Chipmunk - Should I?
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jetblu
I had the delight of flying a friends homebuilt RV6A which he built from plan constructing every piece himself. It took him five years to build and nearly caused a divorce but it was a beautiful aircraft to fly one you almost thought into turns without a conscious movement
Wasn't there a super chippy or something like that?
Pace
I had the delight of flying a friends homebuilt RV6A which he built from plan constructing every piece himself. It took him five years to build and nearly caused a divorce but it was a beautiful aircraft to fly one you almost thought into turns without a conscious movement
Wasn't there a super chippy or something like that?
Pace
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Oop North, UK
Posts: 3,076
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: May 2014
Location: London
Posts: 140
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
built from plan constructing every piece himself.
Do you think that the fact he built it from plans, constructing every piece himself, would make the ultimate product 'better' to fly?
I completely get the achievement and respect the amount of work and that in itself is a great ambition...
But surely, building everything to plan but from scratch will not make the final product any better than doing it from the kit received from the factory? OK, you can adjust some things to your specific needs, but you can do that anyway within the same confines as if you bought a kit.
And with the best will and tools in the world, those components which come ready made in the kit are probably made to a higher degree of accuracy/better tolerance when they come from Van's than done in your own garage?
I've always thought of the 'building from plans' really only making sense where there was no kit option. Unless, of course, you want the utter achievement of doing it all yourself, but without really getting anything extra for it.
I'm not at all dissing your friend or your statement - just genuinely curious...
B.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 3,325
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'll probably get flamed for saying this but IMHO the Chippy and RV are incomparable. The Chippy is iconic and oozing nostalgia whereas the RV breed is Meccano like kit build.
...and unless you've suffered the embarrassment of not noticing that ALL the cartridges ignited (due to worn breech blocks) when you pulled the starter, so you're oblivious to the smoke that is pouring from the cowl while you're head-in checking ts&ps until a fireman bangs on the canopy then you haven't lived! It is (of course) totally harmless, but you have to shut it down and then they have to find an armourer to refill the magazine, so the aircraft is unserviceable for at least half a day...
It only happened to me once, at AEF6 (RAF Abingdon, some time in 1975 IIRC) but it's not something you forget!
And to *my* eyes the RV6 is as ugly as an ugly thing that has been dragged out of bed early after clubbing until 4 in the morning, while the chippie is elegant and stylish.
But beauty is in the eye of the beer-holder, of course.
PDR
It only happened to me once, at AEF6 (RAF Abingdon, some time in 1975 IIRC) but it's not something you forget!
And to *my* eyes the RV6 is as ugly as an ugly thing that has been dragged out of bed early after clubbing until 4 in the morning, while the chippie is elegant and stylish.
But beauty is in the eye of the beer-holder, of course.
PDR
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Oop North, UK
Posts: 3,076
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Personally I like the look of the RV's, though I do think the tandem once look best - and you can slide into the seats with your hands on the siderails.
I would agree though that, if you want character and nostalgia then you want the Chippie, if you want performance then go for the RV.
I would agree though that, if you want character and nostalgia then you want the Chippie, if you want performance then go for the RV.
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Gone
Posts: 1,665
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wasn't going to go as far as saying that the RV was an ugly b*tch, but since PDR1 has, I concur. 
It's cramped too. If I was into aero's and wanted performance I would probably go for the Yak 52 or an Extra.
But that's just *my* choice.
It's cramped too. If I was into aero's and wanted performance I would probably go for the Yak 52 or an Extra.
But that's just *my* choice.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 3,325
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That's why I went for the '52 - that, and the fact a share was handily available. It felt more like a warbird than a light aeroplane, was far more capable aerobatically than the Chippy, could do party tricks like near-vertical climbs after take off, but at aeros power and RPM setting drank fuel at a prodigious rate. It also just didn't have that lovely co-ordinated handling ....or a fraction of the character. And it was the most undemanding (and therefore uninteresting and unrewarding) aeroplane to land that I have ever flown (provided you remembered to lower the gear!).
When the group disbanded after another member landed gear-up I was more than happy to go back to my first love, the fabulous Chipmunk.
When the group disbanded after another member landed gear-up I was more than happy to go back to my first love, the fabulous Chipmunk.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Do you think that the fact he built it from plans, constructing every piece himself, would make the ultimate product 'better' to fly?
I think it was more financial not paying for others labour.You really have to love the building probably more than the flying to do that and I would often find him in the garage where he lived for five years much to the dismay of his wife.
I am such a restless soul I would not have the patience to even put a kit together never mind construct every piece from a set of plans
Sorry it would have to be ready to go by tomorrow
But I had the pleasure of flying it with him a number of times and scared him to bits with my antics as it delighted in all manner of everything other than straight and level
probably my choice of a personal fun aircraft and an aircraft which felt like an extension of yourself SSD I know what you mean about character as far as twins went I loved the Baron 55 which again for a twin oozed character and good handling mixed with that bit of magic which other twins didn't have. Something hard to put your finger on as to why
Pace
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: scotland
Age: 43
Posts: 132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I didn't know that any of the RV aircraft were designed, I thought it was designed by a blind man, sorry that's nasty, a person of limited vision. It has to be the ugliest aircraft in the air, compared to something like a DA40 or a Panthera, it looks like something from the 1820's.
Fats
Fats
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Gone
Posts: 1,665
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Shaggy
"I was more than happy to go back to my first love, the fabulous Chipmunk".
Anyone serious about aviation and vintage aircraft would share your thoughts. The Chippy just oozes personality and is probably as close one could get to a Spit at a fraction of the cost. Enjoy her
Flying_Anorak
If you still haven't been convinced thus far, consult your AME ;-)
"I was more than happy to go back to my first love, the fabulous Chipmunk".
Anyone serious about aviation and vintage aircraft would share your thoughts. The Chippy just oozes personality and is probably as close one could get to a Spit at a fraction of the cost. Enjoy her
Flying_Anorak
If you still haven't been convinced thus far, consult your AME ;-)
Last edited by Jetblu; 20th Apr 2016 at 16:52.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fatmanmedia
We were talking about handling not how an aircraft looks which is in the eye of the beholder.
Some men like fat women, some skinny but what good is a picture perfect woman if you can just look at her and she doesn't perform
Ideal is looks great and performs great
If she performs great but ?? turn the lights off and use your imagination
Pace
We were talking about handling not how an aircraft looks which is in the eye of the beholder.
Some men like fat women, some skinny but what good is a picture perfect woman if you can just look at her and she doesn't perform
Ideal is looks great and performs great
If she performs great but ?? turn the lights off and use your imagination
Pace
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Gone
Posts: 1,665
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pace
I think the terminology you are referring to goes something like this....
"You don't have to look at the fireplace while you're poking the fire"
I'll take a miss, she's all yours.
Anyway, no room for ugly birds in ere. Let's get back to the Chippy.
I think the terminology you are referring to goes something like this....
"You don't have to look at the fireplace while you're poking the fire"
I'll take a miss, she's all yours.
Anyway, no room for ugly birds in ere. Let's get back to the Chippy.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JetBlu
Mine is 25 years younger than me looks great with perfect lines and performs great isn't too high maintenance either
Make hay while the sun shines
aircraft of course
Pace
Mine is 25 years younger than me looks great with perfect lines and performs great isn't too high maintenance either
Make hay while the sun shines
aircraft of course
Pace
Some even with a bubble canopy?
British civil Chipmunks also came with a bubble canopy (Mk. 22?) although interestingly, the canopies are not interchangeable with Canadian ones.
I think Chipmunks and RVs are both beautiful in their own ways. Let's just be grateful that the Chipmunk won the competition for a new RAF trainer, rather than this ugly duckling:
I can't imagine SSD waxing lyrical over the Fairey Primer!
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 3,325
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fairey only ever made ugly aeroplanes. One day, when no-one was looking, someone from Dassault broke into the Fairey drawing office and sketched out a Mirage, to give Fairey an idea that ugliness wasn't a prerequisite in an aeroplane.
That became the Fairey Delta 2. The only good looking aeroplane ever to come out of that firm, and so obviously a cuckoo chick!
That became the Fairey Delta 2. The only good looking aeroplane ever to come out of that firm, and so obviously a cuckoo chick!
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: England
Posts: 1,006
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm feeling the need to wade in here to redress the chippie /RV4,6,7,8 balance.
The chipmunk is a lovely aeroplane, best control harmony , gorgeous to fly , spins beautifully , smells amazing etc but when you weigh in maintenance, cleaning a litre of oil off the fuselage after each flight, the faffy starting procedure, the crazy brakes, the ring pull engine stop you really need to love it.
The rv is pretty nice to fly, awfully fast and (relatively)cheap to maintain. Yes it lacks character but makes up in accessibility. There is no pre engine start or post stop messing around.
If someone else was paying I'd fly a Chippie. But I'm not an engineer and like flying so it's the lycoming power for me.
To answer the op you must own a chipmunk at least once in your life.
The chipmunk is a lovely aeroplane, best control harmony , gorgeous to fly , spins beautifully , smells amazing etc but when you weigh in maintenance, cleaning a litre of oil off the fuselage after each flight, the faffy starting procedure, the crazy brakes, the ring pull engine stop you really need to love it.
The rv is pretty nice to fly, awfully fast and (relatively)cheap to maintain. Yes it lacks character but makes up in accessibility. There is no pre engine start or post stop messing around.
If someone else was paying I'd fly a Chippie. But I'm not an engineer and like flying so it's the lycoming power for me.
To answer the op you must own a chipmunk at least once in your life.
I looked very closely at buying a Chipmunk once. They are nice to fly but my impression after a period of study was that there was for decades a small staff of people paid to justify their own existence by studying the design and mandating seemingly hundred of (effectively) ADs... some of which were unnecessary, and some of which were later reversed in chaotic fashion. It's a maze of nonsense that I think would have killed any civil design in a few years. That plus an engine with 1920s level design weaknesses, impractical maintenance issues and unsolvable oil leaks made me go in a different direction. Nice to fly but painful to own was my conclusion.
I think the Chipmnk has pretty lines spoiled by some slighty frumpy details like the RAF canopy and unfaired landing gear. The RV with its constant chord wing is arguably less elegant in concept... but I think the detail design of the RV is generally cleaner. Just my opinion. Obviously either the RV4 or RV8 have tremendously better performance on 150 HP.
I think the Chipmnk has pretty lines spoiled by some slighty frumpy details like the RAF canopy and unfaired landing gear. The RV with its constant chord wing is arguably less elegant in concept... but I think the detail design of the RV is generally cleaner. Just my opinion. Obviously either the RV4 or RV8 have tremendously better performance on 150 HP.
After getting my PPL on Jackeroos, I converted to Chipmunks in 1 hour 20 minutes. After 5 hours 15 minutes I converted in 40 minutes to a C150. Maybe for aerobatics, but otherwise I don't see the attraction of the Chipmunk. (26 years in a Jodel DR1050 taildragger Group.)