Taildragger - in Tiger Moth or Chippie?

[Okavango]

Considering getting my taildragger endorsement and thought I might pay a bit more and do it in a Moth or Chippie for a bit more fun. Any general advice appreciated on whether this is a good idea. Cost will prob be £1200 vs £700 in a Cub or similar.

[9 lives]

I think that any of your choices would be good, or do a bit in each. The Moth and the Cub are each great, but different. I've not flown a Chipmunk, but I've heard many nice things about them.

The Cub is light and agile, though a little sluggish. The Moth is a bit more sluggish, but will reward coordinated use of the rudder. One of the Moths I use to fly actually did not have a tailwheel, just a wooden skeg. Most of my flying in that one was on skis though, so it was not so noticeable.

Tailwheel training is very rewarding, and you'll forever be the better pilot for it.

[Mach Jump]

I endorse ST's view entirely.

Few trainers have the vintage presence of a Tiger Moth. Handling-wise, it has one foot firmly in the WW1 camp, with its very noticeable adverse yaw requiring some skilled footwork to keep it in balance all the time. This will be very useful if your tailwheel flying is going in that direction.

If it's the 'Spitfiire Experience' in terms of delightfully balanced and co-ordinated handling you're after, I can't think of anything better than a Chipmunk, (other than a Spitfire!) to give it to you!

Don't discount the 'humble' Cub though. Although it may not have the 'Ramp Presence' of the other two, it has an iconic character all it's own, and is a great lead-in to a host of it's high wing utillity immitators, often themselves refered to as 'Cubs' by the uneducated.

Whatever you finally choose in which to 'learn what your feet are for', welcome to a wondereful new world of aviation! ;)


MJ:ok:

[kitekruncher]

Tiger Moths at the Cambridge Flying Group, Cambridge , is my recommendation. They will you more than flying a tail dragger if your willing to learn, and that's a priceless opportunity this day and age.

[Jan Olieslagers]

Few trainers have the vintage presence of a Tiger Moth.

Hm. Compare to an SV4? Bücker? Not to mention a Stearman?

[Mach Jump]

I said 'few' not 'none at all'! ;)


MJ:ok:

[Genghis the Engineer]

Like much training, have you considered what you'll be flying once you have the differences training signed off? It might be best to get the training on the closest type to what you'll be flying?

That said, the Chipmunk is an excellent tailwheel / vintage trainer, and I doubt you'd regret training on one.



I had an interesting experience a few days ago, of flying a Condor in the morning, and a Cub in the afternoon. The Condor, which I tend to regard as a side-by-side non-aerobatic chippie in terms of its handling and feel, was massively more responsive yet at the same time more representative of a "big" taildragger than the Cub (an L4 as it happens), that left me much less impressed with the Cub than perhaps I have been previously. That said, the experience of flying a Cub is still fantastic, but it's a much less interesting aeroplane to fly than the Condor or Chipmunk.

If you are going to fly a Cub, try and get time in a PA18-150 Super Cub, which are a lot of fun.

Why do all the best aeroplanes always begin with A or C ?

G

[Mach Jump]

Why do all the best aeroplanes always begin with A or C ?

Just trying to think of some:

A: Auster, Aerocommander, Aeronca, Alpha, Autocrat,

C: Cub, Condor, Chipmunk, Cirrus, Chief, Champ,


Struggling...........:uhoh:


MJ:ok:

Ps. Is the Manufacturer and model in different groups cheating? ;)

[Mach Jump]

Concorde?


MJ:ok:

[taybird]

Seconded the endorsement for Cambridge Flying Group. You'll learn a lot more about flying and vintage aviation than just how to fly a Tiger Moth. They don't have brakes, and there is a metal skid. Hence the term taildragger compared to tailwheel for an aircraft with an actual wheel at the back. You'll learn a great deal about sensitive handling, at the same time as telling the aeroplane exactly what you want it to do. The reward gained from learning Moth skills are great.

The Chipmunk is a beautiful machine and as someone has already said, it is closer to the Spitfire end of the spectrum. But you lose that unique sense that you only get with open cockpit aviation, and the connection with the older stuff. From a handling perspective, they are very sweet.

The Cub is a fine machine, as long as it's not a SuperCub, which I find are much heavier in handling and less pleasant as a result. For glider tug work they're great, but not for tailwheel fun. In my humble opinion. Regular Cubs are often used for tailwheel conversions for good reason, because they're a decent aeroplane.

If you are looking to go into more sporty aerobatic types, the Decathlon is a great aeroplane. It's one of the easier tailwheel types to fly, but it's a lot of fun.

I've flown all of these types (except the Spitfire) so write from personal experience.

[Croqueteer]

:ok:I vote for the Stampe!

[Genghis the Engineer]

Sorry, but Decathlon and Stampe don't begin with A or C, and therefore are inadmissable.

G

[Rod1]

The Moth is not very relevant to most of the kit you are likely to fly after you are signed off (I am told - only one I have no previous experience on).

The Chipmunk is superb and would be my choice, followed by a few hours in the Cub to broaden your expertise to a more representative aircraft (most UK TW aircraft have small continental low power to weight etc).

Rod1

[Cough]

I would go for the Cub and I'd spend my time learning on that.

Then I'd spend the extra dosh enjoying both the Chippie and the Tiger. I did my PPL on a Cub, with an hour on the Chippie thrown in and a few hours in the Tiger later on.

Amazing, but very different aircraft all of them...

[ChickenHouse]

If you intend to actually fly taildragger after your endorsement, go Cup, Chipmunk or even older Jodel/Robin. If you do it for pure fun, go Stearman or Moth, BUT it is unlikely you ever rent one of them later. If you value your life and not a very good pilot, avoid the Moth - their nickname widow-maker does come from experience ...

[effortless]

I haven't flown anything for a long time now so my input may not be welcome but a third for Cambridge, a lovely club and very reasonable costs. Though I last was there when Bill Ison was still flying. Tiger moth not a comfortable seat if you are a bit larger or have any aches and pains. My first ever landing was in an Auster which I remember as being a lot less forgiving than many other aircraft I flew but I loved it. The Chipmunk was the most comfortable to control of any aircraft I ever flew. You could almost think it and it would respond benignly. The only aircraft that just fit me and most of my friends thought the same.

I envy you, I wish I still had the excitement and that sense of discovery that fresh flying experiences bring. Lord I feel old today.

[Capot]

The Auster would teach you to fly, if you can still find one, and mastering it is a very satisfying process. I did all my ab initio training in Austers (Autocrats), which is not the same as converting, and it (and a Polish instructor, ex-RAF Spitfire pilot) gave me flying skills that I have never lost, especially spot landings, forced landings, and turning back after engine failure on take-off. It would do the same for you.

So would the Chipmunk and Tiger Moth, of course. I've never flown a Cub, to my great regret. But the Auster has an edge to it, bungie springs and all.

[pulse1]

The most important thing you have to learn with a tail wheel is to use the rudder. In my view, the Tiger Moth will teach you to think rudder in all stages of flight, not just during the landing. The amount of rudder you use in a turn varies more with direction and power than any of the other common light aircraft (edited to say with possible exception of the Auster) that I have flown and this will make you a better pilot whatever you want to fly.

On the downside, if you need to fly off hard runways, the Tiger is more crosswind limited than most of the other options because it has no brakes. We used a Tiger for glider towing from Twin Wood Farm (part of the RAE Bedford) which had a short tarmac runway with a barbed wire fence down one side. With the wind blowing from the fence side, slowing down after landing was quite difficult. With little drag from the skid on tarmac, you tended to lose directional control fairly quickly and would weather cock towards the fence. The only way you could stop the swing was a burst of power. Without the drag of grass, this meant you accelerated quite quickly only to repeat it again as you slowed again. Hey Ho!

[Flyingmac]

£700 in a Cub or similar

Who's charging £350 an hour for a Cub?:rolleyes:

[Genghis the Engineer]

It is worth remembering, as Flyingmac points out with appropriate sarcasm - that the tailwheel conversion takes whatever it takes.

I did mine many years ago from Thruxton with Bob Cole in a supercub in 1:40, and an hour is not unknown. But I was very current on several other types at the time.

I've known one person take 13 hours because he turned up with a lot of issues with his flying that needed sorted out at the same time, that was unfortunate.


But there are a number of schools who advertise standard "5 hour" conversion courses. That's probably a reasonable average for a low currency club PPL, but does not have to be the right answer. So, don't think in terms of standard times, and thus standard prices.

G

[semmern]

Instructing on Cubs and Tiger Moths, I certainly wouldn't want anyone to go off on their own after less than 4 or 5 hours on taildraggers, and those 4 or 5 hours better consist of at least 50 landings on various surfaces and fields both short and long. Two Cubs wrecked once each in our club over the last four years prove my point.

[9 lives]

I certainly wouldn't want anyone to go off on their own after less than 4 or 5 hours on taildraggers, and those 4 or 5 hours better consist of at least 50 landings on various surfaces and fields both short and long.

I certainly second that! I think that in those first few hours, you're still flying on luck. There is a large attitude shift required over tricycle flying, in that directional control is vital, and you don't stop flying the aircraft until it is tied down. For most tricycle pilots, it's going to take more than 5 hours to assure these careless habits are trained right out for good.

There's a difference between being on your best behavior, new flying a type, and being ready to take it somewhere solo, and deal with whatever might come up along the way. If after "checkout" a few hours of solo circuits in different wind conditions, on different days, then okay. But you're not checked out, until you're comfortable with it all.

I had to check myself out in a Tiger Moth a few years back. It had not flown in ten years, and a maintenance test flight was required. There was no one else to do it. I was on my very best behaviour, and waited until the wind was perfect on the grass runway. I did my few flights (and a few circuits for my sake) and all went fine, but I never yet the conditions gang up on me!

You should feel comfortable when you can happily land on one main wheel first in a light cross wind, hold it there for a moment, land the other main wheel, pause more, then the tail wheel. When you are equally content to threepoint or wheel land, then you're ready....

[sapperkenno]

One of the best tailwheel "courses" I did, is an 8 hour (minimum, for insurance purposes) checkout in the Piper Supercub at Chandler Air Service, in Arizona. I try to follow a similar model when teaching tailwheel (on other people's aircraft, as our school doesn't have one, unfortunately) differences training myself. You can find more info on their website, but it ticks all the boxes and helps building confidence in your handlng skills - instead of the "be scared of it or it'll bite you" crap that some people peddle, or that it's only a matter of time until you groundloop.

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

The advantage of the Chippy over the Tiger is the former has differential wheel brakes, an art to master in themselves, but delightful once you have. The Tiger has no brakes. As has been said the Chippy is a wonderful-handling aeroplane, in a different league tom the Tiger. I've flown a lot of light aeroplanes; none come close, except perhaps the Jungmann, but IMO the Chippy even has the edge on that.

Of the Cubs, I prefer the L4 (J3) to the heavier Super Cub. It is just more fun! And I love that view out of the open side from the rear (P1) seat.

Avoid the Citabria - it's too easy!

[Sillert,V.I.]

Another vote for the Chippy.

Many years ago I did my PPL in a PA-38 & shortly afterwards converted to the DHC-1; thereafter I never had any real problems with other types.

[BroomstickPilot]

As far as aircraft are concerned, my preference would definitely be for the Auster Autocrat; if you can find one. If you can land that tail dragger you can land any tail dragger.

However watch out! There is a surprising amount of poor tail-wheel training on offer out there so be careful where you go. It would be a good idea to read 'The Compleat Taildragger Pilot' by Plourde before you start your training so you know what you ought to be taught.

My greatest area of concern is that at least some flying schools/flying clubs nowadays just don't teach wheeler landings. You might well need this skill to pull off a cross wind landing in a strong cross wind. (Some places don't even teach cross wind landing at all, which is disgraceful)!

A wheeler landing is is where you allow both main wheels to brush the runway while you still have flying speed. You then move the control column forward to remove any positive angle of attack causing the aeroplane to roll along the runway on her main wheels while you keep her tail up with the elevators.

You allow the speed to fall off while holding the tail up and the aeroplane straight and as close as possible to the centre line of the runway. As the speed falls off, you will find yourself moving the control column further and further forward to keep the tail up, while applying more and more into wind aileron and more and more away-from-wind rudder to keep her straight. Eventually, you will be unable to hold the tail up any longer and it will sink gently onto the runway and the aeroplane will roll to a halt with the flying controls now very crossed - the stick fully forward with full into wind aileron and full away from wind rudder.

For landing cross wind nowadays most places will teach you to do a two-point landing instead. This is where you stall the aircraft on with your into-wind wing down, putting down your into-wind main wheel and tail wheel first. This is O.K. for a mild to moderate crosswind in a high wing aircraft, but if you have to land a low wing monoplane or bi-plane with a crosswind close to the crosswind limit for your aeroplane, then in my view two-pointing it is not wise.

You also need to know both methods of landing approach, the 'crabbing' approach and the 'wing down' method. You need to be able to do both and be ready to use either method, according to the characteristics of the aeroplane and the conditions prevailing.

I have the clear impression that many present day instructors, (both ex-military and civil trained) lack the ability to teach the wheeler landing, perhaps being afraid to teach people to brush the ground with their mains and push the stick forward, while still having flying speed during the resulting ground roll, for fear of grounding the prop.

Whoever you go to, make sure you are trained properly. You need to come away feeling confident about landing cross wind using a wheeler landing. You need to ask before commencing training whether the wheeler will be part of your training.

Good luck with your training.

BP.

[9 lives]

The Tiger has no brakes.

Hmm, interesting. The Tiger Moth I flew the other year had brakes, but perhaps that's 'cause it was Canadian built. It had a brake lever, which when pulled applied the brakes, somewhat evenly. If the rudder pedals were displaced, the braking was proportioned to that side. It seemed to work okay, though I would not want to be relying upon it for directional control during a crosswind landing!

[Mach Jump]

As far as I know, only Canadian built Tiger Moths left the factory with brakes, but some were later fitted with a brake system similar to the chipmunk, and a tailwheel in place of the skid.

Smarter conversions also had the main undercarriage geometry altered to move the mainwheels forward a bit, (as did the Canadian ones) to try to stop people tipping them onto their noses.


MJ:ok:

[pulse1]

I was told that if you fitted brakes to a Tiger, you had to move the main undercarriage forward slightly to reduce the tendency to nose over under braking. This made the landing process much more difficult, more like an Auster which tends to emulate a kangaroo unless you put all three wheels down together, fully stalled.

[9 lives]

emulate a kangaroo unless you put all three wheels down together, fully stalled.

... Or wheel land it.

[foxmoth]

f you value your life and not a very good pilot, avoid the Moth - their nickname widow-maker does come from experience ...

What a load of tosh - never heard the Moth called that and it is certainly not true as most Moth accidents the aircraft ends up protecting the occupants and allowing them to walk away. I would agree it is not an easy aircraft to fly well, but learn and get some experience on a Moth and you can fly most taildraggers without too much of a transition.

My greatest area of concern is that at least some flying schools/flying clubs nowadays just don't teach wheeler landings.

Whilst this is not always taught, or (often) at least not properly, it should be noted that this is actually specified by EASA as a requirement for Tailwheel endorsement unless specifically not applicable to type.

[Mach Jump]

Early in my aviation career, the CFI of a flying school I worked for said of his ex. Twin Rating course students,

'Most of them would crash if they had an engine failure on takeoff the next day'. :eek:

When I asked him to expand on that, he added,

'Well, what can you do in six hours'.

I think that many flying courses are completed with the same attitude demonstrated by my erstwhile Boss, in the form of a fixed number of hours, and the standard of many tailwheel courses would be a lot higher if the student had to do six solo takeoffs and full stop landings in the school aircraft at the end.

Whoever wrote the training requirements for a Night Rating all those years ago was a wise owl.


MJ:ok:

[Mach Jump]

What a load of tosh

Well said, Foxmoth. I have never heard that said of the Tiger Moth either.


MJ:ok:

[9 lives]

I think that many flying courses are completed with the same attitude as my erstwhile Boss, in the form of a fixed number of hours, and the standard of many tailwheel courses would be a lot higher if the student had to do six solo takeoffs and full stop landings in the school aircraft at the end.

Hear hear!

I've rarely encountered a pilot who was anything more than "perhaps just safe" on any quite different type, in 5 hours of even really competent instruction. The rating is a license to learn more - go and learn more with great caution!

[taybird]

GtE
Auster = yuck! ;) imho...

To the OP, you have a lot of info here. Basic thing is no one has suggested my to do it. There is value in doing it on a Cub or first and moving to other more expensive types. There is also value to doing it on the Moth or Chippie first. Cost, and what you want to do with it afterwards should help point you in the right direction. Don't discount other types if the opportunity arises, again depending on what you want to do with your flying.

PS agreed that the negative comments about the Moth are tosh. It's not the most beautiful handling aircraft, but it's a great trainer.

[Capot]

emulate a kangaroo unless you put all three wheels down together, fully stalled.

... Or wheel land it.You can bounce an Auster to a record height if you don't touch down like a feather, 3-point OR wheelie......

'Most of them would crash if they had an engine failure on takeoff the next day'. That CFI got that right; I did the old 5-hour conversion to an Aztec A, including the test, and was totally clueless as I passed the flying test.

It wasn't just the twin-engine bit; that could to an extent be drilled in if not practised much, eg "live foot live engine", "DH 300ft on one engine" etc etc. It was all the other things that were different from a C172, the biggest I'd flown before that; speed over the ground 160 Kt, CS props, undercarriage, to name but a few. I took my girlfriend (now wife) for a celebratory flight from Biggin to Sleap and back on a cold, misty day. When she asked for a bit of heat I had to lie and say it didn't have one, rather then get the book out.

On the return, the RH engine started to increase revs uncontrollably as we crossed the Thames at 2500 roughly where LCY is now, so I shut it down and landed on one. It turned out that it was something to do with a lever spring (Prop? Power? Can't remember) and all I needed to do was hold it.

No, 6 hours, 10 even, is not nearly enough.

[Big Pistons Forever]

I get the Tiger Moth is iconic and all that but the inconvenient truth is it handles like Shyte and is horribly uncomfortable to ride in. The Chippy however is an absolutely delightful handling airplane and while the cockpit ergonomics leave a bit to be desired, flying it is a wonderful experience.

No Contest for me, go for the Chippy :ok:

[Genghis the Engineer]

I've never flown a Tiger Moth, I have heard some experienced pilots say it's unpleasant to fly, I've certainly never however heard any of them describe it as dangerous.


W.R.T. Austers - excellent aeroplane with a definite requirement to fly it well, at the right speeds and attitudes, manage the aircraft and use your feet. My only issues with them are the prodigious fuel consumption, and the tendency to cause permanent hearing damage.

I've never bounced one yet, but I did fly it exactly as per the old military pilots notes, which I think a lot of people don't do, tending to be frightened by the lack of stall warning and sluggish controls at low speed, so overspeed it on approach.

G

[Mach Jump]

I have heard some experienced pilots say it's unpleasant to fly

Here's a clue to the handling, Genghis.

Despite a differential aileron system that actually reverses the movement of the downgoing aileron as the upgoing one passes about half deflection, it can hold a hold a steady heading sideslip without any rudder at all.

This, together with ailerons on only one wing means the rate of roll can be measured in RPM!

Like many difficult things though, the effort you have to make to compensate for the deficiencies brings it's own reward in a sense of achievement, and you become quite sympathetic to them.

A bit like the 'Stockholm Syndrome' ! :eek:


MJ:ok:

[Genghis the Engineer]

We sometimes in my line of work differentiate between a "good aeroplane", and a "good Test Pilots School aeroplane". Sounds like you're describing the latter.

Something with lots of interesting and complex deficiencies that the students can analyse. It's very interesting to analyse the fleets of the various TPSs in that light (or LAA using the Edgley Optica for its flight test courses - now there's a spectactularly good Test Pilot School aeroplane).

I need to go have a go in one sometime (the Tiger Moth, I have flown the Optica, and enjoyed analysing it enormously).

G

[Big Pistons Forever]

Like many difficult things though, the effort you have to make to compensate for the deficiencies brings it's own reward in a sense of achievement, and you become quite sympathetic to them.

A bit like the 'Stockholm Syndrome' ! :eek:


MJ:ok:

I don't get why you would seek out an airplane with crap handling when you can fly ones that are pleasant to handle.....

[taybird]

Ask all those people who fly vintage aircraft, or some microlights, or even Cessnas. One man's meat is another man's poison. And in the case of vintage stuff, the "interesting" handling is indeed a part of their appeal since to fly one well takes a bit of effort. And some people enjoy that, even if it's not everyone's cup of tea / coffee / beer / wine / gin.

[Mach Jump]

I don't get why you would seek out an airplane with crap handling when you can fly ones that are pleasant to handle.....

I think perhaps it's something to do with our culture. After centuries of war, religious tyrany, repression, and despotic rule, we developed an amusing sense of irony that never seemed to make it across the Atlantic.

now there's a spectactularly good Test Pilot School aeroplane

I too have flown the Optica. It was a stunning concept that should have flown off the shelves like hot cakes, but the very features to which you allude brought about it's demise.


MJ:ok:

[9 lives]

we developed an amusing sense of irony that never seemed to make it across the Atlantic.

Yeah, it did; Ab Fab, Drop the Dead Donkey, Monty Python etc...

[foxmoth]

W.R.T. Austers - excellent aeroplane with a definite requirement to fly it well,


If you enjoyed the Auster (personally not one of my favourites) then you should also enjoy the Tiger Moth for the same reason. Then go and fly some other dH machines, most of which - including the dH60 - are much nicer to fly, probably because of the way the 82 was designed, mainly modified so the instructor could get out the front with a 'chute than redesigned for aerodynamic reasons.

[BroomstickPilot]

I did my PPL on the Auster in 1960 and then subsequently did a few hours on the Tiger and then perhaps twenty or so in the back seat of an acquaintance's Chipmunk. More recently I had an hour in the back seat of a Cub.

I feel that for all basic training, (in which I include taildragger differences training,) you need an aeroplane with generic handling characteristics but which is intolerant of poor pilot technique. Such a relatively difficult to fly aeroplane will set you up well for any subsequent, more forgiving type. However, I would say that if it is your intention to fly vintage, then try to train on vintage.

Personally, I favour the Auster Autocrat. It has no electric starter and so has to be swung. It has heel brakes but you must avoid using them if possible to stop the aeroplane when in motion on concrete. This is because on concrete she rolls like H3ll so you have to taxi very, very slowly and apply the brakes gently and separately one at a time. In the air, the rudder is very sensitive, so you have to learn to use it properly. On landing, as someone else has remarked, the rubber suspension can produce some spectacular bounces if you don't land properly. On a hot day and in ground effect you can float for ever. Somebody said it has a high fuel consumption. The ones I flew consumed no more than four and a half Imperial gallons per hour. I wouldn't call that high.

The Tiger Moth is a very easy aeroplane to fly and to land but a very difficult aeroplane to fly accurately. The only difficulties it presents are that it is very 'draggy' and can lose speed very quickly in a gliding turn if you don't watch out and of course the reduced forward visibility. In the pre-war years aeroplanes were designed to be flown with the coming almost up against the horizon. This provided a poor level of forward vision that we wouldn't be happy with today. On the landing approach I seem to remember that I used to lean over and look around the nose now and again to see where I was going. The one I flew had balloon tyres with only 16 lbs pressure, (which is why it didn't need brakes; it rolled to a halt in a few feet,) and a thing like a giant steel serving spoon as a tail skid. (In the dusk, if someone else was taxiing one of these aeroplanes you could see this thing sparking as the pilot taxied the aircraft across tarmac or concrete to the hangar). To me, the Tiger is too non-generic unless you are going to specialise in flying vintage taildraggers. It really is a relic of the 1930s.

I found the Cub to be much like the Tiger accept less draughty, a bit more responsive to controls in the air and a bit more difficult to taxi. For my liking, its a bit too easy to fly to use as a training taildragger.

The Chipmunk is a lovely aeroplane to fly in every way. It's flying characteristics are about as generic as it is possible to get. It certainly demands good flying and tells you if you do something wrong, but is less likely to bite than the Auster. My only criticisms are that the control column was, for my liking, too far forward from the seat and too short. This made it uncomfortable for me on longer trips. I found taxiing difficult also because, like all these aeroplanes it has to be weaved on the ground and it rolls like H3ll on concrete - and those differential brakes take some time to master.

Well that's my two penneth.

BP.

[Mach Jump]

Yeah, it did; Ab Fab, Drop the Dead Donkey, Monty Python etc...

Ah. Perhaps there's hope for you guys yet!;)


MJ:ok:

[Mach Jump]

Such a relatively difficult to fly aeroplane will set you up well for any subsequent, more forgiving type.

Although I agree that what you say is quite correct, Broomstick, we have to recognise, that it is perhaps, a rather elitist view.

An increasingly large proportion of pilots, initially trained on the more benign modern nosewheel types, will be left behind by a demanding taildragger and soon loose interest, or be put off trying at all by what they see as it's fearsome reputation.

If we are to draw these people into our world of taildraggers, we need to ease them into it with something a little less 'scary'.


MJ:ok:

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

The Chipmunk is a lovely aeroplane to fly in every way. It's flying characteristics are about as generic as it is possible to get. It certainly demands good flying and tells you if you do something wrong, but is less likely to bite than the Auster. My only criticisms are that the control column was, for my liking, too far forward from the seat and too short. This made it uncomfortable for me on longer trips. I found taxiing difficult also because, like all these aeroplanes it has to be weaved on the ground and it rolls like H3ll on concrete - and those differential brakes take some time to master.

I can't comment on the Auster (a regretful hole in my taildragger experience in that I've never flown one) and for me the stick is fine (light control forces - finger and thumb even in aeros, means it doesn't need to be any longer) but I'd endorse everything else above. I remember my instructor saying during my conversion onto the Chippy back in '79 immediately after gaining my PPL on C150s "if you can taxy this aeroplane accurately, you can fly it".

Those brakes did take a bit of getting used to, but they are of so good for maneuvering on the ground once you do!

The Yak52 also has 'odd' ground steering, with differential brakea and a castoring nosewheel. A single lever on the stick operates the mainwheel air (hiss! hiss! hiss!) brakes in proportion to the rudder position. Awful at first, but second nature once you master it.

I don't get why you would seek out an airplane with crap handling when you can fly ones that are pleasant to handle.....

Oooh! Careful with statements like that! There's one in particular on here who jump down your throat and accuse you of blinkered elitism with statements like that! A statement which, by the way, I agree with 100%. :ok:

[BroomstickPilot]

Hi Okavango,

When doing my PPL (back in 1960 on the Auster) there was one thing my instructor said to me that I always remember. He said that, even after I had passed my general flying test, for some short time only about three in every ten of my landings would be much good. It would take time and practice to be able to make a decent landing every time.

In the early stages therefore I should not be too bothered if I frequently have to do a go-round, perhaps even twice, before finally landing the aeroplane.

For example, if you land a bit heavily and bounce, don't try to correct the landing - go round and come back for another go. You will learn how to recover a slightly inelegant landing later when you've got a bit of experience.

Good luck!

BP.

[Echo Romeo]

Personally I think you'd have far more enjoyment doing it in a Chipmunk, they are a delight!

The Tiger Moth on the other hand, isn't. In fact I'd go as far as to say I can't think of a worse aircraft that I've flown or flown in. Yes they have a certain appeal on the eye both flying and on the ground, but personally I wouldn't give one hangar space.

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

Well, I agree the Tiger is an awful aeroplane from the handling viewpoint, but it scores millions of plus points for its character!

And they are aerobatic. Easy to fly (for a taildragger) while, like the delightful dHC1, difficult to fly well.

If I had a hangar, there'd be space in there for a Tiger.

One thing you will learn on a tailwheel course is a bounce recovery. The instructor will do a deliberate 'mains on hard' landing which will result in a nose high (and nose rising) bounce, then hand over control.

There are two possible recoveries; power and forward stick and a go-around, or, if runway length permits, power and forward stick and a second power-off hold-off to landing. A refinement of the latter for the experienced pilot is a 'power-cushioned' second hold off. This keeps all your limbs occupied; feet on rudder eliminating any yaw, left hand on throttle, right hand on stick. All co-ordinated.

[mary meagher]

First, I flew gliders. only one wheel. Only one chance to land it right every time.

Then I flew C152, etc etc etc. Did tailwheel conversion on the 150 Supercub at Clacton, good place to learn.

Then I flew the Supercub 180 horsepower glider tug at Booker. Didn't do a lot of tugging there, owing to a mishap. No it WASN'T MY FAULT! And thank goodness that was the first thing the tugmaster said, when there was a cracking sound and one main gear folded up on my perfectly decent landing....when it went to the workshop, the entire frame was found to be rusted out! So if you are going to invest in a Cub, get a younger model...

I then went to Texas and bought a lovely 150 hp Supercub built in 1977, had it boxed and sent to the UK. GOFER and I were very happy together, over a thousand hours, mostly pulling up gliders, though trips to France, Spain, and Ireland were also undertaken - though once we did arrive arse end up in an Irish Bog....due to a surprising crosswind. As by the time it groundlooped, we were traveling only about 5mph, there was no damage at all. Nice soft bog.

The joy of the 150 Supercub is balance (the 180 is nose heavy), easy handling, and a wonderful power to weight ratio. Never any doubt that your climbout will be enormously satisfying....and when the Cub is earning its keep by pulling up gliders, it is also very satisfying to do that well, to deliver the glider to a nice thermal and expeditiously return for the next.

The other complete joy is flying with both upper and lower doors open, and doing a steep right turn....you KNOW you are up in the air, nothing at all between you and that ground way way down below....

You can do tailwheel training on GOFER at West London Aero Club, White Waltham. Say hello to her and a kiss on the nose from me.

I've only had a couple of rides in the Chipmunk, we have one now at the gliding club with a Lycoming, and it is well regarded by all who fly it. I have a lot of trouble climbing in and out, however.

[Okavango]

Thanks to everyone for all the advice, much appreciated.

[India Four Two]

Okovango,

My advice is go for the Chipmunk and then maybe do a couple of flights in the Tiger for fun and to see the differences - particularly what profile drag is all about!

As most Chippie pilots on here have commented, it is a delight to fly, once you have mastered its eccentricities.

I was lucky enough to get 170 hours in UAS Chipmunks at the start of my flying career and that has stood me in good stead for all of the taildraggers I have flown since then -mainly Citabrias and Scouts and a few circuits in a Super Cub and a Stearman.

Someone earlier commented on the Chipmunk being closer to the Spitfire end of the spectrum. I've had a flight in a Spitfire :ok: and I have to say the Chipmunk is much more pleasant to fly - the Spit is very sensitive in pitch but has very heavy ailerons - you would definitely need two hands on the spade grip for high speed max-rate turns!

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

I-42 I have heard from quite a few fellow Chippy pilots who have also been lucky enough to fly a Spitfire that from a handling point of view, the humble dHC1 has the edge.

From a power, performance, and capability angle of course they are chalk and cheese.

My few years of Yak ownership gave me a taste of an 'unlimited' aeroplane and it does make aeros a lot easier when you have 360hp on tap, no u/c drag, and a big VP prop! You just leave the power on full, the RPM at 98%, use 2 hands on the stick, and point the big, unburstable brute of an aeroplane absolutely anyway you want, including straight up or down!

Nonetheless, I was glad to go back to the Chippy! The delightful energy-conservation flowing sort of aeros it performs I found to be more pleasant than the Yak's more staccato style.

[foxmoth]

Flown the Chippie and the Spit and personally I thought the Spit actually DID have the edge, but for affordable flying and Chippie handling I think the RV8 is a bit like a Chippie on steroids - but with the rudder set up in the rear I would not want to be teaching someone Tailwheel on it!

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

Bugga! Now I'll have to go fly a Spitfire to form my own opinion! ;)

[semmern]

I certainly second that! I think that in those first few hours, you're still flying on luck. There is a large attitude shift required over tricycle flying, in that directional control is vital, and you don't stop flying the aircraft until it is tied down. For most tricycle pilots, it's going to take more than 5 hours to assure these careless habits are trained right out for good.

There's a difference between being on your best behavior, new flying a type, and being ready to take it somewhere solo, and deal with whatever might come up along the way. If after "checkout" a few hours of solo circuits in different wind conditions, on different days, then okay. But you're not checked out, until you're comfortable with it all.

I had to check myself out in a Tiger Moth a few years back. It had not flown in ten years, and a maintenance test flight was required. There was no one else to do it. I was on my very best behaviour, and waited until the wind was perfect on the grass runway. I did my few flights (and a few circuits for my sake) and all went fine, but I never yet the conditions gang up on me!

You should feel comfortable when you can happily land on one main wheel first in a light cross wind, hold it there for a moment, land the other main wheel, pause more, then the tail wheel. When you are equally content to threepoint or wheel land, then you're ready....

We used to have 5-hour taildragger conversions in my club, but upped it to 10 after the Cub prangs. Does a world of good, because as you say, after 4 or 5 hours you're really only flying on luck!

The good thing about learning on the Cub is that the undercarriage is spine-compressingly bouncy. Thus, your wheel landings have to be spot-on, and the stick brought forward the instant you hit to keep the kite down. A Tiger Moth has soft springs and a low rebound rate in the undercarriage, so it will just gently set itself on the ground and stay there during a wheelie. Also, for learning, keep in mind that the Moth is very noisy due to the open cockpit, so a Cub or a Chip is a better learning platform. Personally, I'd say learn on the Cub, then get checked out on the others.

[India Four Two]

the humble dHC1 has the edge.
SSD, I have to side with foxmoth and disagree with you.

In terms of control harmonization, yes. Otherwise no. You don't have the seemingly unlimited power, nor the spade grip, complete with gun button, nor the view out the window of that wonderful elliptical wing nor the response to ATC from opposite direction traffic: "Tally-ho the Spitfire". :ok:

Bugga! Now I'll have to go fly a Spitfire to form my own opinion! ;)Don't worry. You can have a go in mine when I win the lottery!

The delightful energy-conservation flowing sort of aeros it performs I found to be more pleasant than the Yak's more staccato style. I agree, but I did find all those rivets on the Yak's wing reassuring when you are throwing it around.

[Croqueteer]

:)Many moons ago I was teaching a rather serious Gaswegian on his own Terrier. A solo flight was taking a long time to come, and he was getting totally depressed. I then made him fly a cct in a club 150, which went off without a hitch, including the landing. I pointed out that he could fly, just chose a difficult aircraft to learn in. Back in the Terrifier a solo came quickly, with me standing by the runway. A smooth landing ensued, and as he slowed to 3 or 4 mph a little smile (the first ever!) broke out on his face. At that moment the a/c did a slow and gentle ground loop to the right, I never saw that smile again!

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

SSD, I have to side with foxmoth and disagree with you.

In terms of control harmonization, yes. Otherwise no. You don't have the seemingly unlimited power, nor the spade grip, complete with gun button, nor the view out the window of that wonderful elliptical wing nor the response to ATC from opposite direction traffic: "Tally-ho the Spitfire".

I-42, you appear to be siding with me, rather than Fox! Because that's pretty much what I said I'd heard (note "I'd heard", not having flown a Spit). That the dHC1 has the edge on handling, but doesn't have the power etc etc.

Here's what I said:I-42 I have heard from quite a few fellow Chippy pilots who have also been lucky enough to fly a Spitfire that from a handling point of view, the humble dHC1 has the edge.

From a power, performance, and capability angle of course they are chalk and cheese.

Fox says, and he's flown both, that the Spit has the edge on handling, which goes against what others have told me who have flown both!

Could you please clarify your opinion if you have flown both?

[foxmoth]

I have to say, unfortunately, I have less Spitfire time (:35 mins), than Chippie, and maybe it was the Spitfire Magic that got to me, but certainly felt the Spit was better, and doing BIG wing overs that went up and down through 1,500' was fantastic.

I agree, but I did find all those rivets on the Yak's wing reassuring when you are throwing it around.
Yes, when you see the first one pop you know you have overdone it!:}:eek:

[India Four Two]

SSD,

You are correct. I mis-read what you wrote. The Chippie definitely has the edge in terms of handling. To appreciate what I said about the Spitfire, imagine a Yak 52 that is more sensitive in pitch and with double the aileron forces.

foxmoth,
I'm so relieved to see you have about the same time in a Spitfire as I have. I imagined you were one of those chaps who casually straps on a Spitfire every weekend in the summer and gives displays. :)

I think "Spitfire Magic" has a lot to do with it. Regardless of my comments, I would leap at the opportunity to fly one again.

A very well known Kiwi instructor, who flies anything with wheels or rotors on wheels or floats, had a ride in the Spitfire after my ride. He said to me later: "Sitting in the back seat, it feels like you are in another rubbishy old Harvard, but then you look out at that wing and you know you are flying something special!"

http://i30.photobucket.com/albums/c309/india42/Spitfireellipticalwinga.png

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

the thing that always impresses me about aeroplanes like the Spitfire is just how they keep going up, and up, and up and over.

I remember visiting Duxford years ago when our Chippy was there for an annual and Mark Hanna arrived in a Spit. He ran in at high speed and low level, then pitched up, and up , and up, and eventually over the top of an enormous loop, the aeroplane which moments before had looked substantial, now a tiny inverted cross in the sky at the top of the manouvre.

Oh! to be able to do that in a Chippy (or even a Yak!).

[Small Rodent Driver]

Nothing that couldn't be done in a 1400bhp Chippy SSD!

[India Four Two]

1400bhp Chippy

I can see it now. Front cockpit replaced by engine-bearers, for CG considerations, new spars and landing gear to carry the weight and a 20 minute endurance! ;)

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

I-42 has the gist. All aeroplanes have shortcomings and one of the Chippies is a lack of power (145hp). But doing anything about that has lots of consequences which themselves need fixing, so pretty soon it's not that aeroplane anymore but some sort of ugly hybrid mongrel. :eek:

If you want a more powerful aeroplane, buy one. Don't try to change what dHC got just about right!

Pawnees and the big tail wheel Cessnas make great glider tugs, for instance. And the dHC1 would be useless as a meat bomber, though the one time I took ours into the para club field they were all eyeing it up to see how it might be jumped! ;)

[mary meagher]

Actually, sheep driver, the Supermunk (stick a proper Lycoming into your Chippie) makes an excellent glider tow plane. Not at all a ugly hybrid mongrel, it still looks good, flies well, is relatively economical to maintain. Several big gliding clubs rely on the Supermunk.

Pawnees have power, but only one seat. How do you train your tuggie? buy another tow plane for training? Get real!

Big tailwheel Cessnas are scarce in the UK.

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

Mary, to me a Chippy with a flat engine that turns the wrong way and sounds like a VW Beetle and isn't aerobatic any more is an abomination.

It may well be a practical tug, but it is no longer a chippy. And because someone took a Chippy and converted it, it means there is one less real Chippy around.

And you could never think of it as a little Spitfire.

Did I mention they are non-aerobatic?

So compared to a 'proper' Chippy, it's lost it's looks, its character, and much of its raison d'etre. Just to tug gliders.

Like taking a 'D Type' Jag and nailing a wooden 6-seat cabin onto it and fitting it with a commercial diesel engine so you can use it as a minibus!

Crass vandalism! Nothing less!

If you want a minibus, get a Transit.

If you want a tug, get a Super Cub.

[rjtjrt]

Using a Chipmunk as a glider tug consumes fatigue hours at a rapid rate.
Not an ideal use of an increasingly uncommon aircraft.

[Big Pistons Forever]

Mary, to me a Chippy with a flat engine that turns the wrong way and sounds like a VW Beetle and isn't aerobatic any more is an abomination.

.

The Lycoming converted Chippy I flew had an STC that specifically stated that all aerobatic maneuvers allowed in the original type certificate were approved. With a 180 horses it did everything the Dripsy major powered airplane did........only better

[Silvaire1]

The Portuguese Air Force Academy OGMA Chipmunks seem to work pretty well with their Lycoming O-360s. Hard to imagine they don't fly better with 35 HP more and at least 30 lbs less weight. They don't look quite as good but its unbelievable to me that any postwar air force would have operated a low-powered engine that leaks so much oil as an unresolvable flaw in its design, and requires so much fiddly maintenance.

The enlarged Chipmunk homebuilt built in Canada apparently had fatal problems unrelated to the engine but FWIW the six cylinder Continental installation looked pretty good - they redesigned the fuselage for the more modern engine and I think the result was OK visually. I'm sure de Havilland Canada would have done the same and used a contemporary Lycoming O-435 originally if the home office hadn't insisted on them using the old in-house Tiger Moth engine.

PS I saw a Blackburn Bombardier engine for sale recently and it reminded me of a similar thread in which a poster suggested it was the historically logical Chipmunk power upgrade from the UK perspective. If only one had the time and money for all the projects that appeal!

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

Get the ring mod done on the Gipsy and the oil consumption isn't much different to a Lycoming.

But that's not the point. In UK at least it's no longer aerobatic with the non-standard engine, and it looks and sounds wrong!

If you want a Chippy on steroids, the Yak52 is available.

[mary meagher]

Shaggy Sheep Driver and all you sentimental pillocks who think the Gypsy oil splasher is the ONLY correct engine for that precious Chipmunk, may as well put the remaining Chipmunks into museum storage for preservation....hold on a minute!

I had a look at GINFO -- OK, I didn't read every single entry, as there are ONE HUNDRED AND TWENTY ONE CHIPMUNKS listed! not all that scarce, then.
And of these 121 Chipmunks listed, 12 have installed Lycoming engines!

Res ipse loquator. The Chipmunk lives, while it is doing a proper job. Even in the Portugese Airforce, friends!

If you want to preserve your precious assets in aspic, you condemn them to be unloved, unused, and to rust. Some people think pulling up gliders is not worth considering. Well, it kept my Supercub in employment (and me) enough to keep on flying for 25 years.

Consider, friends, when praising the Piper Cub, how many wonderful variations on a theme keep that immortal design aloft.

[dhc1180]

rjtjrt- you are completely wrong about fatigue life consumption. I think you'll find glider towing falls under the roll factor A; 1 for 1, especially if the towing is carried out with a Lycoming Chipmunk which is non aerobatic and therefore consuming no fatigue life. If you are aero-batting on descent then obviously you record that using form B and submit it to DHSL for assessment. Read TNS138!

A Spitfire with Merlin engine or a Griffon engine is still called a Spitfire. A Mustang with an Allison engine or Merlin engine is still called a Mustang. The list goes on. A Chipmunk with a Lycoming engine is called a DHC1 Chipmunk (Lycoming)- clue is in the name. In fact DHC at the time of manufacturing the Chipmunk were finding possible engine solutions, and the Lycoming was an option from production. But they stuck with the Gipsy. Personally I'l fly a Chipmunk regardless of what engine its got in it, just because I feel lucky and privileged to have flown and still fly Gipsy and Lycoming Chipmunks. I've visited the PAF at Sintra for technical issues, and spent many thousands of hours maintaining both engined variants and to me, they are an aviation icon that don't deserve a bad word said against them.

If you want to do serious aerobatics go and fly a Pitts or Extra, give the old Chipmunks a rest and save their fatigue lives to make them fly for longer. But of course, non of you will know what I'm on about.

I'm annoyed I've wasted 5 mins of my life on the rubbish that is PPRUNE.

See you in another 5 years. :ok:

[9 lives]

A Spitfire with Merlin engine or a Griffon engine is still called a Spitfire. A Mustang with an Allison engine or Merlin engine is still called a Mustang.

.... And a DHC-2 Beaver would still have been called a Beaver with the Gypsy Queen engine it was originally intended to have. Thank goodness DHC had the foresight to produce the Pratt and Whitney powered Beaver!

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

M Meagher, thank you for an enlightening post; most enlightening!

I suggest you forward your recommendations to Wsiewołod Jakimiuk as you seem to know more about it than he did.

Chippys are for flying, not preserving in aspic, BTW.

[Pilot DAR]

A discussion of the merits of these aircraft is welcomed. Trashing posters or aircraft types is not welcomed.

[India Four Two]

the Supermunk (stick a proper Lycoming into your Chippie)

Mary, to paraphrase Crocodile Dundee: "That's not a Supermunk, THIS is a Supermunk!" ;)

http://airandspace.si.edu/webimages/collections/full/19870364000a.JPG


Art Scholl's much modified Chipmunk. I was able to have a close-up look at N13Y at Springbank (CYBW) in the 70s, when Art was performing daily aerobatics at the Calgary Stampede grandstand show - both the afternoon and the night time show!

Lycoming GO-435 260 hp, retractable gear, clipped wing with full-span ailerons, larger fin and rudder and a single cockpit. A very impressive aircraft, but in my opinion, it was no longer a Chipmunk.

[Silvaire1]

Maybe the 200 HP Ranger powered version is more palatable? ;) Rangers are almost as archaic as a Gipsy in their design, they don't leak as much perhaps but they burn more oil than their fair share. Overhead cam though, which is neat.

Harold Krier and Art Scholl both flew their Chipmunks in the WAC in 1966 and 1968. Here is Harold Krier https://www.iac.org/hall-fame-1989-harold-krier with his plane:

http://www.flyinggiants.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=319767&d=1285387768

Bill Lumley's plane (he apparently originated the enlarged rudder)

http://www.flyinggiants.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=319894&d=1285472315

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

Of the Art Scholl Supermunk:
A very impressive aircraft, but in my opinion, it was no longer a Chipmunk.

Exactly!

[India Four Two]

Silvaire1,

I could live with the Ranger engine. That's a nice installation.

Solo from the back seat due to CG considerations?

[9 lives]

"A rose by any other name, is still a rose"....

A very impressive aircraft, but in my opinion, it was no longer a Chipmunk.

Exactly!

But still an aircraft which meets your highest standards, I hope? ;)

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

Maybe. If I ever get to fly one I'll let you know! But at least it still looks OK with the Ranger engine.

[Silvaire1]

Solo from the back seat due to CG considerations? Yes, those guys in the 60s were basically making their own Zlins, starting with a Chipmunk. Like Zlins the pilot ended up in the back after some iterations. The Ranger is a heavy six cylinder engine, as is the 260 HP GO-435 used later by Art Scholl. I think the weights and powers go something like this:

Gipsy Major, 145 HP, 310 lbs
Ranger L-440, 200 HP, 376 lbs
Lycoming GO-435, 260 HP, 440 lbs
Lycoming O-360, 180 HP, 260 lbs
Lycoming O-390, 210 HP, 310 lbs

A four cylinder Lycoming makes substantially more power than the Gipsy Major, with the same or less weight.

[9 lives]

A four cylinder Lycoming makes substantially more power than the Gipsy Major, with the same or less weight.

That's 'cause the Lycoming is so, ahem, "advanced"! ;)

[mary meagher]

Inspired by Silvaire's listing of engines employed in the Chipmunk, I've had a trawl through the net, and will now share a bit of history regarding the Cub, a taildragger of infinite variety and usefulness.

On Sept. 21, l930, the Taylor E2, precursor of the Cub design, attempted to fly with a 20 hp Brownbach Tiger Kitten Engine, but ran out of runway, got bent, and the Taylor company went bankrupt. Piper bought out Taylor and the Cub design in 1931, and in 1937 moved the works to Lock Haven, Pennsylvania. The J3 version had a 40 hp. Continental, Lycoming or Franklin engine, 687 were built.

By 1940, 3,016 were built, using 50 hp and then 65 hp Lycoming. A total of 14,125 were built by 1947. Used by the military for training, transport, and artillery spotting. A Cub was credited over Italy with downing a Messerschmidt, intent on shooting down this pesky unarmed cub, the messerschmidt got careless and flew into a hill, witnessed by cheering allied troops.

The Supercub, which has useful flaps, was certified and produced by Piper with five different engines, the Continental C-90, and 4 sizes of Lycoming.
Most variants are working aeroplanes, floatplanes, trainers, banner and glider towing, crop spraying, bush flying....in Florida, they remove the cowlings entirely to keep cool and fly along the beaches towing banners, looks very strange indeed.

My own Cub had a 150 Lycoming, was built in Lock Haven in 1977, and was nicely balanced. The 180 hp variant has more grunt for glider towing, but tends to nose over if the pilot forgets to hold the stick back. It is still the best choice for retrieving a glider from a farmer's field.

[Silvaire1]

Mary, don't forget this one :)

http://www.bevhoward.com/CubLen.jpg

The pilot is Bevo Howard, another well known display pilot who like Art Scholl has a plane in the US National Air & Space Museum (Scholl's Super Chipmunk and Howard's Jungmeister) Both of them and Krier too snuffed it doing aerobatics.

[9 lives]

There is an excellent book called "Mr. Piper and his Cubs". It is an excellent book which presents the entire history of the Cub. It continues up to the Aztec and Navajo. A great read...

On the topic of re-engining, a friend of mine commissioned the rebuilding and re-engining of a "Northstar" which is a PA-18 look-a-like. He asked me to take the project on, including installing a carburetted Continental 520 (at just short of 300 HP). I declined, citing the airframe builder's advice that 235 HP was the maximum for that airframe. He had someone else build it for him as a floatplane, and flies it occasionally.

6WF-AOgb7-c

I retain the fondness for the "powerful" 90 HP J-3 I used to fly, it did just fine.....

[mary meagher]

Step Turn, that is AMAZING performance! Is it true that floats actually provide additional lift?
And Silvaire, Bevo Howard's Cub Sport has a monster engine, doesn't it!
I see it has been photographed wearing spats, and is safely chocked...makes me wonder if you have to hand prop to start?

I don't much care for hand propping, but I do pull the prop through a few times when its cold outside, very carefully. At Jack Brown's in Florida, the J3 cub on floats had a unique way of starting; I was in the back seat, the instructor would be standing outside on the float, and he would pull the prop through from behind! I was a bit nervous about that and wondered what my plan B should be if he fell overboard....

[Fantome]

Always propped my J3s from behind. Prefer it that way with a Tiger Moth too.

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

Yes, I used to prop the L4 (military J3) from behind. Left hand on the mag switches, right one on the prop, backside resting on the strut to prevent the aeroplane going anywhere. Might be a problem for the left handed!

Chipmunk, always from in front.

[semmern]

Never understood why anyone would hand prop from the front. I start the Cub and the Moth from behind, hand around the cockpit edge on the Cub, or on the forward cabane strut on the Moth.

[Silvaire1]

Some video of a Lenape radial powered Cub being flown... 50 HP and three cylinders.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ft6FVrnOPsM

You have to hand prop it, but apparently not from particular position. That aside I've always thought the Cub setup for hand propping, behind with hand near throttle, is a great design. Especially so with a muffled (quiet) A65 engine, or the like.

[India Four Two]

semmern,

I've hand propped a few Citabrias (150 HP) and Scouts (180 HP) in my time. You have to do it from the front, in order to get enough momentum into the prop. Gloves are a good idea, because of the sharp trailing edge of the prop.

I was hand propping a tow-plane at my gliding club once and there was a lady watching me pulling through the prop. She told me afterwards that she nearly fell off her sunchair in surprise when the engine started, because she thought she was witnessing a horrible accident!

Silvaire 1,

Re the modified Chipmunks. I presume they were all Experimental. Do you know if proper stress-analyses were done or did they just cut bits off, add bits as required, bolt-on a new engine and go flying?

I ask this after having read the horrifying report on the Galloping Ghost P-51 crash at Reno, where major airframe changes were made without any stress or airworthiness analyses and without approvals!

The Lenape Cub - I didn't know there were any radial-engined Cubs. Very nice.

I found the video quite scary, seeing passengers get in and out of the front-seat with the engine running.

[9 lives]

I ask this after having read the horrifying report on the Galloping Ghost P-51 crash at Reno, where major airframe changes were made without any stress or airworthiness analyses and without approvals!

I believe that there is an STC for the Lycoming engine on a Chipmunk. In which case, it's airworthiness would be documented.

Yes, the P-51 crash is an indicator of some things missed. Though I will be railed by those who love the air races, I don't agree that aircraft are flown "in public" at speeds they have never before achieved. For certified aircraft it is required that a dive test to 110% Vne be flown - I did one just the other day. Thus pilots who blunder up to Vne can be confident that they're not charting new territory (though they sure are close). I believe that the fatal chain of events with that P-51 was speeds in the "never before flown" range, coupled with inadequate assembly/maintenance on the elevator trim tab. These things should all be worked out in a safe "test" environment, before these aircraft are raced in front of the public.

The general public would have a hard time understanding the subtle differences between "Experimental", "Amateur Built" and "Certified". So crash one and kill some innocent observers, and the public will brand all similar sized aircraft as unsafe.

[India Four Two]

Step Turn,

I believe that there is an STC for the Lycoming engine on a Chipmunk. In which case, it's airworthiness would be documented.

I still wonder about Art Scholl's Chipmunk, with its major airframe modifications, particularly the clipped-wing and full-span ailerons.

I don't agree that aircraft are flown "in public" at speeds they have never before achieved.
I agree with you. Much as I love seeing warbirds flown fast, an air race is not the place for test flying!

The thing that really surprised me about Galloping Ghost was that they had disabled one trim tab, presumably with the thought of reducing trim drag, without realizing that the other tab would now have to be deflected over larger angles for a given speed, thereby increasing trim drag and setting up the potential for flutter.

[Silvaire1]

Re the modified Chipmunks. I presume they were all Experimental. Do you know if proper stress-analyses were done or did they just cut bits off, add bits as required, bolt-on a new engine and go flying?

I ask this after having read the horrifying report on the Galloping Ghost P-51 crash at Reno, where major airframe changes were made without any stress or airworthiness analyses and without approvals!

After 50 years, there is no way to know what analyses were done by the guys modifying the Chipmunks in Experimental category. Government oversight has no bearing on the level of analysis that may have been done - there are lots of good designers and analysts available, and lots of smart aircraft owners. Its called land of the free and home of the brave for a reason, and we like it that way.

[semmern]

semmern,

I've hand propped a few Citabrias (150 HP) and Scouts (180 HP) in my time. You have to do it from the front, in order to get enough momentum into the prop. Gloves are a good idea, because of the sharp trailing edge of the prop.

I was hand propping a tow-plane at my gliding club once and there was a lady watching me pulling through the prop. She told me afterwards that she nearly fell off her sunchair in surprise when the engine started, because she thought she was witnessing a horrible accident!

I've hand-propped several 172s with IO-360s, and always done it from behind. I feel a lot safer standing behind the prop and holding on to the cowling handles than in front.

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

I've also hand-propped 172s etc, and I do that from behind as those engines are not easily hand propped and it's safer to do it from behind.

A Gipsy is a long-stroke plonker of an engine and hand-props nicely. It Flicks round a compression at a time and bounces to a firm stop between compressions. It feels 'right' to stand in front, put the flat of one's hand onto the upper blade near the tip (never curl fingers round the blade!), give it a firm downwards pull as one walks away backwards and to the side away from the aeroplane (on a taildragger the blade comes closer to you as it descends if you are in front of it). If you stand behind it, it gets further away as it descends and one can't get quite the same 'natural pull through' as from in front, I find.

As the blade passes the horizontal you have walked clear and the blade will continue to complete a half-revolution even if the engine doesn't start (because of that nice firm well-defined compression). If the engine does start, it doesn't suddenly burst into full life but fires after the swinger is well clear, and gradually builds up speed to tick-over over the first few revolutions.

A C172 engine isn't like that. It doesn't have anything like as well-defined 'detenting' between compressions; it feels 'dead' and doesn't bounce round naturally half a revolution at a time. Best done from behind IMO.

[Small Rodent Driver]

Where it is safe to hand prop from is all rather dependant on the positioning of the prop relative to TDC.

[Piper.Classique]

Yes, but if the aircraft is intended to be started from outside, the prop will be positioned to make it easy.
Our cub is equipped with a starter motor, but any time the prop comes off I make sure it goes back on such that I can hand prop it if I need to.
Not rocket science.....
Oh, yes, I do it from the front. Because I find it easier that way. With someone inside working the buzzer on the shower of sparks magnetos. Yes, really.

[Small Rodent Driver]

Really? I've encountered a few without the benefit of a self starter which were less than ideal.

[Piper.Classique]

Then they were badly set up. See the engineer responsible.

[Rocket2]

"never curl fingers round the blade" only did that (inadvertently) once, engine backfired, quick trip to the plastic surgery ward at Odstock hospital in Salisbury to have my thumb sewn back on :{