Chipmunk in a crosswind

[BoeingBoy]

I had a happy hour in a Chipmunk yesterday but on landing was presented with a 90 degree crosswind up to 15 knots. I have 35 hours on type but a lot of other tail wheel types in my log book over the years.

Normally in such conditions I set a couple notches of brake and wheel the aircraft on. The landing was perfect and the tail settled nicely but after a couple of seconds a gust caught me to the left. Correcting to the right brought on a series of yaws ending up with an embarrasing ground loop at around ten knots. No damage to the aircraft but a lot to my pride!!

What's the general consesus of how to handle limiting crosswinds in the Chippy. How do you do it and do you preset some brake before landing or trust in the brake lever?

Thanks for your answers.

BB;)

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

Never set brake before landing in a Chippy, except perhaps during the early phases of being checked out and you have yet to get used to the aeroplane.

I say this as someone who has flown one over the last 33 years, ever since gaining my PPL, and has never ever ground looped.

Setting brake will result in exactly the situation you describe; you have limited rudder travel due the brake being set, and at that limit you will apply the brake when what you really need is more rudder! Result? You arrest the incipient swing but when you run out of rudder and hit the brake... you set off a swing the other way - and so on until you ground loop!

You are depriving yourself of full rudder, and running into brake application in a harsh manner.

Leave the brakes unset. Use ALL the available rudder. If that's not enough (you hit the stop but the incipient swing hasn't ceased) just GENTLY pull back on the brake lever. You'll already have the relevant full rudder on, so only the requisite wheel will be braked, and in a much more controlled manner than running out of rudder and hitting harsh brake before the rudder bar has reached the stop!

In fact, I use my little finger, hooked around the brake lever, to geeeeently feeeed in juuuust enough brake (puuuull while you feeeel) to negate the incipient swing without starting one the other way! And all this while holding full anti-swing rudder. It really is the only way to do it! And very satisfying!

[BoeingBoy]

Think you're probably right Shaggy. I normally wouldn't set the brakes before landing but thought that with the crosswind on limits it might be a good idea...........or not, as proved by the result.

[bingoboy]

ISTR that the RAF used to teach 2 to 3 clicks.

On hard surface a click or 2 should always be useful in a crosswind as one transitions to taxy speed.

[BoeingBoy]

Well that's the idea that I was working on, but the aircraft had not flown since August and had it's six months check in between so the brakes were working well (for a change)

BB;)

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

Time to put to bed the 'RAF always taught' myth. Here's a post from a highly respected member of PPRuNe last time we had this discussion:

You have to remember that the pilot's notes are written by a chap (albeit a clever one - he's a test pilot) who has never flown the aircraft before and has limited time and a limited budget to get the book written. In the Chippy's case, the chap came up with the idea of using brake for landing in strong crosswinds and left it at that. I was involved with the Chippy on and off for about the last 10 years of it's life (excluding BBMF) in the RAF and in that time brake was never used for landing as an SOP despite being in the Pliot's Notes and the FRCs (checklists) for all of those years. The x-wind limit is 15 knts, full rudder was perfectly adquate to maintain straight in these conditions. However, with a gust, the technique which SSD advocates (a squeeze of brake) work wonders. Applying full rudder in a panic with the brakes set slightly will invariaby end up in a groundloop which is why we didn't.

[maxred]

SSD, each to his own, however, 1/2 clicks were applied on take off, and never re set, therefore landings were generally conducted with 1/2 clicks on. I have several hundred hours on type, and have never ground looped either.

I think it depends on experience level, and what the PIC is comfortable with. Remember that a strong crosswind landing is always going to be a challenge in a tail dragger, and the Chippy with relatively large rudder area, will be very responsive to input. Start phaphing about with hand on brake, wondering whether to pull slightly or not, whilst attempting to keep straight etc etc, may be alright for you and your experience, but may not be an accomplishment for someone else with perhaps less taildragger time.

'RAF always taught' myth

They did turn out a hell of a lot of pilots, apparently very well trained, on this type, with their methods;)

[Thud105]

I've always wondered why DH used such a stupid, half-assed system in the first place!

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

It's an excellent system that works well once you're used to it. Much better than the system on the Yak52!

I do hope maxred isn't serious when he says "1/2 clicks were applied on take off, and never re set, therefore landings were generally conducted with 1/2 clicks on."

Very sloppy technique, and downright dangerous! Any brake left on in flight can prevent spin recovery by limiting the available rudder travel - especially in a fully developed flattish Chippy spin where recovery isn't instant anyway!

And one of the pre-take off checks is 'brakes fully off'! (Why would anyone want brakes on for take off?? :confused: )

[bingoboy]

When I learned and flew Chipmunks (RAF) the clicks were used for taxying and landing if conditions were adverse but never take off or flight.

Yes one can squeeze the brake but that does mean moving hands from the throttle or stick.

[Thud105]

I don't know the Yak but have a few hours in Chipmunks. IMHO its a silly system, what's wrong with toe - or even heel brakes?

[maxred]

Very sloppy technique, and downright dangerous! Any brake left on in flight can prevent spin recovery by limiting the available rudder travel - especially in a fully developed flattish Chippy spin where recovery isn't instant anyway!

SSD-We were specifically discussing crosswind techniques, where the pilots notes are clear in selecting brake differential for x winds.:ugh:

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

maxred, you said "1/2 clicks were applied on take off, and never re set, therefore landings were generally conducted with 1/2 clicks on." Crosswind or not, that's dangerous! A potential killer, in fact.

Also, see the above comment about the Chippy pilot's notes. A very valid point!

Use the left hand for the brake. When operating the brake lever in the (vanishingly rare) event of needing differential brake when full rudder is not enough, you are in the latter part of the roll-out, throttle shut, and can use your left (throttle) hand; RH is keeping the stick hard back of course.

What's wrong with the dH design? It works beautifully, all the way from 'brakes always on' (for when parked) to zero brake (any other time apart from taxy). No heavy brake pedals and mechanism on the rudder bar (as you have with toe brakes) makes it delightfully light to operate. And heel brakes get in the way for aeros!

[Thud105]

I guess Boeing, Cessna, Douglas, Piper, Lockheed, North American and just about everyone else got it wrong then!
Sorry - but IMHO its just about as silly as using a Coffmann starter to crank a 145hp engine..............
Great handling though!

[Hobo]

I flew the chippy for 40 hours at Elstree in 1965 on a flying scholarship, and about 60 hours in 1967 at an airfield just SE of Southampton. IIRC, we never set the brake in flight for any reaon at either school.

[maxred]

Crosswind or not, that's dangerous! A potential killer, in fact

I bow to a Sky God..............:8

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

I guess Boeing, Cessna, Douglas, Piper, Lockheed, North American and just about everyone else got it wrong then!

Not for non-aerobatic types. Clunky brakes are OK for them. :E

I ask again.. what is wrong with dH's method? Is it just that you're used to toe / heel brakes and so dH's isn't intuitive for you? It's an excellent system that contributes to that 'excellent handling' by keeping mass off the rudder bar, and once you are used to it it's far more flexible in use, with wider options in a taildragger that's agile on the ground as well as in the air, than any toe or heel brake.

I felt the same about the Yak52 when I first tried it; fully castoring nosewheel and mainwheel brakes operated by the rudder bar position in conjuction with a stick-mounted bicycle-type brake lever to active the appropriate air brake on the main wheel.

"Oh for a nice dH system" I thought as I hissed my way across the apron somewhat uncertainly. But after a short while flying the aeroplane I saw the sense of it - like the dH system, no clutter on the rudder bar keeps the controls light and low-mass, and no heel brakes in the way to hinder your feet. Nice system!

Give me either the Yak or the dH system any day above toe or heel brakes (and yes, I've plenty of experience of them in Cessnas, PA28s / 38s, Cubs, Citabrias and many more).

[Thud105]

As far as I can recall, the T-6s, T-28s and P-51s that I flew were aerobatic.

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

I never said they weren't.

[maxred]

Well done SSD. In a couple of posts you have...........

Suggested that the whole RAF training, on the DH Chipmunk, was, well...wrong.
Suggested that the Test guys who wrote the notes, were, well.....wrong.
Suggested that the majority of US based and manufactured training types, were, well......poorly designed.
Suggested that everyone else who has an opinion, is well....wrong.

Good days work at the office I would suggest......LOL:\

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

Four arms, 2 each side, if you include the flap lever. Another one for the fuel selector, could be on left or right? Then there's the radio, transponder, altimeter subscale knob, mags, carb heat, canopy release.... Crikey, an octopus with twice the normal alloctaion of arms couldn't do it.... :E

Thing is... And I know this might be a tad obvious... you don't need to operate all of these things at once! :ok:

maxred - can I lend you a longer-handled scraper to use on that barrel? :}

[maxred]

Floats on the top sir, for all to see. Floats on the top. Until it becomes jetsum, all washed up and that........

[Thud105]

OK - I can see I'm going to have to spell it out.
The T-6, T-28 and P-51 do not have clunky brakes.
If the DH system is so good - why does no-one design aircraft with it today?

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

Hey, Betamax was far superior to VHS but it was the latter that took the market. And it's dH, by the way.

[maxred]

Yo, Thud, there are times in life when, well it might be best to retire gracefully.

It may be something in the water, all the recent flooding.

[Thud105]

I have a copy of the official de Havilland logo on my desk as I type. It says 'DH'.
Somehow, I think that that silly brake system would look a bit odd on the flightdeck of a 747, or even in the cockpit of a Stearman. Still, what would Boeing know eh?
Still, I admire the spirited, albeit irrational and blinkered defence. What about the Coffmann starter, and stupidly-sized gas tank -or are they other examples of design genius that I've missed?

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

You continue to slag off the superb brake system on the dHC1, and haven't yet said what's wrong with it! I've told you what's right with it... if you disagree, perhaps you could enlighten us as to what do you think is wrong with it?

Our Chippy is electric start.

Small fuel tanks were because it wasn't ever designed to be a tourer. It was a basic military trainer, so short sorties. 18 gallons is more than enough; no point in carting loads of fuel on circuits or a local aeros sortie, and the lower weight translates into better performance.

Did that not occur to you before you queried the limited fuel capacity? It seems it didn't. :rolleyes:

[Thud105]

Why should you have to use your feet and hands to apply differential braking? That's what's wrong with it.

So someone who owned your Chippy realised that a Coffmann starter for a 145hp putt-putt was just plain stupid and put a sensible electric starter on it. Well done them.

Just because you have sensibly-sized tanks - you don't have to fill them up. But when you need the range - its nice to have it. Unless the tanks are a stupid size, when you simply can't. I guess that's why the civvy Chippies did have sensibly-sized tanks. Remember, you don't have to fill them up.

Did that not occur to you before you praised the limited fuel capacity? It seems it didn't.:rolleyes:

[foxmoth]

Hey guys, how about some perspective here,
The Chippie is an old lady and not far from when NO aircraft had brakes, so that was a good thing when included in any way! The question of a couple of clicks on or manual braking is something that has always divided Chippie pilots and always will, I learnt both and teach both, letting people pick what they think is best for them.
As far as the argument for American aircraft goes, they might be better than the Chippie on the ground, but there are few light aircraft until you get to the RVs that can match the Chippie for handling in the air, and THAT, IMHO is where it counts!:ok::}

[gpugh]

Hi my father instructed on Chipmunks with the Navy for many years and he says that the correct proceedure for setting the brakes was whilst still on the ground to apply full rudder then apply the brakes noting the number of clicks required and each aircraft was different, you would then have to remember the number of clicks for that aircraft that you could apply as required and in this way you would still have full use of the rudder without any restriction, never any brake set on take off or landing, was supposed to add unless x wind and thats when you needed to remember the specific no of clicks for that aircraft

[Thud105]

"The Chippie is an old lady and not far from when NO aircraft had brakes."
Wrong. Its post WWII, when just about everything had brakes.
Even flown a PT-26? It looks a lot like a Chipmunk. It has toe brakes, reasonable range and an electric starter.
I think that Fairchild stopped making them before de Havilland started making Chipmunks!
However, the Chipmunk sure does fly better!

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

My (limited) experience with a Chipmunk left me with the impression of a delightful aircraft, and taxiing it was really kind of fun... but only once you got used to the idea that you can't keep your hand on throttle when driving around on the ground... which really is a flaw of the design.

Silvaire, yes you can! :ok:

I usually set a couple of notches for taxy and then leave the brake lever alone until lined up for T/O. It taxys well, going precisely where your feet point it. Once lined up and with the tailwheel straight I pull the brake lever hard back and then release it to let it fly forward - so I know I have no brake set.

I don't touch that lever again (except for the pre-landing 'brakes off' check - pull it back and release) until I've vacated the runway on landing. Sometimes, in a strong crosswind (what this thread's about) I have tweaked the brake lever back with a curled little finger to augment full rudder; but I've vary rarely needed to do that.

The OP gives a good description of what can easily happen if you land with the brakes set.

The Chippy is as manouverable on the ground as it is in the air, and just as delightful. For sheer taxying fun, press full rudder, add a bit of power, keep the stick back, and do full 360s both ways (judging the correct moment of rudder reversal to reverse the turn after exactly 360 degrees is good practice for your feet!). And it's fun rotating cleanly around one main wheel, then the other as only a fully castoring tailwheel allows! I've never taxyed a toe or heel braked aeroplane that has such carefree, pure, ground handling as the dHC1.

But like most good things in life, it seems strange, even not nice, at first. Only when you are used to it do you realise how superbly good it is!

[Big Pistons Forever]

Having flown Chipmunks, Yak/Nanchangs, Heel brake Cubs, T Carts, Luscombes, Champs and Citabrias; and another 50 + types that had toe brakes I know what I would rather have ....................Toe Brakes.

However I really like the Chipmumk. It is a really pretty aircraft (especially those that have the original Canopy, not the iron mongers cast aways fitted to the UK ones) and has absolutely delightful flying characteristics.

The only problem with the airplane is the Canadian designers were forced to use crap UK systems like the brake system, all of the electrical components and the boat anchor Dripsy Major engine.

[Dan Winterland]

I recognise SSD's quote as my own. Here's my thoughts on the matter - based on a thousand hours on the Chippy, a majority of them spent instructing RAF Pilots.

As mentioned in the quote, from about 1985, the RAF never set brakes for landing in my experience. I know it was in the manuals, but at the max cross wind limit of 15 knots, it is more likely to make you groundloop than not. The reason being is that as you slow down having applied brake on one side, the fin/rudder becomes less effective and the brake will take over very quickly. If the release isn't anticipated in time, the aircraft will have already started swinging and releasing the brake to control yaw by centring the rudder will not establish directional control by rudder alone, as the aircraft is directionally unstable on the ground and you have now released the brake as well as taken away some of the aerodynamic control. The continued natural response is to steer with your feet and the subsequent inevitable large inputs will likely lead to a groundloop.

Although "wheeling" on is a useful technique for many taildraggers in a x-wind, it dosen't work well in the Chippy as the C of G is already quite close to the mainwheels and having the tail up just moves it closer and makes it less directionally stable - and also introduces the possibility of nosing over if the brakes are used too enthusiasticly.

The Chippy is easily landed in a 15 knot cross wind will full rudder alone and tail down. The technique I was taught, used and then also taught others is to land on three points, using rudder as necessary. As the aircraft slows down and aerodynamic directional contol is lost, very small brake application of just a small squeeze with what will be full rudder at that stage will keep you straight.

As for having brake applied for the whole flight, brakes were never left on in flight in the RAF. The first item in the after take off checks was "Brakes - Off", "Brakes - Off" was also an item in the HASELL checks and the last item of the pre landing checks was "Brakes - as required". (We never applied them). The reason being is that in aeros or a spin recovery, it was thought that the resistance felt as the brake master cylinder was pressurised could lead the pilot to think he/she had reached full rudder application. Although in reality, an adrenaline fed boot will easily overcome the pressure.

As for the test pilot comments - lots of aircraft have stuff in the manuals based on the TP's limited experience of the type which is subsequently overidden by later experience gained while operating the type on the front line. Many of the aircraft I flew in the military had information which was largely ignored as the experience levels increased. The manuals took a long time to amend. Sixty years and still waiting in the Chippy's case!

[Pontius]

Wise words from Dan, which echo many of Shaggy's. GPugh's father was one of my first instructors on the Chippy and I still remember him teaching me the brake-setting technique (for taxying) as we sat beneath a wind-swept, grey sky at Roborough Airport (I used to cheat and write down the number of 'clicks' for the subsequent taxy-in). My experience pales when compared to Dan's (I only have around 400 hrs in the Chippy, as an AEF and glider tug pilot) but his and Shaggy's technique of using just a little, progressively applied, light braking when you've got full rudder to counter the crosswind works well. We were taught brakes off for landing and it was only after clearing the runway that you re-set the number of 'clicks' for taxying.

As far as ergonomics go, the Chippy wouldn't win any modern prizes for design but who cares? It took little time to 'balance' the workload between throttle, braking and stick and once you've got used to it you don't even think about it. I'm not a lover of heel brakes but I'm quite happy to put up with them when mucking around in a Silvaire :) Likewise, I wasn't a fan of differential braking on the Jet Provost but was more than happy with the same thing on the Hunter :ok:

Now, I'm not suggesting we all have a big, group hug and start singing kumbaya but let's just accept that DH built the Chippy the way it is and enjoy it, no matter whether we think we could have done better or not. They are lovely aircraft to fly and I wish now I'd taken more advantage of the opportunities I had to fly them.

Finally, to the OP, I hope you've had your question answered; landing with brakes off and just a squeeeeeze of brake, once you've reached the rudder limit, to keep the nose straight at low speeds would seem to be the way ahead.

(And to GPugh, I hope your father is well and pass him my kind regards. His Grading advice and tuition set in motion a very happy and fulfilling career for me on the SHAR and I'm grateful he saw fit to send me off on my first solo Chippy flight :))

[gpugh]

Hi Pontius see PM

[gpugh]

Hi Thud 105 my father did his training in Canada during WW2 on the Cornell


Gordon

[scotbill]

The Chippy is easily landed in a 15 knot cross wind will full rudder alone and tail down. The technique I was taught, used and then also taught others is to land on three points, using rudder as necessary. For the experienced pilot perhaps - but not for the learner. The RAF insistence on the "kick off drift" method of Xwind landing nearly destroyed my incipient aviation career at the UAS stage. When I returned to the Chippy in Air Experience Flights with the benefit of DC3 "wheel it on/crossed controls technique" training I found that it worked just as well for DeHavilland on any other aeroplane from Tiger Moth to widebody.
One of the saddest sights I recall was watching the landings on the day the Shackleton was retired as three successive arrivals demonstrated that the RAF technique had fatally undermined pilots' confidence in Xwinds.

[BoeingBoy]

Thanks to you all for an interesting three pages.

I think I'll stick to brakes off next time and just squeeze the brake lever as needed. I can identify with the unstable swing syndrome mentioned above and as I am lucky enough to have big concrete runways where I operate from there is plenty of room to experiment with finding the right brake lever pressure.

BB;)

['Chuffer' Dandridge]

Amazing how its turned into a 'American aeroplanes are better than Canadian' thread.

I've flown Chipmunk, P51 and T6 and they all have their foibles. Toe brakes suit the American types, there's nothing wrong with the Chipmunk brakes if you understand that they are just different and fly them accordingly..try landing in the max crosswind for a Jodel D150, 23kts, with differential brakes that come on at the extreme of rudder travel........

If you want crazy design, try an Auster with worn heel brakes..

SSD, you must remember that the Americans invented the aeroplane. Therefore they know best.

[Discorde]

My introduction to aviation was also in UAS Chippies. Brakes were checked 'off' in the landing checklist. For crosswind landings we were taught the crabbed approach, holding the crab until the end of the hold off and then ruddering the a/c straight just before 3-point touchdown, with aileron input to keep the wings level.

But I remember a solo sortie when a crosswind had sprung up while I was away from the field (Church Fenton). When I called 'downwind' another voice, obviously an instructor, chipped in with: 'couple of notches of brake, Lima 52?' which I duly selected.

The UAS method seemed to work although these days I prefer the crossed controls/ wing down/ fuselage aligned with runway for flare and hold off for both nosewheel & taildraggers, especially on narrow strips.

Ah, the whiff of cordite on 'contact!' . . .

[Chipmunk Janie]

What's the general consensus of how to handle limiting crosswinds in the Chippy. How do you do it and do you pre-set some brake before landing or trust in the brake lever? I'm right with Shaggy's views on this. I do have a few points to add.

Taxying: You are probably out of limits if you need aileron to taxy in a Chipmunk, but it really does help so you might as well use it.

Aileron: On take off, use into-wind aileron. Do not be shy with it. In a strong wind, while stationery on the threshold, I start with full aileron and actually remove it as required. This does require good reflexes, so it's not for everyone.

Landing: If you keep the fuselage aligned on approach and you find you have full rudder deflection on landing, then you have none left for gusts. It's up to you whether you take a chance or land elsewhere. Be prepared for the worst. If you have full deflection and can't stay on the centre-line, on approach, you are out of your limits. If you crab then straighten at the last minute, you are leaving it very late to make a decision.

Brakes vary from one Chipmunk to another. I initially used GPugh's father's method until I discovered that the brake cables are so well tightened, on my Chipmunk, that I never need to set the brake lever for taxying. The odd dab-as-required works fine. The fact that brake cables stretch over time, needs to be considered, as this affects their effectiveness.

Tyres: Ensure they are both correctly inflated. Having low pressure in one will create drag on that side.

Here's an interesting experiment. It happened to my Chipmunk, by chance, and I'm sure it's not unique. Park the aircraft. Ensure the brakes are definitely OFF. Get out, put on full rudder deflection with your hand (in my case a strong side wind was holding it there) then get someone else to try pushing the aircraft. I found the wheel was locked SOLID. Not a single beefy chap could make that Chipmunk budge. When the wind died down, the rudder straightened and the aircraft moved again! This has never affected the handling on the ground. In fact, it probably assisted. It probably also meant my brake pads were wearing unnecessarily.

Shaggy: I love tight turns in the Chipmunk. One American chap saw me doing this on the concrete and commented that it would be damaging the stationary tyre. Any thoughts?

Which are the best brakes? Who cares? If it's got wings, it's worth flying.

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

Hi Janie. I tend to do my 360s on grass, but have done them on the apron. Not noticed any odd tyre wear as a result.

Many's the time I've pushed the Chippy tail-first out of the hangar and as soon as she pokes her tail into fresh air the wind whaps the rudder to full deflection, and the aeroplane stops dead! I ensure the rudder lock is fitted so this doesn't happen!

I also once taxied in a strong wind and turned directly downwind. The wind blew the rudder to full deflection and that brake came on. The tail lifted but I quickly centralised the rudder and thankfully the tailcame down again! After that, I ensure I 'brace' my feet on the rudder taxying in a strong tailwind.

I once pre-flighted ours after she'd undergone maintenance and noticed I could not push the rudder from stop to stop. It would move almost to either stop but could not be pushed further. I double checked the brakes were off (they were), then failed the aeroplane. Turned out the cables had been incorrectly adjusted. Not something to discover on attempting to recover from a spin!

[Small Rodent Driver]

No brakes for me on the Chippy for no better reason than that was how I was tought and checked out. Never had any problems with it and have found it to be one of the most sure footed taildraggers I have experienced.

During taxying I always found it possible to nudge the brake lever with my knee to assist in a turn.

For crosswinds I was tought the wing down wheeler technique and again have experienced no difficulty with some quite stiff crosswinds in the Chippy.

Lovely aircraft. A little quirky in some respects but that is part of it's charm for me.

I really miss the aeroplane and if a good one came up for sale I would be sorely tempted to buy one.

Happy days eh Vince?

PS. Hi Chipmunk Janey. We did meet at Barton some time back. I was in the yellow Cub at the time.

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

Happy days indeed, SRD! The Town With No Name, the train driver who didn't know where his train was going (Kemble to Barton, but we lobbed into Wolverhampton Intergalactic due appaling wx, so home by train from there), the fuel bowser with no key as we waited and waited to fill up (the first thing you do on landing in a Chippy!) while missing all the fun over on the other side of the airfield (always have a Scouse Chippy mate handy who can hot-wire it.. and you did!).

And many more!

[Chipmunk Janie]

Ah! All is coming clear. That was a good day at Barton. I remember meeting Shaggy, even though I was unaware of that pseudonym. I don't recall being introduced to any rodents. I'll have to do some detective work. :-)

[gpugh]

Hi Janie I am just passing this on from father , he says, no clicks, no brakes, he thinks your brakes are over adjusted there should be some slack in the cables also this will ensure you are actualy getting full rudder when you need it, he seems to recall there were a few incidents during spinning when people couldn't get full rudder because of mis adjusted brakes, it doesn't seem the right thing to do to make a tyre turn on concrete if it's not moving at all you might have stopped on a stone or something sharp which would damage it, I wouldn't try and turn the steering wheel on the car if I could help it without some forward movement jusy to be kind to the tyres


regards Gordon

[Chipmunk Janie]

Hello Gordon. I couldn't possibly argue with your father's words of experience. He can rest assured that, with my own particular Chipmunk, I always check that I have full rudder deflection, before I even switch on the engine. That is what is required for spin recovery. Perhaps my brakes are just shy of being over-adjusted. I'm not really technically qualified to comment on that, more's the pity.

[gpugh]

Hi Janie , it might be worth getting the adjustment checked by someone knows the Chipmunk system as I think it should always be necessary to have to apply at least a couple of clicks before any braking resistance is felt, the navy had a fleet of up to 12 chipmunks and all were different he says some needing 2 clicks some needing 4 or 5

regards Gordon

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

I've always found that when correctly adjusted you can manually push the rudder from stop to stop on your pre-flight with no noticable resistance at all. Yet when it's on the stop it will apply some brake, as described in the posts above. The important thing is to ensure you get full and free rudder on the ground before you fly!

[gpugh]

Hi this thread seems to have been done before

http://www.pprune.org/private-flying/169909-chippie-question.html

[Sam Rutherford]

45 Chippy hours (AAC), then about 500 hours Maule. I've never pre-set the brakes, almost always three point (even in very strong, 90° crosswinds), so far, never ground-looped :oh: (nearest I could find to a 'touch-wood' smiley!).

I've always found that a complete lack of hesitation to be nifty/heavy on the brakes (whilst holding the tail down) seems to have averted a couple of near disasters...

Sam.

[Thud105]

What a fascinating thread this has been. Input from those with hundreds of hours on type has been particularly informative and has – if anything - reinforced my opinions.
I believe the Chipmunk’s brake system to be inherently flawed. After all, imagine taking a group of early solo students out to a ramp full of identical trainers – and having to modify your briefing for each individual airframe!
Quote;- “the navy had a fleet of up to 12 chipmunks and all were different he says some needing 2 clicks some needing 4 or 5”

Or taxying an aircraft that has the ability to suddenly, unilaterally and without input from the pilot, apply sufficient brake to almost cause an incident!
Quote;- “I also once taxied in a strong wind and turned directly downwind. The wind blew the rudder to full deflection and that brake came on. The tail lifted but I quickly centralised the rudder and thankfully the tailcame down again! After that, I ensure I 'brace' my feet on the rudder taxying in a strong tailwind.”

Or the fact that incorrectly adjusted wheel brakes may make it impossible to recover from a spin.

Quote;- “I once pre-flighted ours after she'd undergone maintenance and noticed I could not push the rudder from stop to stop. It would move almost to either stop but could not be pushed further. I double checked the brakes were off (they were), then failed the aeroplane. Turned out the cables had been incorrectly adjusted. Not something to discover on attempting to recover from a spin!”

I rest my case.

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

Thud, don't be silly!

If you're looking for ways an aeroplane can make an ass of you, don't stop at dH's lovely creation. Every aeroplane that was ever built can do it, and it will if you'r not on top of it.

It's part of the aviator's art to be 'on top of it'. That's why we enjoy threads like this one!

Wasn't it the Tiger Club which had on the panel of each of their aircraft the information: "ALL AEROPLANES BITE FOOLS!"

[Thud105]

Agreed - but most don't automatically put the brakes on when you're taxying downwind. And as for each one of what would appear to be identical trainers requiring a seperate briefing........
All I'm saying is that I believe the brake system is inherently flawed - and as no one in the World currently makes an aircraft with that system well, you are all free to draw your own conclusions as to who got it right - dH or the RoW.

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

Agreed - but most don't automatically put the brakes on when you're taxying downwind.

Neither does the dHC1 if you use the correct technique; brace the rudder as for a tail slide.

Other aeroplanes have their own idiosycrases the pilot needs to know about.

And why would each need a seperate briefing? I could fly any standard Chipmunk in the world with no problems. I could taxy it, too! Indeed with only a handful of hours on 'our' Chippy, I went to Hawarden and flew G-BARS extensively when ours went in for some extended maintenance. Despite RS having an original metal prop and ours a Hoffman wooded one, it was no big deal for a then neophyte chippy pilot like me to climb out of one and go fly the other!

I've come across Cessna 150s with more handling differences (on the ground and in the air) aeroplane to aeroplane than I have among Chippys. Should that aeroplane demand a seperate briefing for each example?

I think you are just trying to wind me up!

[Thud105]

I think I'm beginning to understand why the UK aviation industry no longer exists!

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

I think you'll find C150s are American. It shows in the handling! :E

[gpugh]

I thought the Chipmunk was a Canadian design ? and you only have to make a note of a number of clicks required

[fireflybob]

Not sure whether this has been mentioned so far but also make sure after you're safely down on three points (after landing) that you keep the stick fully back during the rollout and this gives you more directional control.

My dad, Hector, who was an experienced instructor on type always insisted on this - I know as I learned to fly on the Chipmunk which is a fine flying machine, even in a crosswind.

That said once she starts to groundloop you have to be quick to stop it - I recall a landing after my second solo having just "relaxed" after what I thought was a super smooth landing. Being the good training machine she is/was I was taught a salutary lesson not to relax until down to taxi speed!

[Lone_Ranger]

"I think I'm beginning to understand why the UK aviation industry no longer exists!"

dHC...C for Canada

[Chipmunk Janie]

Thud: You're right. It's flawed! Just as the Wright Flyer was and the Model T Ford too. It really doesn't matter that old stuff is flawed. It creates progression.

The de Havilland company were prepared to experiment and thank heavens they did for this British company invented the world's first ever jet airliner and the most successful, efficient bomber aircraft of WWII and a whole string of wonderful things that we no longer use because we progress.

Thank heavens for the British Aviation industry, it makes aero-engines for Boeings - among others. That can't be so bad a position to be in.

If mechanical toe-brakes are so good, why do airlines use computerised ones now? Because mechanical toe-brakes just aren't good enough any more!

These flawed brakes created pilots of character who had the ability to adapt to differing situations and react efficiently to the unexpected. That's got to be good.

Thud - I agree with you. Let's celebrate flaws and the lessons we learn from them. :ok:

[Thud105]

The most sensible post any of us have made on this thread. Chipmunk Janie - I completely agree with you!

[Chipmunk Janie]

Yay!

All I have to do now is work on Shaggy and his lower-case 'd' and the world will be perfect. That'll be much tougher. I'll go get some photos from the original 'de Havilland Gazette' as proof that it should be 'DHC-1'. Sorry Shaggs - you know how passionate I get about that. :O

Have a lovely evening Thud.

[spekesoftly]

Whilst the family name was written de Havilland, the company HQ building at Hatfield (now a police station!) was signed DE HAVILLAND AIRCRAFT, and as previously mentioned, the two letter company logo was DH.

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

Jani, you can work on me any time you like... :)

[Small Rodent Driver]

Jani, you can work on me any time you like...

Oi! Back of the que mate!

[Chipmunk Janie]

Now, now, gentlemen. I'll only get conceited and you know I'm only interested in aeroplanes anyway.

[Arclite01]

Am I the only one who quite likes the quirks of the Chippie brake system ?

My only complaint is I seem to need an extra hand sometimes !!

Apart from that I love the aeroplane.

And toe brakes on the Cessna 150/152 - you can keep them frankly................

Arc

[Chipmunk Janie]

Hi Arc. On what occasions would you want your hand on both the throttle and the brake simultaneously?

[bingoboy]

The skilled can cope and it seems from this thread do cope with crossing arms and/or a bit of knee nudging.
Yes with throttle closed and friction set one could argue that braking could use throttle hand but it could be premature.

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

The only time I ever feel the need for a third arm in the Chippy is retracting the second stage of flap in a touch and go or go-around (I have to momentorily use my throttle hand, having set the friction nut). Nothing to do with the brakes!

[Chipmunk Janie]

Bingo: May I ask on what occasions you would want to apply the brakes with the power on?

Arm crossing! Please tell me you meant hand-swapping. :}

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

Uh? I've already said that during taxy there is no need to touch the brake lever. The only times you need to operate it are before taxy (to set a couple of notches), after lined-up (to fully release the brakes), before landing (to ensure no brakes) and after vacating (to set a couple of notches for taxy).

On the vanishingly rare occasions you need a bit of brake in the last bit of the rollout you can use you left hand (you will never need brake and throttle together!).

Works a treat! Left hand on throttle at all other times! Where's the problem you allude to, Silvaire? :confused:

[maxred]

Bingo: May I ask on what occasions you would want to apply the brakes with the power on?

Possibly when heading toward the fence:8

[Arclite01]

Janiemunk

I never use the clicks. I just operate the lever manually usually in small amounts so if I am pulling up the flaps, holding the stick back, fussing with the mixture lever, using some throttle, and sorting out carb heat, taxiing, I am a bit shorthanded so to speak........... oh and closing the canopy and setting the trimmer as well........

pretty soon I will talk to air traffic as well............

and you thought it was only women that could multi-task............

:-)

Arc

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

Silvaire, I presume you refer to power checks? Yes of course, set full brake for that (takes a few milliseconds). Again, no need for hands on throttle and brake at same time.

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

I mentioned the obvious (that it takes time and coordination under stress to apply the brakes if your hand is currently somewhere else but on the brake control), now onto the less obvious.


I'm confused (easily done!). The brakes in a Chippy during taxi are applied with your feet, on the rudder pedals, having set a couple of notches. So your hand stays on the throttle at all times, and you can apply steering brake at the same time.

I rarely find a need to brake to stop short. On grass, when landed at the correct speed, the Chippy slows down rapidly without brake. On tarmac, one more often has to add power to keep rolling to the turnoff!

If you have over cooked it and need brake, of course it's there for you to use - as I've said before by then you'll not be needing the throttle so the left hand can be used on the lever.

Of course, if you are taxying with the usual couple of notches set and you want to stop perhaps on a downslope, paddle the rudder left-right-left and she'll stop (certainly on grass wheich is where one encounters these slopy taxyways!). Keep one foot right forward and she'll stay stopped until you centralise the rudder.

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

Yes you can. As Janie asked, when would you want to stop and apply power at the same time? :ooh:

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

You described some strange arrangement on some aeroplanes whereby the engine would stop on the rollout if the pilot left the throttle closed. Properly set up Chippies don't do that.

You don't need your hand on the throttle if you are applying brake to slow down - a point I've made several times and which led me (and Janie) to ask why anyone would.

You'd want to apply power if you were about to hit something..??? :confused:

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

Not many 8,000 ft density altitude airports in UK.

You have consistantly avoided the points I and others have made, deliberately obsfucating them with irrelevant side-statements. Maybe you'll get over it, but probaly not as I think it's endemic.

Your statement above effectively saying the Chippy brakes are not fit for purpose when they are in fact superb for the job (as pretty much every experienced Chippy pilot on here has confirmed) is inexplicable.

[Big Pistons Forever]

SSD

Are you seriously making the argument that the Chippie brake system is a better design then Toe Brakes ? :confused:

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

Are you seriously making the argument that the Chippie brake system is a better design then Toe Brakes ?

Yes, but only for that aeroplane (or similar). For touring types, transport types etc, I'd prefer toe brakes.

[Saab Dastard]

Maxred, play the ball, not the man.

Or stay out (this can be arranged on an involuntary basis, if you wish).

SD

[maxred]

On the Stolp Starduster Too, and Piper Cub that I fly, they have toe brakes. Better than the Chippie I would guess.

[maxred]

Sorry SD. I will behave. Apologies.

[Dan Winterland]

You have to look at the philosophy behind the Chippy's brake system in context. It was designed to fill a requirement for a military training aircraft in 1945 - it wasn't designed for weekend flyers in the 21st century. Most RAF fighter at the time had a brake system which was actuated by a bicycle style lever on the control column, differential braking (and steering) was acheived by moving the rudder bar. As it was was designed to train pilots who would untimately end up on these types, it had a similar system.

As it is, I don't think there's a lot wrong with it. In three years flying with it professionally, it was fine for the purpose. The biggest issue we had was that you could get brake fade on the leeward side if taxying for any length of time in a crosswind which would neccessitate a stop pointing into wind to cool the offending unit. And out students coped well with the system - they were ab-initios who usually soloed in just over 10 hours of instruction.

As for the type's other qualities, personally there isn't a light aeroplane I have flown which matches the Chippy (I've flown about 30 types from the usual spam cans through to Falcos, Extras and Pitts') It's handling is superlative and it's the most enjoyable type from a pure handling perspective. Sure, it could do with a bit more power and an engine that keeps runnng upside down, but all light aircraft are a compromise. And it's interesting to note that the aircraft bought in to replace the Chippy (the Bulldog) only replaced it in the University Air Squadrons. The Chipmunk remained the elemntary trainer for regular RAF pilots until 1993 because it produced better pilots. That's 45 years in service!

As a training aircraft, it's exceptional.

[Arclite01]

Dan Winterland - great post.

[fireflybob]

As a training aircraft, it's exceptional.

Dan could not agree more - it still is and always will be my favourite aircraft to fly!

[Thud105]

I think that UK aviation has always been blighted by dogmatic, outdated thinking - consider QNH & QFE, the OHJ, signals square, painfully slow acceptance of GPS etc etc etc. As I pointed out earlier, in most respects the PT-26 is superior to the Chipmunk, yet it was out of production before the Chipmunk entered production! Compare the Auster AOP.9 with the Cessna O-1 Bird Dog. With its all metal, stressed skin construction and horizontally-opposed engine, the Cessna certainly looks a lot more modern than the fabric-covered Auster and its inverted, in-line engine. Yet, incredibly, the Bird Dog flew before the AOP.9!
Ever seen a Supermarine Attacker? Its a jet fighter, but has the 3rd wheel at the back!!
Oh and before anyone else says "the C in DHC means Canada" - I know.
The DH bit means de Havilland, that well-known British company.
Janie's post was spot on - vive le difference! Dan's post is valid (although it does still highlight the UK aviation industry's predelection to look backward, not forward.)
SSD - if the Chipmunk's brake system is the best for aerobatic aircraft, why isn't it fitted to the Pitts/Eagles/Extras and Sukhois of the world? Serious question - and I'd be grateful for an answer. Thanks.

[gpugh]

Hi for a bit of fun dads last comment was "try taxying A Sea Fury with its original brakes, on a rolling, pitching, wet,icy carrier deck in the dark.


Gordon

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

Thud, I can only speak from personal experience. The aerobatic types I have flown beside the Chippy are Citabria, Stearman, Yak 52, and Aerobat and of all those I personally find the Chippy's sytem my favorite and the Yak's the worst (especially if you let the free-castor nosewheel cock-over to full lock).

At least some of the aeroplanes you mention don't have free-castoring tailwheels. Tieing the tailwheel to the rudder with springs removes that carefree ability to spin the aeroplane 360 degrees in almost its own length (and if one asks why anyone would want to do that, let me just say 'because it's fun'). I suspect that if the Chippy had that arrangement, its unusual braking system might lose its charm.

As my check out instructor on the type said, back in 1979; "if you can taxy this aeroplane confidently, you can fly it". I doubt he'd have said that if it had toe brakes. So I guess the real answer as why I think it's best for that aeroplane is 'it suits it so well'.

I've flown a great many light aeroplanes in the 3.5 decades (nearly) that I've been flying, and the Chipmunk is, for me, far and away the nicest to fly. Far from the most capable, and in some respects quite limited (range!). But definately the one with the biggest grin factor. :ok:

[Thud105]

All good points well made SSD. And yes for pure handling in a light aircraft, the Chipmunk (and also the Beagle Pup) take a lot of beating. To be honest, if offered a PT-26 or Chipmunk - I'd take the Chippie (unless there was also a PT-22 going begging!)

[Arclite01]

Thread drift coming up..............Actually the PT-26 looks a nice aeroplane too - what are they like to fly ??

I'm a fan of 'if it looks right it'll fly right' - both the Chippie and the PT-26 seem to be in that category (and the PT-17 IMHO)

But strangely enough not the Tiger for me, but the Stampe (SV-4) - Oh yes

:8

[Thud105]

The -26 is fine; decent range, toe brakes, electric start but - it has to be said - in flight the Chipmunk is finer!
The Tiger Moth is truly terrible, but still fun (if you enjoy a challenge).

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

I found the Tiger Moth technically a big disapointment. The old adage doesn't apply - it looks good, but it doesn't fly good! Awful ailerons, terrible control harmony.

But - I loved it! Its character, and the sheer fact it's an open cockpit biplane just made a really fun aeroplane to fly!

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

I keep remembering other aerobatic types I've flown. The Tiger Moth, the Stampe, the Jungman (just one flight as P2 but hands-on).

The Stampe I flew had a lycoming engine so not a real one. But.. nice. Not as nice as the Chippy, though. But miles ahead of the Tiger Moth!

Jungman - limited time to judge it but it handled really nicely. I'd need longer, and to be P1, to give a meaningful opinion of it.

[Small Rodent Driver]

Jungman - limited time to judge it but it handled really nicely. I'd need longer, and to be P1, to give a meaningful opinion of it.

Thats the one I now own SSD. Very nice but I have still to establish the same bond I had with the Chippy. (and the Cub)

Thinking seriously about it, give me the Chippy any day. BTW the Jungmann has toe brakes. Coupled with dreadful ground handling.

SRD