Zlin .v. Chipmunk

[Genghis the Engineer]

Just curious after a conversation not long ago.

Has anybody flown both a Zlin 526 and a Chipmunk? I know they look pretty similar, but how similar are they in terms of handling and cockpit ergonomics?

G

[Jetblu]

If you can fly a Mk 26 Spitfire, you can fly these two.

Go for it! :)

[Big Pistons Forever]

Hard to beat the looks and handling of a Chippy.:ok: If only it did not have that horrible boat anchor of an engine, the mighty Drippsy Major:ouch:

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

Oi! People have tried other engines in Chippys and it just ain't a Chippy any more without that Dripsy.

I haven't flown a Zlin but it'd have to be darned good to be as nice as the Chippy to fly (I part-owned one for 30+ years less a couple of years out in a Yak group).

I suspect the Zlin's aerobatically more capable, however, as is the Yak52.

Be interesting to hear from someone with extensive experience (not just a few flights) in both.

[Echo Romeo]

If only it did not have that horrible boat anchor of an engine, the mighty Drippsy Major

We have several Gipsy powered Chippies at our field, one of which I have flown, and what a delight it is. There is also a lycoming powered one used for tugging, I can't comment having never flown it but those that have say it doesn't handle as nicely!

[Genghis the Engineer]

If you can fly a Mk 26 Spitfire, you can fly these two.

Go for it! :)

Okay, okay, I need to explain myself. :8

I've flown the Chippie (1hr dual, couple of hours PiC) and Mk.26 (9hrs PiC, none as pax or dual ;) ), and have been advising the new owner of said Mk.26 on getting himself in a fit state to fly it safely. I recommended some quality dual Chipmunk time, but where he lives Chipmunks are very rare but Zlins quite common. So I was curious as to whether the Zlin would be as good a training aeroplane for the Mk.26 as I'm confident that the Chippie would be.

I know that the Zlin has retractable gear (good), but know nothing about the cockpit - which to my mind is the Chipmunk's greatest asset as a trainer for then going onto something Spitfire shaped.

G

[Silvaire1]

A local friend of mine had a 526L for a long time, and a fair bit of Chipmunk time before that. I'll ask him what he thinks this weekend. I could imagine the rear seat solo Zlin having similar forward visibility to the scaled Spitfire, and similar narrow main gear. Differences in wing loading, propeller control and the tail wheel mechanism would be question marks (in my mind)

[sycamore]

Genghis,clear your PM box...

[Genghis the Engineer]

I can receive emails but need to shift about a thousand (literally) legacy PMs from when I was a mod.

G

[Snakecharmer]

Have done a few (but not too many) hours in both… but crusty old brain not recalling too much detail… recall the Chipmunk as pure pleasure but the Zlin more 'interesting' with more of a warbird 'feel' and noise from the inside… if that makes any sense?

[Dan Winterland]

I have a lot of Chippy hours, a few in the 526. They are quite different aircraft, the Chippy was designed as a military trainer, the Zlin as an an aerobatic mount. Personally, the Chippy has nicer handling, the Zlin is much more capable for aerobatics with much more powerful controls.

As for training for the mini Spitfire, I would think the Chippy would be better, particularly for getting the landing correct. It's exhibits true taildragger charachteristics, whereas the Zlin has to be almost flown on with a flatter attitude - the controls are still very effective down to landing speed.

[India Four Two]

180 hours on Chippys (a long time ago) and one flight in the back-seats of a Harvard and a Spitfire a couple of years ago.

I found the Harvard cockpit very alien and confusing. I was much more comfortable in the Spitfire, because of the similarity to the Chipmunk cockpit. The view outside and the noises were much different than the Chippy though. :ok:

[Barcli]

There was me trying to think of a "real" MK26 with two seats.......:rolleyes:

[3 Point]

Well, can't comment on the Zlin or the mini Spit but have flown and taught on both the Chippy (quite a lot) and on the real Spit. Chipmunk is great as a basic tailwheel trainer and will amply reward good handling procedures in and around the circuit but will let you know when you get it wrong. The relationship between pitch attitude (or alpha if you prefer) and approach speed is pretty linear and so when decelerating on finals the increase in nose up attitude to maintain a steady approach is predictable.

On the Spit the relationship is non-linear and so losing that last few knots of speed on finals requires a significant nose up attitude change and one feels very close to the stall however control is still perfectly adequate, it just feels uncomfortable. I've never seen it but I guess the Cl alpha curve is quite flat and goes non-linear quite early for the Spit wing.

Don't know if the mini Spit feels anything like that but if so then your man will need careful briefing. Can't offer much else but, if your man wants some dual on the real Spit come on down to Goodwood and we can oblige!

3 Ponit

[India Four Two]

3 Point,

The landing at the end of my Spitfire flight was definitely a "three-point arrival" rather than a greaser. That was on a paved runway, or "the seal" as the Kiwis call it. Is that consistent with your comments?

During my flight, I found the Spitfire very sensitive in pitch and heavy in roll compared to the Chipmunk. Would you agree with that?

[3 Point]

Not quite sure what you mean by a three point arrival but a three point landing usually works well in the Spit and is generally recommended.

As for the pitch and roll control, I agree with what you say. Remember that the speed range in the Chippy is from about 50 to 120 Kts (roughly) so not much variation in the control loads. In a Spit the speed ranges between 70Kts to 300 so yes, the ailerons get pretty heavy at higher speeds.

[India Four Two]

3 Point,

To clarify, the touchdown was very hard, as if we had dropped in from several feet.

I take your point about the speed range. I don't remember what speed we were doing when I was flying, but I do remember thinking turning would be a two-handed job at higher speeds.

[3 Point]

Well, like any aeroplane, if you misjudge the height and hold off too high then you will come down hard! Easy to do in a Spit with the relatively poor forward view -you have to rely on peripheral vision much more to judge the height.

Manoeuvring in Roll at high speed usually needs two hands - hence the spade grip on the stick. Maybe I need to go to the gym more often!

[Genghis the Engineer]

All bar one of my Mk26 landings I did 3-point, and it worked well for that aircraft - my one attempt to do a wheeler (11kn crosswind on a diversion, on a massive tarmac runway with few useful references alongside) was never going to be pretty, and wasn't - but I didn't break anything.

Speed range was from Vso-44 (30 flap, they go to 55, but I was advised not to go beyond 30 so didn't) / Vs1-48, to a Vne of 193, although in practice she cruised about 120kn, and I didn't go beyond about 150. Aileron loads were fairly consistently light, but pitch forces and flightpath stability similar to 3-point's description. Increasing speed required a reasonably high pitch forces, deceleration to the stall was lower and she stalled with about 2/3 back stick. However, trimming to approach was difficult - just (again) as 3-point described for the real Spit, there was a strong sense (despite both the airspeed and lack of stall warning saying otherwise) that the aeroplane was unhappily and dangerously slow and it was necessary to force the nose up and hold one's nerve to keep the aeroplane at the right attitude and speed - very nose-up, but realistically still very much above the stall.

Mk.26 and new owner are now in Switzerland and he's in the hands of a very competent local tailwheel / aerobatic instructor with plenty of hours on high powered taildraggers, who is going to get to know it well and then bring him up to speed - with a bit of remote help and guidance from me.

But as the owner has as-yet no tailwheel differences, I think based upon both my prior experience and opinion, and the comments above, point very strongly at his being best advised to go and get some quality time in the back of a Chipmunk. The Zlin offers a route to getting the retract tick, but probably no other advantage for his needs.

G

[3 Point]

We train Spitfire pilots via Chipmunk then Harvard (sometimes Piston Provost as it has pneumatic brakes) and then the real thing. I'm sure the Chippy will be a fine intro to the mini Spit especially as GtE's description of the handling makes it sound very similar. The lower inertia and (I guess) lower wing loading will make a difference but a good grounding on the Chippie is a very sound start.

3 Point

[Silvaire1]

FWIW my ex-Zlin owning friend with Chipmunk experience raised his eyebrows a little at the idea of a no-tailwheel time pilot transitioning quickly into something that might resemble a Spitfire. He also waived off the Zlin versus Chipmunk question as relatively unimportant. His thought was step (1) lots of tailwheel time in *anything* with a small wheel in the rear followed by (2) Harvard (AT6) time. That is assuming the scaled Spitfire flies like a full scale version. He was a US Navy test pilot so I think not a bad guy for questions of this type.

[Genghis the Engineer]

The chap who has bought this Mk26 also recognises, without needing to be told, that he needs significant tailwheel time.

However I'd dispute "anything". Something that has a good view over the nose and a relatively flat landing attitude - say a G109 or Jodel, will give far less value than something like a Chipmunk.

Time in a Harvard would be a lot of fun I'm sure, but I'm unconvinced that the Mk26 is such a beast that it needs the intermediate step - apart from when taxiing when it was obtrusive, torque isn't a big issue.

G

N.B. The USN pilot on my ETPS course had never flown anything with a propeller before the course.

[3 Point]

Agree with all that Genghis has said above. The USN TP will certainly be highly qualified in testing and assessing new aircraft and equipment but that does not necessarily qualify him as an expert on training pilots to fly new machines. Instructing and TPing are different disciplines and require different (although in some areas overlapping) skills.

The Spitfire is an aeroplane, it requires certain techniques to fly it safely and none of these are particularly difficult to master. The pilot under training needs to be guided by a suitably experienced and competent instructor who understands and can teach those techniques.

I've trained pilots with limited tailwheel time on several large and powerful types with no difficulty and I'd say that Genghis' approach seems sensible and measured. Good luck with the training!

3 Point

[Silvaire1]

N.B. The USN pilot on my ETPS course had never flown anything with a propeller before the course.

I'm not sure if some USN pilots still fly prop basic trainers (or not) in training today - but the guy I mentioned was flying piston engined Navy flying boats as an Ensign. Hundreds of types since then ranging from microlights, single and multi engined piston including Navy IP on T-28s, Skyhawk and F4 Phantom test flying, civilian instructor on all the usual types for extra money once upon a time, turboprop singles and commuter airliners professionally, L1011 Captain, then eventually retiring from DC9s that he says were more fun. He flies the tailwheel Vans RV that he built himself now but prior to that had the Zlin 526 for 10 or 15 years, for aerobatics, originally with the Chipmunk bunch that used to exist locally. He's a good guy to talk to about different types, having had so much direct experience on everything with wings.

I think it'd be quite difficult to assess the scaled Spifire without direct experience on the scaled type, as despite it being close to full scale it must be much lighter and has much lower power loading too.

[Genghis the Engineer]

Roughly speaking the Mk26 has 1/4 the mass, 4/5 the linear dimensions, and 1/6 the power of an early model spit. So, it has to be assessed very much as an aeroplane in its own right.

There must be sonebody who has flown a Mk26 and, say, a Mk5 so can do a direct comparison. I'd love to ssy that that's me - but sadly it isn't.

Re:USN people - I've had a lot to do with the US flight test community and know some with a lot of little aeroplane experience who have much to offer in this regard. But, it isn't automatic - there are plenty who have never flown a piston prop.

G