Chipmunk - Should I?

[foxmoth]

Not sure where the C150 comes into it - side by side, but cramped two up and actually less comfortable than a Chippie, not really faster and rubbish handling!

[Stanwell]

The way I see it, if some people can conceivably think that a C150 is a step up from a Chipmunk ... then fine, terrific, great, go for it!
It just takes the pressure off the Chippy market.

It just boils down to 'Boys and their Toys' - What does it for me, may not for you.
A classic British bike versus a Japanese screamer. A wooden boat versus an aluminium one. A 'curvaceous' woman versus a 'slim' one... Et cetera.
Pretty simple, really.


Oh, BTW, you can buy 'Super Chippy' kits from the States, y'know. No oil leaks, no quirks, no foibles - just the thing for the anally-retentive.

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

C150? Old ones do the job as cheap as chips trainers, but they will never be an aeroplane.

What's wrong with the Chippy brakes? They are far and away the best I have ever known in any aeroplane. With the free-castoring tailwheel you can spin the aeroplane around on the ground in its own length! They offer much finer control as a means of steering on the ground than any other I've tried.

But you do have to learn to use them if you are used to the 'car brakes' on a Spammy.

And what's this ring-pull engine stop? Mags off, throttle wide open was the way we did it!

[Jetblu]

I'm guessing that Maoraigh1 is reinforcing Pace's and 18Greens analogy that ugly birds are ok. Probably eloquently summed up by Stanwell.

Silvaire1

Lovely photo of the Chippy

The other photo would look better suited with 4 servos, a 91cu nitro 2 stroke and a plastic Hector sitting under the bubble.

[Small Rodent Driver]

Oh, BTW, you can buy 'Super Chippy' kits from the States, y'know. No oil leaks, no quirks, no foibles - just the thing for the anally-retentive.

And no longer aerobatic in the UK. Sadly.

[VictorGolf]

The Chipmunk group on our strip has vanished recently. Might be something to do with a £25K engine rebuild. Just saying.

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

There are plenty of groups that have tried to run a Chipmunk without realising it is not a cheap aeroplane to maintain. I don't know why that should be, as Chippy costs are well known - maybe there are a some dreamers out there who think it can be done cheaply?

You have to realise this is a military aeroplane not designed for cheap maintenance, it is a classic for which some parts are becoming expensive (read:rare). Well run groups budget for all of this and buy up likely spares as and when they become available so they are 'in stock' for when needed.

A big bill for an engine rebuild (or replacement with a zero-timed unit) does not usually come as a surprise.

You can run a very big group around a Chipmunk because unlike a tourer, it isn't going to be taken away from base for long so diary slots can be plentiful despite the number of shareholders. A couple of hours and it's often back for the next member; even if it goes to a fly-in usually 2 members share the flight and it's only away for a day. The high utilisation in such a group keeps flying costs down.

A big group, so long as it is well run by folk who know the aeroplane well, is a great one to join. Guess how I know!

[VictorGolf]

Good defence SSD but I think what caused the problem was that the engine hadn't got to TBO and so the "engine pot" wasn't set up to take a £25K hit at that stage.

[Jetblu]

VictorGolf

I'm unconvinced that Shaggy was offering what you may call a defence to the problem you presented.

I would suggest 'that' scenario could happen in any good, bad or ugly aircraft group if it wasn't set up to cater for that anomaly.

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

Quite so, Jet. Any knowledgeable owner will be pleasantly surprised if an engine reaches TBO or beyond and won't be stretching the fund so it can't meet an earlier than TBO demise of the power unit.

The Gipsy Major is quite capable of reliably reaching TBO especially in a high utilisation group. However it is more sensitive than a Lycoming to poor engine handling by its pilots, and that can lead to an earlier than necessary replacement being required.

It's vital, therefore, that Chippy group members thoroughly understand the idiosyncrasies of this venerable old engine and handle it accordingly, and that new group members are checked out not just on the aeroplane, but also on the engine. It's this lovely power unit that gives the aeroplane much of its character, which is why I've never considered a dHC1 with a non-standard engine to be a real Chippy.

[Silvaire1]

There are plenty of groups that have tried to run a Chipmunk without realising it is not a cheap aeroplane to maintain. I don't know why that should be, as Chippy costs are well known - maybe there are a some dreamers out there who think it can be done cheaply?

You have to realise this is an English military aeroplane not designed for cheap maintenance, it is a classic for which some parts are becoming expensive (read:rare). Well run groups budget for all of this and buy up likely spares as and when they become available so they are 'in stock' for when needed.

I fixed that for you There are lots of military trainers from eras before and after that don't have the same level of designed in maintenance requirements, and I think many of those "dreamers" own them, individually and without undue hassle. The Stearman is one that comes to mind, with its 220 Continental, or the various Cub-like L-birds with their flat engines. Even a Ryan PT22 with long obsolete Kinner radial is probably easier to own. British origin stuff very often incorporates fussy ownership issues as par for the course, while other stuff sought to eliminate the hassles.

I know the Chipmunk is really Canadian but the lump on the front and so many of its systems were dictated by the customer.

I remember once having an artillery engineer at Piccatiny Arsenal explain to me the differences between the Russian D-30 howitzer that he liked and was studying and the British designed M119 that he was tasked with developing for US forces. One difference he noted was that the British gun was designed to have a devoted mechanic on the crew!

I'd like to have a Chipmunk just because I think they're cool, but I think I'd like to have an 'engineer' (mechanic) on staff that wouldn't be necessary for some other comparable planes.

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

Please don't be so presumptuous as to 'fix' my posts. Disagree with them by all means, but please don't try to tell me what you think I should have posted. And BTW the 'C' in dHC1 stands for 'Canada', not England,but I see you knew that.

No-one has produced a Chippy without the maintenance overhead. Many have tried, mainly by swapping the engine, which simply removes the soul of the aeroplane. As they say in Yorkshire, "you get owt for nowt ". The hassle of Chippy ownership is the price of aerial delight. Other aeroplanes are available if that price is too high.

The ones you mention - I've flown the Stearman and a WACO which is bit like it, and have a lot of time in the L4 and some in the Super Cub.

Good fun, especially the L4 which I have a particular liking for, but Chippies they ain't!

[Silvaire1]

Yes, I know it's really Canadian but the lump on the front and so many of its systems were dictated by the customer.

(quoting myself)

All the details about the ex-PZL designer and etc are also well known.

No-one has produced a Chippy without the maintenance overhead.

If it were just about flying a military trainer and enjoying the flying, I'd think I'd rather fly a T-34. If it were also about maintaining it, I'd think I'd rather have a T-34 notwithstanding the retractable gear. If the fun of having an antique style aircraft were also in the mix, I think the Chipmunk is a good choice similar to a Jungmann or other planes that outside of their aesthetic appeal and antiquey fun are a step down on the scale of overall merit. The T-34, despite being a contemporary of the Chipmunk does not have the same charm in its styling or appealingly delicate construction.

[9 lives]

C150? Old ones do the job as cheap as chips trainers, but they will never be an aeroplane.

Yeah, I think 150's are actually airplanes.

I'm sure a Chipmunk is a true delight to fly, those I trust tell me so. If the budget permits, and the role is filled, buy Chipmunk by all means! I don't know what it costs to operate one, though I've been hired to make some special tools, and modify pistions to simply enable the rebuild of the engines. I have participated in a Gypsy rebuild, and conducted field repairs. I'm sure that there are type clubs and support groups to keep a Chipmunk happily airborne, and that is as it should be. They must have set prices to remain profitable, as any business must be to survive. My appreciation to those who will bear the expense to keep worthy older aircraft in service.

But understand why you're considering the Chipmunk - Nice to fly, iconic, and able to be fitted with a nice looking canopy if you wish . But you're not buying one if you simply want to be airborne with predictable economy, and lesser expectation of feeling the sky - there are more than 100,000 boring, lack-lustre handling American spam cans out there for that! Great sales for a reason, longevity because of simple economy of scale.

My other flying aircraft is a type certified model, of which only 38 were ever made, and only six survive (though I also own a second, which will be the seventh flying in the world this summer). Mine also has a one off, totally unique engine installation, which is flawed, so I know a thing or two about owning an unusual, and hard to support aircraft. And it has terrible handling compared to my 150!

Simply understand the realistic operating cost of the aircraft you want to own, and assure you have decent contingency fund for it beyond that. It's not the plane's fault if it's expensive to maintain compared to the economy models in which nearly all of us learned to fly.

To be objective, I've never flown the DHC-1 (though would delight for the opportunity), but have owned a 150 for 29 years.....

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

Step, there are a lot of folk who are happy with C150s and their ilk. I learned to fly in them and if the Chippy hadn't come along to reveal to me what flying could be like, I'd have given up flying after a few months I'm sure.

I flew for fun, not utility. For me the C150 wasn't fun - it was an 'insult to the airman's art' as Brian Lecomber put it in 'Talkdown'.

Chippies are a nich aeroplane - they are short range, noisy, oily, expensive to operate, no heat, no luggage space. But for pure fun flying, my kind of flying, none of that matters. The sublime handling, the character, the looks, and the graceful aeros leave those negative points in the shade.

But it isn't for everyone. And it certainly isn't a 'go places' machine.

[9 lives]

I flew for fun, not utility.

I entirely agree, and this is an important consideration - why do you want to fly? I don't for a moment knock a Chipmunk, or any other type, I point out that each type has it's favourable aspects. The favourable aspects are invariably balanced off against some things you should know about and consider. As long as you know about them, and factor them into the type of flying you would like to do, you enter the pastime informed, and hopefully having made a wise decision for yourself. For myself, flying is half fun, and half utility. The utility needs are entirely met by my 150, and it's a little bit fun too!

I'm not here to advance a 150, nor any other type as being superior, far from it. 150's, like so many GA types, are a large compromise - though less so in operating expense. Perhaps they are the antitheses of the Chipmunk, other than seat count. Fair enough, something has to be! But they fill a needed role, and are justifiably popular. I certainly know more privately owned ones than working ones - and they are flown!

I read frequently here of pilots expressing concern about the cost to fly. I'm confident that for every pilot who has openly worried about the cost of their flying, there is another who has budgeted well, and flies within their means. I opine that it would be unwise for a pilot to approach Chipmunk ownership with "flying economy" in mind, unless they are comparing it to Spitfire ownership!

I have a flying budget, and I consider how I spend it to balance enjoyment of flying, and proficiency. This summer, I hope to rent an hour flying a PBY Catalina, but ownership is certainly out of the question! I never expect to afford even another few hours flying one. It burns more avgas in an hour than my flying boat does in 20 hours. I'll give up 20 hours of proficiency in my flying boat - once! I maintain ample currency on many GA types, because I fly many regularly. I worry about the pilot who chooses to spend their budget to maybe fly once a month on the aircraft of their dreams. During those ten or twelve hours a year, their dreams are fulfilled, but ten or twelve hours a year is inadequate to be proficient as a pilot, particularly as a new pilot on an unusual type.

I salute aviation dreamers, I certainly was one, and to my delight, I have been able to fly nearly every light civil aircraft of my dreams, with one more to add next week. But a part of that has always being well current and proficient on something - even just the modest 150, so I was simply a good pilot, and ready for the next opportunity. Consider the cost of ownership, and how it will affect your flying overall, and if you can truly afford it, by all means, buy it and fly it!

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

I opine that it would be unwise for a pilot to approach Chipmunk ownership with "flying economy" in mind, unless they are comparing it to Spitfire ownership!

It would be a wealthy person indeed that could single-handedly fund running a Chipmunk. However, as I stated earlier because it doesn't go away from base for long it lends itself well to large group ownership with high utilisation, provided the group is well run. That's how I managed to enjoy poling one for well over 30 years on very little outlay. Far less than hiring a club C150, in fact.

And in all those years there was never a 'cash call' on group members - we just paid our modest monthly fee and monthly hours-based flying bill. With a potentially costly bill-generating aeroplane like a Chippy, the group has to be very well run to achieve this. Our's was.

[PDR1]

Originally Posted by Shaggy Sheep Driver

Quite so, Jet. Any knowledgeable owner will be pleasantly surprised if an engine reaches TBO or beyond and won't be stretching the fund so it can't meet an earlier than TBO demise of the power unit.

The Gipsy Major is quite capable of reliably reaching TBO especially in a high utilisation group. However it is more sensitive than a Lycoming to poor engine handling by its pilots, and that can lead to an earlier than necessary replacement being required.

It's vital, therefore, that Chippy group members thoroughly understand the idiosyncrasies of this venerable old engine and handle it accordingly, and that new group members are checked out not just on the aeroplane, but also on the engine. It's this lovely power unit that gives the aeroplane much of its character, which is why I've never considered a dHC1 with a non-standard engine to be a real Chippy.

Well yes, swapping it for (say) an IO360 will obviously improve reliability...

PDR

[foxmoth]

I would go with SSDs assessment of the 150, I have always described it (and the Piper Cherokee and its derivatives) as being designed to go from A-B with minimum interference from the pilot, if that floats your boat then fine, personally I would rather find a bit more cash and fly something like the Chippie or the RV, the RV fits more for me because I do go down South from time to time and dont want to do this at 90kts! If you just want to be in the air and want economy though I would go for a C42, cheaper again and nicer handling!

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

Oh dear. Step has gone off in a huff because I won't forgive the C150 it's appalling handling and boring character and started a "we shouldn't express a contrary opinion of any aeroplane lest it upsets owners of such machines" thread.

Sorry Step. I call it as I see it. You don't have to agree with me of course, but on my planet we learn from open discussion and expression of honest opinions. Wanting to repress that because someone might not like it is regressive.