Original Posted By: LanhamOS
For O.S. Lanham:I don't know if J. Kahn has access to a Tiger Moth, but Idid until about four years ago.A friend had one and I did his annuals for quite a few yearsuntil he sold it. I used to fly it once in a while to see how itwas operating. It was a pretty good performer, but was nofaster than my 85 hp Pietenpol---and didn't handle as nicelyas the Piet, either. Burned more gas and oil, too.But it sure was an interesting old bird that simply becametoo valuable to keep around, so they sold it. At one timehere in Alberta, Canada, there were a lot of them availableand after WW II they were cheap ($500 would have boughtyou one with a spare engine in 1945/46!). But, in 1945, $500was a lot of money and, being a 16 year old kid, I found evenmodel airplanes strained my finances to the extreme. Myfriend's Tiger Moth went for over a hundred times the 1945figure about four years ago, which was the chief reason Ididn't like to fly it very often.Back in 1952, I could have bought a 1930 DH 60M GypsyMoth for about $400, and didn't because the engine had onlyabout 50 hours left until a major overhaul was due. Forty-sixyears later I am still kicking myself for not buying it anyway.It was much nicer to fly than my friend's Tiger Moth. I won-dered if nostalgia and elapsed time had created the impres-sion, but this difference in handling has been confirmed bypilots I know who have flown both Moth models.I am pleased to say that my Pietenpol, which I have beenflying for over 27 years, flies much like that old Gypsy Mothof so long ago---although it is much lighter, and is thereforemore inclined to jump around in turbulence than either theGypsy or the Tiger.If I were to win a lottery (highly unlikely), I would try to find aGypsy Moth so that I could stop kicking myself. Until thathappens, I shall have to be content with my old Piet---whichis a pretty good substitute, regardless.Cheers,Graham Hansen-----Original Message-----