Taildragger - in Tiger Moth or Chippie?
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: U.K.
Posts: 459
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 3,325
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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".
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".
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.
From a power, performance, and capability angle of course they are chalk and cheese.
Could you please clarify your opinion if you have flown both?
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Oop North, UK
Posts: 3,076
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Yes, when you see the first one pop you know you have overdone it!
I agree, but I did find all those rivets on the Yak's wing reassuring when you are throwing it around.
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!"
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!"
Last edited by India Four Two; 4th Dec 2014 at 14:48. Reason: Added "that wing"
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 3,325
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!).
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!).
1400bhp Chippy
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 3,325
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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!
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!
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Oxford, UK
Posts: 1,546
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 3,325
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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
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!
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!
Last edited by Silvaire1; 8th Dec 2014 at 03:43.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 3,325
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Oxford, UK
Posts: 1,546
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: England
Posts: 62
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Last edited by Pilot DAR; 8th Dec 2014 at 14:36. Reason: Just to tone it down
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 3,325
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
the Supermunk (stick a proper Lycoming into your Chippie)
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.