Taildragger - in Tiger Moth or Chippie?
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:
Bill Lumley's plane (he apparently originated the enlarged rudder)
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:
Bill Lumley's plane (he apparently originated the enlarged rudder)
Last edited by Silvaire1; 8th Dec 2014 at 23:54.
Silvaire1,
I could live with the Ranger engine. That's a nice installation.
Solo from the back seat due to CG considerations?
I could live with the Ranger engine. That's a nice installation.
Solo from the back seat due to CG considerations?
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"A rose by any other name, is still a rose"....
But still an aircraft which meets your highest standards, I hope?
A very impressive aircraft, but in my opinion, it was no longer a Chipmunk.
Exactly!
Exactly!
Solo from the back seat due to CG considerations?
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.
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Oxford, UK
Posts: 1,546
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Mary, don't forget this one 
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.
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.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
I retain the fondness for the "powerful" 90 HP J-3 I used to fly, it did just fine.....
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.
I retain the fondness for the "powerful" 90 HP J-3 I used to fly, it did just fine.....
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Oxford, UK
Posts: 1,546
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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....
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....
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 3,325
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Chipmunk, always from in front.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Utterly insignificant little blue-green planet, unregarded yellow sun, unfashionable end, western spiral arm, Milky Way
Age: 38
Posts: 276
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!
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.
Step Turn,
I still wonder about Art Scholl's Chipmunk, with its major airframe modifications, particularly the clipped-wing and full-span ailerons.
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.
I believe that there is an STC for the Lycoming engine on a Chipmunk. In which case, it's airworthiness would be documented.
I don't agree that aircraft are flown "in public" at speeds they have never before achieved.
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.
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!
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!
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Utterly insignificant little blue-green planet, unregarded yellow sun, unfashionable end, western spiral arm, Milky Way
Age: 38
Posts: 276
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by 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!
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!