De Havilland Tiger Moth
1930s British military trainer aircraft

The de Havilland DH.82 Tiger Moth is a 1930s British biplane designed by Geoffrey de Havilland and built by the de Havilland Aircraft Company. It was operated by the Royal Air Force (RAF) and other operators as a primary trainer aircraft. In addition to the type's principal use for ab initio training, the Second World War had RAF Tiger Moths operating in other capacities, including maritime surveillance and defensive anti-invasion preparations; some aircraft were outfitted to function as armed light bombers.
The Tiger Moth remained in service with the RAF until it was replaced by the de Havilland Chipmunk during the early 1950s. Many of the military surplus aircraft subsequently entered into civilian operation. Many nations have used the Tiger Moth in both military and civilian applications, and it remains in widespread use as a recreational aircraft. It is still occasionally used as a primary training aircraft, particularly for pilots wanting to gain experience before moving on to other tailwheel aircraft. Many Tiger Moths are now employed by companies offering trial lesson experiences.
Design and development
Origins
Geoffrey de Havilland, the company's owner and founder, had sought to produce a light aircraft superior to two of his previous designs, the de Havilland Humming Bird and de Havilland DH.51. From earlier experience, de Havilland knew the difficulty and importance of correctly sizing such an aircraft to appeal to the civilian market, such as touring, trainer, flying club, and private aviation customers; the firm had great success with a scaled-down version of the DH.51, the de Havilland DH.60 Moth.
“De Havilland Tiger Moth” enters the record as 1930s British military trainer aircraft. Crown Archives preserves that source wording while asking what Havilland, Tiger and Moth can confirm, complicate or overturn.
Why this record matters
“De Havilland Tiger Moth” is worth following because a concise public description often conceals a longer documentary argument. Here, Havilland, Tiger and Moth provides the most credible route into that argument.
The citation trail is more important than the brevity of the summary: it shows where individual claims can be examined in context. The source revision retrieved here is dated Sep 8, 2026. The linked authority identifier is Q654062. The Library of Congress control number is sh85135313. 1 of 1 selected statements include explicit references; 0 carry qualifiers and 0 use preferred rank.
The absence of detail may reflect summary conventions rather than a lack of surviving documentation. The lead is largely declarative, so disagreement and counter-evidence require a deliberate search beyond the opening account. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.
How to read it
Use the entry as an orientation point, then follow its citations and revision history. Names, dates and institutional relationships should be checked against the original record.
- Subject orientation
- Search vocabulary
- Locating named sources
The closest primary source, responsible institution and strongest cited specialist reference.
Three-step research path
- Establish the record: confirm the title “De Havilland Tiger Moth”, its source revision and the description used here.
- Expand the search: follow De Havilland Tiger Moth primary sources, De Havilland Tiger Moth archive and Havilland research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
- Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.
Questions for further research
- Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “De Havilland Tiger Moth”?
- Which cited source is closest to the event, object or claim?
- Which institution is responsible for the underlying evidence?
Search terms from this dossier
This entry incorporates text from “De Havilland Tiger Moth” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.