Chipmunks

[Tiger_ Moth]

Some questions:
1) Who sits where? is it pilot in the front and instructor/passenger in the back?
2)Cruising speed and top speed?
3)Whats it like to fly ? Hard?
4)Is it hard to land? Do you have to fly a curved approach because its tailwheel?

Thanks

[FlyingForFun]

Never flown a Chipmunk, so can't answer your questions, but a couple of comments on 4)

The poor visibility on final which is experienced in many aircraft is nothing to do with the aircraft being a taildragger. When an aircraft is in the air, it doesn't care where its wheels are. If you sat the pilot in the back seat of a C172 or a Warrior, moved the engine up a couple of inches, and ensured the windows didn't come down any lower than shoulder height (and preferably much higher), you'd have exactly the same problems.

I have a few hours in this type of aircraft (I mean taildraggers where you can't see the runway on final - not spam-cans with the ridiculous mods I just described!) but not very many. I wasn't taught to fly a curved approach. I was flying out of an ATC field, where a curved approach would have been very inconvenient if ATC required an extended downwind (or even a "normal" downwind).

Instead, the technique was to come in very high, and make a steep approach - power off, and maybe 10kts faster than you want to be "over the numbers". The nose-low attitude then allows you just enough view over the top of your pax (or instructors) head to see the runway. Generally, the type of aircraft where this type of approach is required doesn't have a problem bleeding off the extra speed when you're on very short finals.

Another possible technique would be to side-slip down the approach, so you can see the runway out the side of the plane. Both these methods allow you to fly a straight track on final, and fit it with other traffic at (civilian) airfields much better. Any thoughts on this from pilots who fly this type of aircraft regularly would be interesting...

FFF
-------------

[Flap40]

Answers:-

1) Usually pilot in front, instructor/passenger in the rear although the only stipulation is solo from the front seat only.

2) Cruise is listed in the handling notes as 90kts at 2000rpm but I'm sure the one I used to fly would quite happily bowl along at 100+. Vne is 155kts IAS.

3) Absolutly the best handling aircraft I've ever flown. I suspect however that you really meant to ask about landing/Takeoff. It is also one of the easier tailwheel a/c due to the wide track u/c and a decent set of brakes.

4) It's not hard to land, just different (to a tricycle u/c) and the view from the front seat on approach is excellent. It can be a bit challenging to see anything from the rear seat with no crosswind but that can easily be rectified with a bit of side slip.

[soppybeagle]

If as your name suggests you fly Tigers, a Chippie will be a doddle!

If you drive spam cans I suggest you convert asap.

Don't worry about cruise speeds etc. they are for aerobating, I seem to remember that 140kts will see you round a loop.

They are delightful to fly, visibility good, only need to side slip if too high or for fun.

Difficult to fly? No. Prince Charles learned to fly in one.

If you find one that needs flying please let me know!

[TheFox]

Just ask John Andrews :D

[QNH 1013]

Basically a low-wing version of the Tiger Moth, but with wide-track u/c, brakes, and you don't get rained on. A great "fun" aircraft but not enough space or range for touring.

[stiknruda]

TigerMoth your questions amaze me!! Not sure if it is the naivety of structure or just your inherent belief in the right to ask them in the manner that you do!

But to answer the salient points:

I have a few dozen Chipmunk hours and can say that the controls are probably the most harmonised of any light aircraft. I only have 32 different types in my log book so I am not a real judge but I can categorically state that the controls are far more refined than the Pitts' that I currently find myself in. Certainly a thousand times better to stick and rudder than the DH82.

Solo front. Pilot front pax rear or stude front instructor rear

When flight planning I work on 90 kts at 1950rpm and correct for head/tailwind when airborn and subject to actuals.

Hard to fly - all I will say to this is that if you can fly (ie - have a licence) then with sufficient training you should be able to fly almost anything. I find it a delight to fly and am always happy to ferry a friends example for him.

Landings are benign tailwheel but I must confess that I do not click up three notches of brake as per RAF Op notes as a prelanding check.

The one that I am used to appears to be more restricted by oil consumption than by endurance! The ring mod allegedly costs circa £18k.




Stik

[Tiger_ Moth]

Thanks everyone.
Stiknruda, whats wrong with my question? It doesnt offer any personal opinion or anything. I thought it was criticism-proof?
What manner do I ask questions in?

[Firkin L]

Having several hundred hours on Chipmunks I would thoroughly recommend them, not difficult with the right training either. My advice would be not to buy one but just hire as they are expensive to run due to all the checks and NDT associated with older aircraft. Aircraft of this type have the potential to cost owners alot of money.

PS
Don't worry about the question, seemed reasonable enough to me!

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

Chipies are lovely! Flown solo from front, super control harmony, does nice lady-like aeros. 120 knots for a roll, 130 for a loop, 140 for a stall turn.

No real vices, easy to fly, but demanding to fly well. It rewards good piloting. Unlike a spmcan, all your control inputs will be faithfully translated into manouvres - so GIGO!

I've been Chippying for over 20 years now and have not found a nicer bimbling machine - ecellent for farm stripping, gentle aeros etc. 6 Gallons/hour means it's affordable, too. With the ring mod, oil consupmton little more than a spamcan - even after aeros. I don't belive 18K for the ring mod - you can get a re-con engine, ring-modded, for less than that.

No need to put on any notches of brake before landing. If your feet are working OK, rudder alone is fine. If you find you need help (xwind etc), you can pull on some brake on the ground (RH on stick, LH on brake lever).

Very well mannered tailwheeler with good brakes and oleos.

Not a tourer becuse no luggage space. But the best fun flying machine bar none IMHO.



SSD

[DamienB]

Gratuitous piccy because I happen to have it handy... (Old Warden on Saturday):

http://www.thunder-and-lightnings.co.uk/evechip.jpg

[formationfoto]

Chipmunk - the most fun machine invented since the Tiger Moth!

Designed as a basic trainer so relatively forgiving (and certainly easier than the Tiger). One of those machines which goes just where you want it with great control harmonisation. Landing allows one of those 'have we touched down yet?' moments - makes average flying look good.

I have a share in a chippy at Seething, Norfolk, and am happy to demonstrate why it is a great machine.

Flying from the front, visibility on the ground is better than many taildraggers (though doesn't beat short noses a/c like the Jodel.

Flying from the back with a passenger in the front (the wrong way to do it but the way you have to do it when assisting someone who is getting to grips with the machine) forward view is poor and you have to negotiate with the front seat person to lean in the opposite direction to way you want to lean into the slight bubble in the canopy. Side slipping helps.

90kts is about all you get without increasing fuel burn too much (2250 rpm).

Fuel endurance is less than 3 hours but also limited by seat discomfort and oil use (unless ring mods done).

good machine for basic lazy aeros but youre not going to win many competitions in one.

Spin recovery said to be touchy but get the stick far enough forward (past the aerodynamic 'limit') and recovery using the standard method works.

My favourite formation mount (see 3 ship in Todays Pilot this month).

On hot sunny days fly with the canopy open to the first notch.

Would still choose the Tiger on a balmy summer evening as nothing beats pottering along with the sun and wind in your face but for practicality give me the enclosed cabin, brakes, and (much) better handling of a DHC1.

[foxmoth]

As has been said the Chippie is a great aircraft, the reason you get a better view over the nose than in the Tiger is of course due to the fact it has FLAPS, read through your flap theory to understand, the view from the back though is still a bit obscure as has also been pointed out!
If you can fly the Tiger the Chippie should be NO problem, and great fun.