From: ralockh@ibm.net
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 1999 22:28:21 -0800
To: flyingwires@yahoo.com
Subject: Canadian Tiger Moth connection

As you may well know, a large number of Tiger Moths were built in Canada during W.W.II.  These were used as the basic trainers in the Commonwealth Air Training Plan, which undertook the training of airman for the entire British Commonwealth plus expatriates from German occupied countries such as Norway and the Netherlands.  This DHC-1 version of the Moth was identical to the British original, except that it had larger windscreens and a sliding canopy added (as well as skis replacing wheels in winter) as a consequence of winter training in temperatures as low as -40 C.

I was 6 years old in 1939 and 12 years old at war-end, so obviously did not get my own ab initio training on air force Tigers.  However, I joined the RCAF air cadet league at age 13, and won a flight training scholarship at age 16.  Two-thirds of my 30 Hrs. ab initio training was done on the then still operational DHC-1 Moths, of which there were literally hundreds flying in Canada at that time.  It is one of the great ironies of the aging process that at the time we youths preferred the time spent on more "modern" trainers, such as the Chipmunk that had full electrics and better instrumentation.  Now, of course, I would bargain a year or two of my remaining flying time to fly a Moth again! 

I have flown as a back seat passenger in several privately owned treasures in relatively recent years.  Most of these have had their canopies removed and the original British windscreen put in place as they are allowed to hibernate during the typically cold and difficult VFR winter conditions that prevail in most of Canada. 

As a footnote, De Havilland Canada went on to build Chipmunks, Beavers, Otters, Twin Otters, Dash 7 and Dash 8 commuters, all of which, except the Dash 7, I have flown at one time or another.  These are all pilot friendly aircraft, as was the moth (except for ground handling, of course).  This was less true of the RCAF's intermediate wartime trainer, the AT-6 (the Canadian built version of which was called the "Harvard"). Most of us found the step up to that fire breathing monster rather a challenging one -- especially spin recoveries which typically took four to six turns before the under ruddered hunk of iron would respond.  This was compounded in winter training as the gear could not be retracted with skis affixed and the resulting aerodynamics was not, to say the least, helpful. Since the heavy prop and big radial engine turned in the American direction, torque compensation was initially counter-intuitive relative to the Moth, which then got blamed for the relatively large number of AT-6 ground loops. But that's another story. 

I wish you all the best in your effort to keep the heritage of the golden age of stick and rudder flight alive.

Sincerely, R.A. (Sandy) Lockhart, somewhere in the northern parts of
British Columbia, Canada.
 

From: ralockh@ibm.net
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1999 09:44:06 -0800
To: flyingwires@yahoo.com

Thanks for the comment on my comment.  By all means use it as you see fit (and also feel free to edit as you see fit). 

For most of my life I left it to those who served in WW2 to keep the extraordinary events surrounding that slice of aviation history documented and alive.  But as inevitably as it is sadly, few of these first hand accounts are now available.  So I guess that ball passes (albeit briefly, I'm afraid) to those of us who were at the time too young to serve, but old enough to have witnessed it from the sidelines and, in some cases, to have had the opportunity to both use the same equipment and learn our flying skills from the veterans. 

No doubt we too are now experiencing nostalgia.  But as the enthusiasts, like yourselves, in the generation that follows us is demonstrating, this "golden age" will be preserved. Thank you all. 

While few of us would deny the advantages of our modern aviation technology, at least some of us continue to fight a rear-guard action against the encroachment of high technology, and the mentality that goes with it, on everything from excessive limitations on low-level VFR airspace to the application of transport aircraft level certification and maintenance requirements to all new and old aircraft, including those that are the flying equivalent of Model A Ford cars ("Build them light and keep them simple."). 

In this regard, we are beginning to be noticed here in North America, at least at the "recreational aircraft" designation level.  The freedom to fly in low level, VFR airspace is more difficult to preserve as ATC finds it easier to just control everything above the height of an apartment building.  For example, I now fly only for my own business purposes, mostly in Canada's far north, population density less than 1 person per square mile, with air transport length runways available about every thousand miles or so and only military radars (no ATC secondary radars).  Yet the new rules say that I have to invest $4000 in a mode C, encoded altimeter transponder to fly where there are no secondary radars to trigger my blip.  The struggle continues!

Good luck and I will surely revisit your site.

R.A. (Sandy) Lockhart, Prince George, B.C., Canada