Continuing on from my previous post, I feel inclined to give my opinion on some of the aircraft mentioned already from my experience of flying them. Bearing in mind that of my roughly 2000 hours of light aircraft flying, about a thousand are on the Chipmunk - I'm inclined to be a little biased!
Bulldog: Capable, but not as nice to handle. The original Pup is a nicer aeroplane.
Slingsby T67: Started off as a wooden aircraft designed by Rene Fournier - a sculptor and not an aircraft designer. The original RF6 was nice, it lost something in Slingsby's translation. The handling is not pleasant.
FFA Bravo: Heavy and too stable. Control harmonistaion feels odd.
SAH1: A nice try - and British. But too lightweight and had a homebuilt feel. Handles nicely.
GROB 115: OK, but still feels a bit like the G109 motorglider it was developed from. Only the 115T is cleared for aerobatics though.
Zlin 242L: Nice, but heavy. Well built and has powerful controls which lack perfect harmonisation which detract form the overall impression. Designed by a Pole - like the Chippy.
SF260: Lovely, powerful - but complex. It's an airborne Ferrari and the front line attack aircraft in some smaller countries. A different sort of aeroplane.
Yak 52: Good, powerful, but not as nicely harmonised. Feels a bit agicultural but it's in a different league to the Chippy.
Harvard: Again a different league and operating costs way higher.
Extras (various): A different class of aircraft, but very nice. An Extra 300 is way too costly to operate to be compared.
Nord 3202: A more powerful French Chippy. Nice, but rare and much more costly to run.
Decathalon: The Decathalon is the only light aircraft I fly these days. This is because there is one at a flying club near my in-laws which I hire on my infrequent visits to the UK. But I only hire it as there is no Chipmunk to rent nearby! It's aeroabatic (It's a standard) and a taildragger, but I wouldn't call it an overly nice aircraft to fly. The controls are light and powerful, but not well harmonised. And like many American aircraft, it's just a bit too stable in pitch to be a good aeroabtic mount. In a slow roll, the stick ends up pushed all the way to the instrument panel. Also, the view with the high wing is poor.
Pitts (various): The S1 is nice, but very limiting in most aspects, except for doing aerobatics in the airfield overhead. The S2, much more capable, but again a specialist aircraft and a different category to the Chippy.
C152 Aerobat: Don't make me laugh!
Supermunk: The RAFGSA converted ones are not cleard for spinning and aerobatics which defeats the object in owning one.
Vans: I've only flown the RV4 and my impression was that it was the closest think to a Chippy without being a Chippy. But the harmonistaion is not quite as good, although close. The advantage of being able to chose your engine/prop combination is a big plus. I was planning on building one, but a move overseas scuppered that idea.
Cap10: A mate and I were trying to find a Chippy to buy just over 10 years ago. But all the ones we saw had limited engine life and/or TNs outstanding. So we looked at the CAP 10 as the closest thing available. It's a lovely aircraft with crisp handling. The original Emeraude from which it was developed is a beautiful little machine. But they have maintenance issues if they have the wooden spar and although more capabale as an aerobatic mount than they first appear, they are still not a nice to fly as the Chippy. And interestingly, there is a thread on this forum about what could replace a CAP10 - the first respondant (not me!) suggests the Chippy!
The Chippy still wins in my book!
