knots, and it has a VNE of 140 knots.

"Wheeler" landings are straight forward, as the plane is pushed on to the runway at a moderate speed with just the front wheels on the ground,(can be tipped on its nose, care required) and then the tail is held up until the speed reduces. Being an open cockpit the pilot can stick his head over the side to see the runway.(Should be 'has to'!)

Three point landings are difficult because there is insufficient elevator authority to pull the plane into a proper three point position.(Incorrect, has enough elevator authority to land tailskid first) Instead, the aircraft must be flaired several metres above the ground, then allowed to drop before sharply bring the stick back.(this technique would break the undercarriage)  If done correctly the resultant angular momentum will bring the tail down far enough to land on all three points.

This section would need to be re-written to comply with WP:NOTGUIDE and more specific citations added. That said I think there should be a flying section for the reader's benefit but it needs to be accurate. The RAAF notes do not give this level of detail but Bramson's book has an accurate account of flying a Tiger. Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)    09:38, 10 December 2010 (UTC)


 * The Tiger Moth was liked by RAF Training Command and RAF instructors as it's flying qualities had the merit of 'weeding-out the inept' trainee pilots before valuable time was wasted on training them. A more docile aeroplane would not have done this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.147.13 (talk) 18:38, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Data Panel is Confusing
How can the Useful Load be 180 ponds if it was expected to carry two pilots? Even in the 1930s most adults weighed more than 90 pounds. It also says it could carry 8 twenty-pound bombs. That would mean only pilots weighing 20 pounds could fly it. Something's not right. If the "Useful" load is the load it could carry beyond the weight of the two pilots, that should be stated as that is not what "useful Load" usually means in aviation. This is the definition of useful load you find from the first few hits of a google search: the useful load is "the load which is removable, which is not permanently part of the airplane. It includes the usable fuel, the pilot, crew, passengers, baggage, freight, etc." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.210.51.150 (talk) 19:29, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
 * There must have been a mistake there. The useful load is the difference between the empty weight and the maximum weight. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)    21:04, 14 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Neither the weight of the pilot nor the weight of the fuel is 'useful load' as the aeroplane is un-flyable without either. Here 'useful load' would mean the weight carry-able with the pilot and a stated amount of fuel, hence the trainee pilot in front would count as 'useful load'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.10.249 (talk) 16:37, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on De Havilland Tiger Moth. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100822164153/http://www.captainnevillesflyingcircus.org.uk/page16.htm to http://www.captainnevillesflyingcircus.org.uk/page16.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://oldrhinebeck.org/ORA/dehavilland-dh-82-tiger-moth/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131020232417/http://www.fliegendes-museum.de/Tiger_Moth.html to http://www.fliegendes-museum.de/Tiger_Moth.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080617112600/http://www.museoaeronautico.cl/espanol/pop-ficha.php?id=15 to http://www.museoaeronautico.cl/espanol/pop-ficha.php?id=15
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927075441/http://www.historicaircraft.org/British-Aircraft/pages/DeHavilland-QueenBee-1.html to http://www.historicaircraft.org/British-Aircraft/pages/DeHavilland-QueenBee-1.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:16, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Drone
The article claims that the "drone" means "a kind of worker bee". In fact, worker bees are all sterile females but drones are males whose sole raison d'être is to copulate with the new queens -- they do no work and die soon after mating.--Death Bredon (talk) 09:35, 14 April 2018 (UTC)


 * More specifically they make ONE flight and then die. Hence the usage of 'drone' for radio-controlled target aircraft. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.55.68 (talk) 10:25, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

List of Operators Has Gone Awry
The list of British operators (which would be under a heading "United Kingdom") has moved under Thailand. Looks like "United Kingdom" has gone missing. I'm not knowledgeable enough to fix a list. Perhaps somebody who is and cares about this page can fix it. Best. MF — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.210.115.100 (talk) 22:58, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
 * FixedNigel Ish (talk) 23:29, 21 June 2019 (UTC)