What could you replace a Chipmunk with?

[marlat]

An idle question but what (if any) modern kit or factory built aircraft that are certified and realistically obtainable would be a suitable replacement for a DHC-1 Chipmunk? The RAF's opinion was a Grob or Slingsby Firefly but neither of these to my mind match the Chippies key characteristics - tandem seating in a cockpit with good all round visability, low wing monoplane, tailwheel with a robust undercarriage that has a wide track, good short field performance, and capable of aerobatic flight (but not sustained inverted).

Are there any modern aircraft that come close to these without the Chippies chief draw back of covering everything in oil :ooh: ?

[Wide-Body]

Hi Marlat

I replaced my beloved Chippy with an RV-8. For the pilot the RV does everything in the air a chippy does but better.

Now the downside, not public transport certified. The gear and tail would need strengthening for service use.

You can still get the bottom of your RV-8 covered in oil too :)

[Mark 1]

The back seat of an RV-8 is not a great spot for either instructor or student; limited control access and poor (if any) view of the instruments.

There isn't much in the way of tandem seat available in the certified world, mostly competition machinery such as Extra, Zlin or Pitts.

If you accept SBS seating, then a CAP would meet most of the other criteria - the 10C is still in production. YAK52s are plentiful, but the running costs are likely to be at least double.

[eharding]

Hi Marlat

I replaced my beloved Chippy with an RV-8. For the pilot the RV does everything in the air a chippy does but better.

Now the downside, not public transport certified. The gear and tail would need strengthening for service use.

You can still get the bottom of your RV-8 covered in oil too :)

You forgot to mention it eats Nanchangs for breakfast ;)

[marlat]

That Nigeran RV certainly looks pretty in that paint job! My question is not about what makes a good military ab-inito trainer but what matches the Chippies characteristics which are ones that I feel make an ideal fun light aeroplane. For me, sitting on the centre line is important as it feels more natural/comfortable, so side by side cockpits don't really work. So it would appear that the RV series is probably the only option?

[Big Pistons Forever]

You forgot to mention it eats Nanchangs for breakfast ;)

Maybe but I seem to get a lot more requests for rides in my Nanchang, than my buddy and his plane of many right angles powered by yet another flat four banger :hmm:

[A and C]

As much as I like the RV aircraft I think my vote would be for the Extra 200.

I found the 200 a very nice aircraft to fly, the 200HP engine keeps the fuel costs down and also keeps the stress on the airframe down further reducing cost.

On the whole I found the 200 a much more enjoyable aircraft to fly than the 300 with more than enough power for "fun aerobatics" but short on power for other than basic competition aerobatics.

[Echo Romeo]

Are there any modern aircraft that come close to these without the Chippies chief draw back of covering everything in oil

If a Gipsy doesn't leak oil theres something wrong with it:ok:

[Justiciar]

suitable replacement for a DHC-1

Why on earth would you want to replace a DHC-1 :confused:

[A and C]

You would not want to replace the Chipmunk just the outdated piece of junk that pulls it along and covers the airframe in oil !

the Chipmunk is about the nicest aircraft I have ever flown attached to the worst engine that I have ever worked on.

[Mechta]

The RAFGSA operate a number of 180hp Lycoming powered Chipmunks. They were trying to sell one of the fleet recently, so if you want a Chippie but not a 'Dripsy Major' it could be worth asking.

I don't know which, if any, are currently for sale, but if you search for G-ATVF it will give you an idea.

[Rod1]

It is side by side but how about an SF260 (lots of cash) or a Flaco (much less cash)

Rod1

[stickandrudderman]

or a Flaco (much less cash)


I assume you mean Falco?
In which case it has SBS seating which the OP doesn't want.
Other than that GREAT aeroplane!

[4015]

I'll have to agree with some of the other posters and suggest a powerplant exchange.

Having worked with the Dripsy a few years ago, it's fantastically easy to look after by virtue of how primitive it is, but the oil... So much oil. With all of the old engines like that, you get good ones and bad ones, each has it's own character. I came across engines which would burn (and/or throw out) almost as much oil as fuel, and others which didn't use much more than your average flying school 30year old C152.

But switch to a Lycoming, and I can't see any reason to give up an airframe like the Chippy!

[EDMJ]

How about a Citabria or a Decathlon? They seem to offer much of what a Chipmunk does, and are quite realistically priced (even new). An Extra 200 seems very expensive to me.

[TerryWalsh]

The problem with the RAFGSA ones is that they are not cleared for aerobatics or spinning.

[foxmoth]

Another vote here for the RV8, I have often described it as a Chippie on Steroids:D. Only real bugbear for me as an instructor are the rear rudder pedals which are ok in the air but no good for sorting someone out on the ground.

[1.3VStall]

Depends what you want to use the aircraft for. A Pawnee would fit the bill for a glider tug, but not much else!

[Mark 1]

I've had a Chipmunk, 2 RV-4s and now an RV-8. Without a doubt the RV-8 is the best all rounder. It doesn't meet your requirement of a certified aircraft, but has been well designed and engineered. The RV-4 is cheaper to obtain and, if you don't mind the solo aerobatics limitation (actually weight and CG limit) and the reduced space, you will have one of the best all round handling, performing and touring capable aircraft around. The -8 adds payload, range, load versatility and cockpit/baggage space.

I have dual aerobatic capability, 170 KTAS cruise at altitude, 1800 ft/min climb, nearly 1000nm range (at 150 KTAS) and night/IFR capability (in US) at significantly lower ownership costs than the Chippy. With modern EFIS units, some people have added a slave PFD for the back cockpit.

As was mentioned , the rear seat rudder pedal option is not very robust, so it wouldn't be any use as a primary tailwheel trainer and being amateur built, couldn't be used as a club/school aircraft other than to the limit of the shared ownership concession.

It also is one of the least demanding tailwheel aircraft in terms of its ground handling; comparable to the Chippy although stiffer and springier gear legs.

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

The RV might well be an excellent alternative to the Chippy 'on paper' and on on performance too. But you could never pretend you were flying a little Spitfire, like what you can in the lovely dHC1. :ok:

http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b132/GZK6NK/VinceinG-BCSLres.jpg

And the Dripsy Major? Get the 'ring mod' done and they only throw out half the oil they did before! Anyway, it gives the aeroplane even more 'character' than it already has. A Lycominged one just ain't a Chippy.

[maxred]

Ah yes, guys the smell....., that smell of nostalgia in the cockpit. Now nothing beats that:)

[marlat]

I fly from a gliding club that uses lycoming engined Chipmunk as tugs so I am familiar with the conversion. They are not cleared for aeros so you have immediately lost one of the key essential elements of the Chippie.

Mark 1 - The RV-8 certainly looks like a realistic alternative to the Chippie, one question though, and that is around the undercarriage. It does appear to have a wide track but with those long legs coming out at an angle from the centre of the fuselage, do you find that it rocks from side to side whilst taxiing? The Chippie feels planted when manouvreing around farm strips where the surface is uneven, how does the RV-8 compare?

EDMJ - the Citabria Decathlon, Cub et. al do offer many characistics of the Chippie especially being seated on the centreline. However the high wing seems to me to be a hinderance to all round visability (although I must admit I have not flown in an aircraft of this type to actually know if this is true).

Shaggy Sheep Driver - I have never really understood why the Chippie is nicknamed the poor mans Spitfire. A wing with straight leading edge and deep wing section; fabric covered wings, rudder, and elevator; a wide track undercart; and that large framed sliding canopy always remind me of the Hawker Hurricane. Certainly each time I strap myself into mine thats the aeroplane that I make believe I am flying:O!

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

Yes yes! The smell! I forgot that lovely aroma as you slide back the canopy; oil, leather, fuel, and maybe some things you'd perhaps rather not know. Whatever, it smells just like a Spitfire, Hurricane, Lancaster, and early jets like the Venom and Vampire.

It is a smell evocative of old Brit aeroplanes. No other types have it. It is priceless! Couple that with the fighter-like cockpit, the Mil-standard heavy rivetting of the skin, the perfectly balanced and sharp handling through the friction-free controls, the lovely sound of the Gipsy compared to a flat four, and the fabulous looks.... There is NO replacement for a dHC1. Except, perhaps, a Spitfire 1X! :)

http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b132/GZK6NK/DSC03588res.jpg

[Dr Jekyll]

Varga Karchina anybody? Don't know much about them but they always looked like a tricycle Chipmunk.

[Rod1]

Lyk engines Chipmunks have been cleared for aerobatics – the Supermonk was one such conversion.

Rod1

[mmgreve]

Zlin 526 ?

[J.A.F.O.]

Replace a Chipmunk? REPLACE A CHIPMUNK?

That's like saying you're thinking of replacing your champagne and have heard that Vimto is cold and wet and sparkling. It's like saying that you want to replace chocolate and have heard that raisins are sweet, would they do? It's like saying that you want to replace sex and have heard that cycling gets your heart racing.

Replace a Chipmunk? It's irreplaceable.

[Mark 1]

Mark 1 - The RV-8 certainly looks like a realistic alternative to the Chippie, one question though, and that is around the undercarriage. It does appear to have a wide track but with those long legs coming out at an angle from the centre of the fuselage, do you find that it rocks from side to side whilst taxiing? The Chippie feels planted when manouvreing around farm strips where the surface is uneven, how does the RV-8 compare?



It doesn't rock, but it feels stiffer and less damped than the Chippy. The RV-4 could get into a resonance over bumpy ground. Not noticed that in the -8, but we don't have much unpaved surface in California. I've taken it into some of the better back country strips in Idaho with no issues, but have picked up several scratches on the bottom of the spats.

Maybe not Spitfire, but the RV-8 does make a reasonable low budget P51 (I have the obligatory invasion stripes, chequer-board nosebowl etc).

And Shaggy, I did have a couple of retired airline pilots recognize the aircraft they did their CoAT evaluation in at Hamble many years earlier. One put his head in the cockpit, drew in a deep breath and said "Ah, just like I remember it, the unforgettable smell of leather and vomit".
I do miss it, but not enough to want another one.

[Genghis the Engineer]

I very much enjoyed the 3 hours or so I've done in the Chippie, and look forward to another opportunity to fly one sometime (not outside the realms of possibility I may buy a share in one sometime in the near future).

However, I have to say it really did not come close to the sheer smile factor of the Harvard.

Anybody who gets the chance, I would also very strongly recommend the Easy Raider as a truly gorgeous little tandem taildragger. Well, from the front seat anyhow.

Sorry to say I've yet to have an opportunity to fly a Spitfire or Hurricane. Maybe one day. I'm certainly open to offers!

G

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

Genghis - have you tried the Yak52? Eats Harvards for brekkers at a fraction the costs. But even at twice the running cost of the dHC1 together with inifnately more power and better aerobatic capability than the Chippy, I'll take the old Brit classic over the '52 any day (and I had a share in a '52 for a few years so do know them quite well).

[stickandrudderman]

Well,
(And I can't beleive I'm saying this, it seems like only yesterday that I got my licence!)
I have flown a Spitfire, a Chipmunk, a Cap10, a Harvard, and a Citabria.
Obviously nothing touches the Spitfire but after that my order of preference would be:
Chipmunk
Cap10
Citabria
Harvard.

Now if only my Falco was a taildragger it would slot in behind or alongside the Chippy.
I haven't yet flown an RV but someone on here keeps promising me a go in one.................

[maxred]

SSD. That's a great shot of your machine. Lovely.

Got a good few hours in both the 52, and a 50, which I had a share in whilst owning my Chippie.

For all that the YAKS had the power, I still loved the Chipmunk, even yearning to get back flying, after stepping out of a YAK flight.

Has yours still got the thumb prints embedded in the back cockpit shelf???

[Genghis the Engineer]

Genghis - have you tried the Yak52? Eats Harvards for brekkers at a fraction the costs. But even at twice the running cost of the dHC1 together with inifnately more power and better aerobatic capability than the Chippy, I'll take the old Brit classic over the '52 any day (and I had a share in a '52 for a few years so do know them quite well).

I've logged Harvard and Chipmunk, and handled the controls of a Yak-52. My recollection is of enjoying the Harvard most, then the Chipmunk, then the Yak - but I flew them years apart with developing experience as I went along, so my comparisons may not be what I'd say if I was flying all three the same weekend now.

I confess I do also have very happy memories of the good old Bloodknot - which doesn't seem to have captured the world's hearts as well as the Chippie has. Probably because it has a training wheel I suspect.

I suspect that one of main reasons the Chipmunk will stay so popular is that tandem seating became unfashionable amongst aircraft designers - but it is very nice if you don't like looking at your pax or prefer to pretend you're flying a single seat fighter.

G

[ponshus]

Come on Chipmunk lovers, they’re a terrible bit of kit. They are slow, unheated, have very little endurance, lose a startling amount of speed in a turn, are spin prone and tandem seating is antisocial and not good for instruction.
Having said that, they are very pretty and as I learned to fly on them I am very fond of them. BUT surely no sensible person would ever think of owning one.

[Sir Niall Dementia]

Ponshus;

They may be all of those things, but if I could get a good one I'd flog all of my present toys to own it. I spent a wonderful season a very long time ago as a tug pilot and fell deeply in love with the chippie. Since then I've flown all sorts of stuff from an Evans VP1 to an A330 and all sorts of big helicopters, I did my PPL on a Tiger Moth, I spend my working life operating (and I do mean operating) big corporate stuff, but the chippie will always be perfect for me.

SND (205.4 hours on chippies and still smitten)

[Jan Olieslagers]

surely no sensible person would ever think of owning one That is as maybe, but doesn't really say anything. A perfectly sensible person would never own any private aircraft, of whichever model.
Private flying begins with a little brain twist.

[foxmoth]

not good for instruction ??!!??

What absolute rot - FAR better instructional machine than most of the rubbish used nowadays!

And if you think they are "spin prone" it shows how bad YOUR instruction and experience must be! :}

[Mickey Kaye]

Foxmouth

If its so good why do very people use it?

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

I've had a share in and been flying the lovely G-BCSL since the late 1970s. Spin prone it's not.

It has no luggage space.
It has no heater.
It cruises at a mere 90 kts.
It will make your hands dirty.
It has a short duration.
It has a noisy and draughty cockpit.

It is, far and away, the best aeroplane I have ever flown in my 30+ years of aviating bar none (and I've flown a few). Fly one if you haven't already - you will be amply compensated for the minor shorcomings listed above.

[foxmoth]

If its so good why do very people use it?

Because it is not a cheap aircraft to operate - that is the big problem with getting a decent training aircraft and why most Schools use the aircraft they do instead of the best for the job. There have been many threads on which is the best training aircraft for schools and I think on all of them the C152 comes top for exactly this reason, though many instructors would much prefer other aircraft.

(And why do so many PILOTS get my name wrong - do they not know their classic aircraft types or can they just not read?)

[overun]

Foxmouth, relax.

Someone suggested that the chippy was the best balanced, yaw and roll,

aircraft that they had ever flown.

l take exception with that. lt is far better.

Sorry Foxmoths, over to you.

[foxmoth]

Not wound up, but I do find it amazing how many Aviation people put FoxMOUTH (and not intentionally as yours obviously is).:\

Someone suggested that the chippy was the best balanced, yaw and roll, aircraft that they had ever flown.

When people talk about balance in yaw and roll they are normally talking about the ball, most will say it is the most harmonised on the controls, and that includes pitch as well. This is why I like the RV so much, it seems to have that same harmonisation of controls.:ok:

[Big Pistons Forever]

Re: harmonization of controls. The RV is good but the Chippy is better......

[stiknruda]

No doubt if one were to search this forum, I'll have alluded to the fantastic control harmony that the Chipmunk has.

I'd never own one (although a good friend does) but I do enjot flying them!

I've also probably banged-on about my opportunity to fly the late Nigel R's Mighty-Monk. The older I get the less delighted I am with my polite refusal - whilst current on Pitts', I felt I was probably painting myself into a corner with low DHC1 time and poor currency!

Stik

[BillieBob]

47 posts and nobody has come up with the obvious answer - What could you replace a Chipmunk with? Nothing but another Chipmunk, and I say that having flown every type so far mentioned (excluding the VP1 and the P51) and a few more besides. I have flown only two types that I enjoyed as much as the DHC-1, the DH114 and, even better, the DH104 (one of which I owned for a few months back when I was earning real money).

Oh, and I agree with foxmoth - only a hamfisted imbecile could find the Chippie 'spin-prone' (whatever that is).

Ahhh, De Havilland!

[foxmoth]

de Havilland!:ugh::ugh::ugh:

[Dan the weegie]

Foxmouth :p

[foxmoth]

weeegie -:hmm:

[BillieBob]

deHavilland!:ugh::ugh::ugh: 'de Havilland' I will allow (although the capitalised version is widely used from Britannica to the 1891 census) but never 'deHavilland'

[foxmoth]

You are of course correct in de Havilland - from "the Havilland" not sure what the correct term for the bit of English language it is (Tautology I think), but maybe brings into question the Moth club - "The de Havilland Moth Club"

[Justiciar]

Come on Chipmunk lovers, they’re a terrible bit of kit. They are slow, unheated, have very little endurance, lose a startling amount of speed in a turn, are spin prone and tandem seating is antisocial and not good for instruction.

All absolutely essential qualities in an aircraft to be enjoyed :ok:

.... apart from "spin prone", though I don't understand what that means in the context of a DHC-1. Do you mean low, slow and tight turn = flick and spin? If so, don't be low and slow when in a tight turn :=

[foxmoth]

Do you mean low, slow and tight turn = flick and spin? If so, don't be low and slow when in a tight turn

Never had it do that to me - though of course only done it at height teaching stall in a turn and taking correct recovery action immediately.

[Justiciar]

Nor me :O

I am becoming an old and hopefully not bold pilot :hmm:

[hatzflyer]

I note lots of people have mentioned RVs as a generic type but there are 12 types of RV.
Whilst they are all above average you really should only compare the 3, 4and 8 in this context because the pilot its on the centreline ( the 3 is single seat).

The 4 is the best handling 2 seater, the roll axis is exactly on the bridge of the nose for an average height pilot. Its excess of power compared to the chippy makes it nicer handling in my opinion.

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

Its excess of power compared to the chippy makes it nicer handling in my opinion.

Uh? How does more power make it handle better? That's like saying red cars are faster than green ones.

The Yak 52's 360 bhp is way more than the dHC1's 145 bhp , but the Chippy has better harmonised handling than does the Yak.

[Dan Winterland]

To answer this question, you have to look at what the RAF replaced it with. The Bulldog.

Except that it didn't replace it entirely. The Bulldog came along in the early 70s and replaced the Chippy in the University Air Clubs Squadrons but the Chippy was still being used for elementary flying training for direct entry pilots until 1993 and only left RAF service at the same time as it's replacement. I never hear anyone waxing lyrical over the Bulldog like they do the Chipmunk.

When the RAF EFTS was being closed down to be replaced by a civillian contractor, there were five contenders using four different aircraft - the T67, the SAH1, the FFA Bravo and the Zlin 242L. The EFTS instructors flew them all and we were unanimous that the Zlin was the best, but none were as good as the Chippy. In the end the T67 won based on the whole training package rather than the quality of the aircraft - and no one will ever convince me it was a worthy successor.

OK, so the Chiipy is costly, underpowered, doesn't carry enough fuel, expensive to run, slow, cold and prone to spin according to the posts here, but for pure flying pleasure and delight in handling, there is no better. No aircraft built since 1948 can match it.

So in my opinion, the question as to what can replace the Chipmunk can best be answered with "nothing".

http://i210.photobucket.com/albums/bb73/dbchippy/A2A003.jpg

[Dan Winterland]

Continuing on from my previous post, I feel inclined to give my opinion on some of the aircraft mentioned already from my experience of flying them. Bearing in mind that of my roughly 2000 hours of light aircraft flying, about a thousand are on the Chipmunk - I'm inclined to be a little biased!

Bulldog: Capable, but not as nice to handle. The original Pup is a nicer aeroplane.

Slingsby T67: Started off as a wooden aircraft designed by Rene Fournier - a sculptor and not an aircraft designer. The original RF6 was nice, it lost something in Slingsby's translation. The handling is not pleasant.

FFA Bravo: Heavy and too stable. Control harmonistaion feels odd.

SAH1: A nice try - and British. But too lightweight and had a homebuilt feel. Handles nicely.

GROB 115: OK, but still feels a bit like the G109 motorglider it was developed from. Only the 115T is cleared for aerobatics though.

Zlin 242L: Nice, but heavy. Well built and has powerful controls which lack perfect harmonisation which detract form the overall impression. Designed by a Pole - like the Chippy.

SF260: Lovely, powerful - but complex. It's an airborne Ferrari and the front line attack aircraft in some smaller countries. A different sort of aeroplane.

Yak 52: Good, powerful, but not as nicely harmonised. Feels a bit agicultural but it's in a different league to the Chippy.

Harvard: Again a different league and operating costs way higher.

Extras (various): A different class of aircraft, but very nice. An Extra 300 is way too costly to operate to be compared.

Nord 3202: A more powerful French Chippy. Nice, but rare and much more costly to run.

Decathalon: The Decathalon is the only light aircraft I fly these days. This is because there is one at a flying club near my in-laws which I hire on my infrequent visits to the UK. But I only hire it as there is no Chipmunk to rent nearby! It's aeroabatic (It's a standard) and a taildragger, but I wouldn't call it an overly nice aircraft to fly. The controls are light and powerful, but not well harmonised. And like many American aircraft, it's just a bit too stable in pitch to be a good aeroabtic mount. In a slow roll, the stick ends up pushed all the way to the instrument panel. Also, the view with the high wing is poor.

Pitts (various): The S1 is nice, but very limiting in most aspects, except for doing aerobatics in the airfield overhead. The S2, much more capable, but again a specialist aircraft and a different category to the Chippy.

C152 Aerobat: Don't make me laugh!

Supermunk: The RAFGSA converted ones are not cleard for spinning and aerobatics which defeats the object in owning one.

Vans: I've only flown the RV4 and my impression was that it was the closest think to a Chippy without being a Chippy. But the harmonistaion is not quite as good, although close. The advantage of being able to chose your engine/prop combination is a big plus. I was planning on building one, but a move overseas scuppered that idea.

Cap10: A mate and I were trying to find a Chippy to buy just over 10 years ago. But all the ones we saw had limited engine life and/or TNs outstanding. So we looked at the CAP 10 as the closest thing available. It's a lovely aircraft with crisp handling. The original Emeraude from which it was developed is a beautiful little machine. But they have maintenance issues if they have the wooden spar and although more capabale as an aerobatic mount than they first appear, they are still not a nice to fly as the Chippy. And interestingly, there is a thread on this forum about what could replace a CAP10 - the first respondant (not me!) suggests the Chippy!

The Chippy still wins in my book!

http://i210.photobucket.com/albums/bb73/dbchippy/Ludlow89-119.jpg

[foxmoth]

prone to spin according to the posts here

No - according to ONE post - and I think that was effectively rebutted!

[Mark 1]

Rans: I've only flown the RV4

It's Vans not Rans.

I think Rans make tents!

[Heston]

Rag and tube aeroplanes as well as tents! (Rans that is)

H

[BillieBob]

Fair comment, it is the 'Vans' RV series, as opposed to the 'Rans' S series (as well as bicycles but not AFAIK tents). However, whether Rans or Vans, it's still no match for a Chipmunk.

[Dan Winterland]

Sorry to all Vans owners!



As for Chippys being prone to spinning, I know it was successfully rebuked - I was using it as an illustration of the attitude prevailing. In fact, of course the Chippy was designed to spin. It was designed as a military trainer when the front line fighters were Spitfire, Mustangs, Tempests etc. Learning on an aircraft which had any spin tendancy removed would make it worse trainer. Plus any increased safety margin at the stall would probably make it more stable and less manoeuvreable - most would agree the handling of the aircraft is it's best feature.

Chippy spinning has a bit of a myth about it which probably arose from the high accident statistics it achieved in RAF service. There were some initial probalems, remedied with the fitting of anti spin stakes and a wider chord rudder. And later in it's service, pilots would climb in one on an Air Training Corps summer camp, think "it's only a Chippy" and then go and have an accident. This prompted an excellent article called "a wolf in sheeps clothing" in the RAF safey magazine 'Air Clues' which highlighted and tried to remedy the errors made by complacent fighter pilots.

In a thousand hours of flying it, I never found it particularly prone to spinning. It's true that you can induce a spin with use of aileron against any roll at the stall, but this is true of many types. I have spun the Chippy many hundreds of times and never had a unpleasant experience. In fact, when we used to teach the RAF students incipeint spinning, the handling was impecable. Entering a spin from about 60 knots in various attitudes, the student was given control and all he/she had to do to recover was centralise the control cloumn and close the throttle - the spin would recover almost immeditely (if acted on promptly enough) - which is exactly what you wanted in a military trainer and why it was so good.

[LowNSlow]

Dan, there are still Chippies in RAF service. They are with the BBMF to give the ex-jet jockeys tailwheel time before converting onto the Spit, Hurri, DC3 or Lancaster. See the little beauties on Welcome to the BBMF - The Chipmunk (http://www.raf.mod.uk/bbmf/theaircraft/chipmunk.cfm)

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

Here's ours next to a BBMF one.... Think ours looks better!

http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b132/GZK6NK/SierraLimaholdingherownres.jpg

Didn't the Chippy once have the reputation of having killed more senior RAF officers than any other type? Come a nice sunny day the brass hats would dust of their flying suits and take to the skies.

"It's only a Chippy" indeed, but it'll bite all right if you don't treat it with the respect with which you have to treat all aeroplanes.

[J.A.F.O.]

having killed more senior RAF officers than any other type
Yeah, but that's not the only reason I like it.

[Croqueteer]

:sad:I don't think the chipmunk could beat the Shack in that respect, although I did fly with a co-pilot that was killed in a Chippie.

[Chipmunk Janie]

Of my 1000 odd GA VFR hours, 50% are spread out over 10 different Chipmunks. I'm right up there with all the Chipmunk obsessives.

I've flown the Tiger Moth, Harvard, Emeraude, Cap10, RV6 etc etc and, having looped and rolled a Spitfire T9, however delightful, the Chipmunk still has the closer aileron/elevator harmonisation.

I also heard from the actual test pilot who did the original Chipmunk spin-strake testing that, although the strakes made an insignificant difference to the spin characteristics, because the accidents subsequently stopped/deteriorated(?) after they were fitted, they decided not to promulgate that fact.


A Chipmunk can only be replaced by a Chipmunk. However, there is one aircraft that has not been mentioned at all yet, which fits the bill quite well. It has two issues: The tailwheel is at the wrong end and there are none in England (AFAIK). It is a contemporary of the Chipmunk, with lots of character, and outperforms the RVs. It is the Beechcraft T-34 Mentor. I would absolutely love to fly one again.


Beechcraft T-34 Mentor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beechcraft_T-34_Mentor)

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beechcraft_T-34_Mentor)
Anyone else here flown one? Fun isn’t it?

[Dan Winterland]

TF is a GSA Supermunk and as well as being a single seater, Lycoming 180 powered and not cleared for aerobatics.

[kevkdg]

Ooops, posted in a rush. Removed it now

[wsmempson]

What about this?? On a very well known marketplace, but with a Lycoming??

DH Chipmunk Mk 23 | eBay (http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/DH-Chipmunk-Mk-23-/290627960277?pt=UK_CPV_Aviation_SM&hash=item43aac6bdd5#ht_500wt_1413)

[The Heff]

I've just checked wsmempson's link on G-INFO, and read that this example is a Certificate of Airworthiness, but is Non-EASA. Does this mean that chipmunks are going to need Permit's to Fly soon?

[BillieBob]

AFAIK all Chipmunks are non-EASA aeroplanes, as are Bulldogs, DC-3s and DC-6s, but that doesn't mean they have to be on a permit. There is no development due in the foreseeable future that is likely to change that.

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

Does this (EASA / non-EASA) have any pilot licencing implications for those of us who fly Chippys in UK?

[BillieBob]

No, the UK CAA has expressed its intention to make the privileges of an EASA licence valid on UK registered Annex II aircraft so you will be able to fly the Chipmunk on either an EASA or a UK national licence.

[overun]

Foxmoth,
l wasn`t interested in the ball. The chippy isn`t a looker but it flatters pilots, it is just perfect.

How to replace it ?

Build a new one.

l really don`t have a clue about spin training these days.......

lt used to be it wasn`t required, people were killed, spin training is

required, nobody killed, spin training not required, people killed, ... etc.

People produced airplanes that " wouldn`t spin " until some *rse found a way.

Always one.

[foxmoth]

Foxmoth,
l wasn`t interested in the ball. The chippy isn`t a looker but it flatters pilots, it is just perfect.

And if you read my post you will see that I realised that - but balance is not the right terminology because that DOES refer to the ball. I also think many will disagree with your statement "The chippy isn`t a looker but it flatters pilots," Looks good to me and it will show up a poor pilot - one reason it makes a good trainer.
Also very puzzled by your bit about spinning - posted after a few glasses of something maybe as it does not seem to make sense? When spin training was required there certainly WERE people killed through it, often though because they and their instructor had learnt spinning properly, often because they learnt in an aircraft that was normally very benign, then span in an aircraft that DID spin properly, but they had not REALLY learnt how to deal with it!
I also would like to know which aircraft you refer to in:-
People produced airplanes that " wouldn`t spin " until some *rse found a way certainly before WW1 they produced aircraft that would spin -the spin killed a number of pilots and the first known spin recovery was as a result of Lt Parke RN getting into an unintentional spin in 1912.
???

[overun]

Foxmoth.

My feeling is that the chippy is an ungainly bird on the ground. A pawnee looks better.

l respect your feelings. Obviously l don`t agree, but this is real life and l have to tell it as l feel it.

As for spin training l`m just repeating what was happening in the 70`s, with caa guides to the issuing of ppl`s.

Off and on like a whores drawers. ( my chances of spelling that correctly after a few ..... ? ).

Unspinnable aircraft.

Alexander Sliecker - ok, hands up with that one - produced the Ask 21, a

fairly benign 2 seat trainer which had to be loaded with lead weights on a

threaded bar through the tail fin to induce it to lurch towards the down

going wing, at which point it would recover itself - unless a little too much

weight was added at which point the nose would rise to slightly above the

horizon and all sounds of airflow would stop.

Low noise.
Lack of control effectiveness.
High rate of sink.

l won`t bore you with the other stall indications, but it was an after market mod designed as an after thought for the K23.

A single seat first solo machine that could not spin.

My brief for the first solo ( not a few l may add ) was to move the stick

forward and back, find the mid point, keep it there whilst balancing the

wings. It will fly when ready. The nose wheel was regularly stoven in by

the people who didn`t know that the elevator woke up after the

mainplane, so that if the stick wasn`t on its way forward when the wing

produced lift it was on its way back. The end result was the same.

Oodles of people went on to fly powered aircraft after this training.

Sorry about the delay. but the facts are correct. (1500hrs on the K21)

[foxmoth]

Ah, misunderstood what you were getting at there, not flown the K21, actually looks like it might fly OK which would make a big change compared to most aircraft that will not spin, I expect you could make most aircraft hard to spin, but would probably spoil the handling, which would certainly be a crime with the Chippie!

[overun]

Agreed.

Friends l hope, l enjoyed your probing. lf you know what l mean :) !

[foxmoth]

Sounds ok 2 me:ok:

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

Whether the Chippy looks good or not is in the eye of the beholder. It is, however, generally considered a looker by most according to folk I talk to and opinions on Internet forums (including PPRuNe where there was even a thread entitled 'The Chipmunk is Beautiful').

What is indisputable however is that it does not flatter a pilot. One of the reasons it is such a good trainer is that is it easy to fly, but difficult to fly well. If you have any shortcomings in your technique, the Chippy will find them and show them to the world; there is no hiding place!

[overun]

Hardly indisputable, given the circumstances.

[Gipsy Queen]

"You would not want to replace the Chipmunk just the outdated piece of junk that pulls it along and covers the airframe in oil !

the Chipmunk is about the nicest aircraft I have ever flown attached to the worst engine that I have ever worked on."

Ditto from me.

I have quite a few DH types in my books and, without question and from a pilot's perspective, they have all been superior aircraft with a decided "house" character. Least favourite were the DH82A and the DH114. The DH 89 was quite fun but prone to wing-tip stall on occasions. Lots of others were somewhere in between but in terms of being a pleasure to fly and having the best harmonised controls of any aircraft I have flown, the DHC1 stands head and shoulders above all others of my acquaintance.

An American sawmill engine has never appealed in this context - it seems alien to the ethos of this aircraft - but years ago, I had to give up the notion of fitting a Blackburn Bombadier. This would at a stroke have provided more power and rid me of the incontinence of Major Halford's child but the red tape (50 years ago) proved insurmountable and it never happened.

I have affection for a lot of aircraft but nothing like the fondness I have for the viceless and delightfully responsive Chippie. OK, so you had to be careful of the number of turns in a spin but so what? :eek: Regardless of how well I flew the kite, it would always fly better than me and provided a constant encouragement to better airmanship.

Sadly, few of today's pilots have any understanding of the type of flying afforded by this type of machine, one which was expressly designed to do those things which are expressly designed out of modern tinware. Pity.

GQ.

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

Is the Blackburn engine as reliable as the Dripsy? In UK I'd say you'd have no chance of getting CAA approval for such a Major (pun intended!) change without some sort of massively expensive re-certification excercise.

[Blink182]

So ......are there any modern alternative engines for the Chippy ???

[Dr Jekyll]

There seems to be a consensus that the Chipmunk is very good to fly, but the Moth isn't.

Is there any reason why DH or DHC couldn't have built what was essentially a Chipmunk 15 or 20 years earlier?

[Jan Olieslagers]

So ......are there any modern alternative engines for the Chippy ??? Can't imagine any, inline engines seem to be out of fashion and I'm sure there must be a reason. Perhaps the Wilksch diesel would fit? But that would likely be overweight.

For an unelegant solution to this problem on the SV4, find images of OO-KAT. But don't ask me how they ever managed to get approval for this mod, must have been one hell of paperwork.

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

Is there any reason why DH or DHC couldn't have built what was essentially a Chipmunk 15 or 20 years earlier?

I think the sectret of the Chippy's superb handling is the combination of dH and a Polish designer. 15 or 20 years earlier, they didn't have the latter.

[Gipsy Queen]

"Is the Blackburn engine as reliable as the Dripsy? In UK I'd say you'd have no chance of getting CAA approval for such a Major (pun intended!) change without some sort of massively ex'pensive re-certification excercise.

Reliability? Dunno. The Bombardier was the last development of the long line of Cirrus models. Memory is getting a bit dim now but I recall the Bombardier being used in the Auster AOP9 and I think a small helicopter of the mid-'fifties used it as well. In military form, the engine was rated at a bit over 200hp, about 25hp more than the "civilian" variant and therefore a useful increase of the Gipsy Major Mk10's 145hp for only a notional weight increase but it was never approved on the civil register. When I approached them, the bowler hats adopted their customarily negative and unhelpful attitude, the people at Brough weren't much better so in the face of this obduracy of officialdom, I gave up with proceeding with what was an entirely appropriate idea and, I still feel, would have been a very successful conversion. Apart from a brief period when Sir Sefton Brancker was in charge, the UK has never provided any real encouragement of light aviation and what was left after the War was finished off by Wedgwood Benn. Something akin to the US "Experimental" category would be allowing the plebs far too much autonomy.

I remember that having calculated the static centres of mass of the Blackburn and DH engines, there was room for the former forward of the standard bulkhead so minor modification of the engine braces and mounts should have proved sufficient. For a moment, I flirted with the notion of fitting a Regnier 4L.04 but felt that this would prove even more fraught with obstacles. I was sort of interested in Art Scholl's Ranger conversion and thought a Walter as used in a Zlin I occasionally flew might do but it was always back to the bureaucrats (who, in retrospect, saved me a ton of money!)

I never discovered the accepted TBO figures of the Bombardier but given its lineage, I suspect that with operational experience these might have bettered the DH powerplant. Actually, I have no real knowledge of Blackburn engines beyond having had a pair of Cirrus Minors (90hp) struggling to get me aloft in the Miles Gemini in which I took my multi rating.

But in looking back, I wonder if monkeying with the Chippie spec would have produced any real benefits. There have been so many occasions of a nicely-handling a/c being unacceptably compromised by the changing of some component. An example coming to mind is the 90hp Victa Airtourer which was a fun machine but the 150hp variant, whilst obviously benefiting from the power increase, was not so well balanced and not so nice to fly as a consequence.

Perhaps those lucky enough to own a DHC1 should accept the foibles of the engine, keep a good supply a rags handy, a short length of 4 X 2 in the after cockpit to thump the starboard mag impulse mechanism when gooed up with cold oil and just continue to enjoy a thoroughly delightful aeroplane. How I envy you . . .

GQ.

And to Dr Jekyll,
Some Moths were very nice to fly, the Puss and Leopard particularly so. I didn't care greatly for the Tiger and after having spent a couple of hours in a Stampe SV4, never bothered to fly one again.

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

Perhaps those lucky enough to own a DHC1 should accept the foibles of the engine, keep a good supply a rags handy, a short length of 4 X 2 in the after cockpit to thump the starboard mag impulse mechanism when gooed up with cold oil and just continue to enjoy a thoroughly delightful aeroplane. How I envy you . . .

That's my sentiment exactly. The old lady isn't perfect by a country mile (oily, noisy, no cockpit heat, no luggage space, short duration, underpowered, expensive to maintain). But crikey. What an aeroplane!

[CharlieOneSix]

Five years ago I climbed into the front seat of the very RAF Chipmunk in which I did the last solo cross-country of my basic training some 44 years before. The smell, the noise, just everything about it sent me back to when I was 18 and the smile on my face when we landed an hour later lasted for days and days.....

[overun]

C16.

A lovely, heartwarming story.

The perfect aircraft.

...... looks a bit iffy on the ground though, it doesn`t look as though it grew there. ;)

[Mechta]

So ......are there any modern alternative engines for the Chippy ??? http://www.aero-news.net/images/content/genav/2007/thielert-Centurion20-0107a2.jpg
The Thielert Centurion 2.0 diesel weighs 134kg, and produces 135hp, or 155hp with the 2.0S version. (Dripsy Major 1C is somewhere between 136kg & 150kg and 145hp (or was when new).

If it could be rotated clockwise a few degrees, maybe it might even fit in a Dripy Major cowling?

At least, being a diesel you might get rather better range from your paltry 18 gallons.

[Justiciar]

I would love to try and get to the bottom of the statement that Chipmunks are expensive to maintain and therefore run.

Ours costs between £2,000 and £3,000 per annum in maintenance and £100 per hour to fly (slightly subsidised by the group's other activities). When it chewed bearings recently the bill was around £12k (without any work on the cylinders, which were in good condition). That sounds to me to be comparable to a PA28 or C172 being run in a group environment. Would a similar engine problem on a Lyco cost any less to sort?

I know that there are serious spares issues as regards the engines, but despite that a large number of de Havillands and other aircraft using the Gypsy engine seem to manage to stay in the air year in year out.

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

I think it's becuase the aeroplane was designed for the military at a time when the RAF had hundreds of technicians, so lengthy maintenance proceedures were not a problem for that customer. Jobs on Chippys take longer than similar jobs on Cessnas or suchlike - things are harder to get at. Ease of maintenance was not high on the designers priorities.

Also, spares can be horrendously expensive because of scarcity. As an example, some years ago we had to replace a fuel tank. This is just a rubber bladder, but it cost us £4,000 for one! In more enlightened countries, metal fuel tanks can be used to replace the inferior rubber ones at much lower cost, but as these are not 'original equipment' on the type, the CAA will not allow their fitting!

[Gipsy Queen]

Been going back a bit and just noticed BillieBob's comments (Nr48).

Rather off topic but we seem to have some similar types in our logs. However, I'm a little surprised at his liking for the 114. It was not among my favourites. And if people complain about incontinent Chippies, they should live with a Heron for a while. Those Sixes were almost as bad and there were four of them! But I share BillieBob's liking of the 104. This was DH at their best and I loved the aircraft so much I adopted the engine as a moniker!

I always thought it a pity that they had the bump in the roof. Rather spoiled the otherwise clean lines but I suppose the Vampire gear was cheaper than a redesign.

Also noticed something overlooked the first time around - the Chippie's claimed propensity for spinning. Utter rubbish! Why this bunkum persists as urban legend I do not know. A properly rigged DHC1 would not necessarily drop a wing from a fully stalled condition; indeed, it could nearly always be held upright with the rudder. It would spin only when it was asked to and disregarding effects of prop torque, it would spin in either direction with equal facility. The question mark in this flight regime was the tendency for the aircraft to go flat if full elevator and rudder were left on for too long. For this reason I limited spins to four turns and had no trouble but it has to be admitted that there were those who perished from non-recoverable flat spins.

But, given sufficient provocation, they all bite . . . .

GQ.

[Big Pistons Forever]

Foxmoth,
l wasn`t interested in the ball. The chippy isn`t a looker but it flatters pilots, it is just perfect.



You must be talking about UK Chippies with their ugly and ungainly canopy of many struts and panels. The Canadian examples with their pretty streamlined tear drop dome style canopy look great. :E

[Justiciar]

Also, spares can be horrendously expensive because of scarcity. As an example, some years ago we had to replace a fuel tank. This is just a rubber bladder, but it cost us £4,000 for one! In more enlightened countries, metal fuel tanks can be used to replace the inferior rubber ones at much lower cost, but as these are not 'original equipment' on the type, the CAA will not allow their fitting!

Is this not so with many aircraft and certain spares which are scarce. And I seem to remember some serious costs getting a PA28 fuel tank resealed. Not at the £4k level sure and not a scarce item, but expensive enough.

The point you make shows the continuing idiocy of compelling the fitting of "original" equipment when there is something cheaper, more modern and safer available. There is no virtue in the term "original" and what was original was often a compromise, or something fitted because it happened to be available. This is not something permit types suffer from and as we know they are not falling out fo the sky.

The chippy isn`t a looker

Are we talking about the same aircraft? "Looker"? I think sitting on the grass outside the hanger on a warm summer's evening there is little that looks better in the aviation world. And unlike some that just look good the Chipmunk also flies well, as many far more experienced than me have repeatedly testified to.

[overun]

The Chippy looks as though it`s been through the hands of an expert in taxidermy.

Scale it down and it has the legs of a barn owl :)

and the wings of an angel !