Jodel D9

Jodel D9

Glad I worked down through that lot – I was beginning to wonder if it was a “Jodel” or a “Anything but a Jodel” fly-in As ever – well taken photos VA.

Neil

Like all the Jodels I’ve flown, it’s a good honest aeroplane. Like all of them, it’s a good choice if the money and location is right, but it’s a head ruling the heart choice, for me.

I have to admit that I found the Condor a pleasant little machine but there are those who don’t like them (strange people). I have to admit that the controls are possibly not quite as positive as the Chipmunk’s but nothing that you can’t live with and learn to love when you get used to it.

Thank you Mike and I can relate to what where you are coming from and also the content of your last post, I’ve a few hours in Tigers and I’ve found them a hand full at times but with good instruction the Tiger offers a great learning curve and respect to those who can really chuck them around. I’ve never flown a Condor or Chipmunk but have been considering a share in a Condor recently as it seems to offer very good value for a resonable outlay plus an enclosed cockpit which of late seems to be a lot more appealing than a few months ago.

Happy landings:)

Sorry mate, I wasn’t trying to put him off, just pointing out a possible point to watch out for. I personally have noting against Jodels or the Condor regardless of their faults. Like those who love the Tiger Moth but are honest enough to admit that it was/is far from perfect I am willing to accept things that could be improved in an aircraft I like. So that’s why I like the Chipmunk and the Condor. I wish him luck, good fortune and happy flying regardless of what he eventually does.

I wonder how helpful hear say and scary stories about gear collapsing are Mike in supporting a fellow airman in making a decision about a type.

I wrote from direct experience and can assure you I have made some pretty crap and heavy landings in Jodel aircraft not only the D9, with a lot more than hint of drift and there has not been any sign of any problem what so ever.

All aircraft of this type have to be checked out for a permit to fly and these would not have been granted if what you have written had even the slightest hint of truth. All designs and components are stress tested with a generous margin and occasional clumsy pilots like me are taken into consideration.

As I said all aircraft bite fools but most are forgiving of pilots with average abilities like myself and even excellent pilots have been known to botch a landing once in a while, having said that I’ve got a few greasers under my belt as well.

Happy landings:)

Don’t take my word for it but I’ve heard that the undercarriage attachment point on the mainspar is a weak point in all jodels, mind you the same can be said for the D-62 Condor and a good many machines of that era. It just means that a great deal of care needs to be taken to ensure there is not the slightest hint of drift on touch down or you’ll end up with a wheelless aircraft.

I’ve flown the Jodel D 9 and have also flown the Durine turbulence both types were VW powered with Leburg ignition were armstrong starters and have comparable performance.

My preference was the Jodel as it had more leg room (but was still a very cozy fit I’m 5’11”) and I felt better performance down to that clever Jodel wing design possibly slightly slower in roll than the turb as if that matters with this class of aircraft. No brakes and a tail skid should be of more concern and could prove challenging in 10 or more knots of wind. But the wheel camber was such that when the tail was down she would have resistance but once you got the tail up this diminished considerably. This is grass root flying after all.

Also best to be extra mind full of the speed bleeding off in turns with both aircraft, especially turns on finals perhaps the turb more so? On balance I feel that the Jodel is the better aircraft I didn’t find and am not aware of any vices and never had a problem with a turb either but have heard that some have been bitten but then all aircraft bite fools or so it was written on the turbs I flew at Headcorn and the club had the foresight also to fit stall warnings on the turbs.

I have had some wonderful flights in the Jodel and as an Englishman I have to concede that in this instance the French make some delightfully clever functional and attractive aircraft and the Jodel for my money is all of these, even now in the 21st Century which isn’t bad for a 1940s design. The turbulence is also a very worthy aircraft better suited to less generously proportioned pilots than myself and worth considering. I hope that this helps.

Happy landings

I have to say I did e-mail a link to this thread to one of our VAC members who owns & flies a Jodel D.9, not long after your initial request. I will hopefully see him next week and I will give him a nudge.

In the absence of any other response, I will.

Although I haven’t flown the Bebe, I have around 100 hours in similarly VW-powered Luton Minor and FRED ultralights, as well as a bit of time in the two-seat Jodel D117. I currently fly a 1939 Tipsy Trainer, which is basically like a ‘big Bebe’ – albeit with about the same horsepower!

The general reputation of the D9 is that it is a sweet-handling, but lightweight aeroplane in the same vein as the Turbulent or the parasol-winged Minor. Properly rigged it should fly hands-off in level flight, although the all-moving rudder will propably demand foot control inputs at all times!

As most Bebe will be homebuilt, there is likely to be a wide range of weights and likely performance between one aeroplane and another. A friend in the UK who built and flew a Bebe with a 1600cc VW engine reckoned around a 250 yard take-off run and about 400 feet per minute climb.

He used to climb out at around 45-50mph, cruise at 70-75 and stall at just over 30. He reckoned that landing, due to the long-chord wing is pretty easy, the aeroplane almost flares itself. The only gotcha is that if you land fast, it floats and floats and floats…….

Crosswind limit is around 15 knots if you are brave, but a light wingloading makes the aeroplane bouncy to fly in anything more than a light breeze anyway.

The one thing which does cause these aeroplanes to bite big time, is their relative lack of inertia, which means that with power off, they slow very rapidly to stalling speed. You do not have a surplus of power to drag the aeroplane off the back side of the drag curve, so you need to keep a close eye on airspeed management.

While I don’t believe that the Bebe is any better or worse than say, a Turbulent at the stall, there have been a couple of serious accidents in the UK, attributed to low speed, low level stall/spin when airspeed has been allowed to decay on approach.

Like the majority of VW-powered single seaters that were designed in the 1940s, pilots were a bit smaller then. A typical empty weight of a D9 will be about 200kg. MTOW is 320kg, which leaves just 120kg for fuel and pilot.

Hope this is of help. If you still are looking for an alternative to the Bebe, check out www.lutonminor.com 😉

no one?