Chipmunk - Should I?

[Flying_Anorak]

Seriously contemplating adding a small share in one to my 'hangar' - any reason why not to, anything to be wary of?

Thanks.

[foxmoth]

Apart from a big grin on flying it there are some maintenance issues to consider, IIRC fuselage tie bars, xrays on U/c and a few others to look out for!

[megan]

any reason why not to, anything to be wary ofThose who know say it has the handling characteristics of a Spitfire. The only thing to be wary of is the depletion of wallet cause you'll just want to fly so much. First solo in this one 29 July 1962.

http://www.edcoatescollection.com/ac1/austb/VH-BSP1.jpg

[Small Rodent Driver]

Somebody once told me that a Jungmann was a better handling aircraft than the Chipmunk. I dispute that.

Loved flying the Chipmunk and seriously considering getting involved in another.

I'm certain SSD will be along in a moment to extol the virtues of the Chippy.

Delightful aircraft if properly maintained. A bitch if it aint.

[Capt Kremmen]

megan

You beat me to it by two months !

[India Four Two]

FA,

Of course you should, but as others have said, look at the maintenance history carefully.

With regard to comparing the Chippie with a Spitfire, I am lucky enough to have flown both :cool: Without doubt, the Chipmunk is much nicer to fly, but the elliptical wing and the 27 litre Merlin of the Spit more than make up for the heavy ailerons and super-sensitive elevators. :)

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

SRD - here I am! When I bought into G-BCSL as a founder member of the Barton Chipmunk Group in 1979 the then CFI (who had formed the group for us new PPLs to have something interesting to fly after the prosaic club C150s) said "it'll spoil you for anything else".

I thought he was exaggerating. He wasn't! It is far and away best handling aeroplane with the most 'character' I have ever flown, and I've flown a few. Had a share in a Yak52 for a few years - knocked the Chippy into a cocked hat for capability. But it just wasn't as much fun.

I haven't flown a Spitfire but I know a few lucky souls who have flown one and the Chippy. Obviously the Spit is in a different world performance wise, but for handling.... at least one prefers the Chippy.

So not only should you; you MUST!

This sums it up for me - me having fun at Kenyon Hall Farm strip in our beloved SL:

http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b132/GZK6NK/Vince%20in%20G-BCSL%20res_zpsun6ikalq.jpg (http://s18.photobucket.com/user/GZK6NK/media/Vince%20in%20G-BCSL%20res_zpsun6ikalq.jpg.html)

[BoeingBoy]

Having been fortunate enough to have flown the Harvard, Mustang and Spitfire (Back seats on the last two) I can honestly say that my overwhelming respect for the Chipmunk remains intact.

It really does handle like a Spitfire without the power and speed inertia but in all other respects does replicate that feeling of 'wearing the aircraft'.

The handling is superb and I often tell people it's the difference between learning to ride on a school Dobbin and climbing onto your first dressage horse.

Owning one outright or being in a small group will seriously hurt your wallet. You are placed at the top end of GA maintenance bills but if you can join a group that is caring for it's aircraft and sharing the bills then you will never regret your decision to join.

Just watch the crosswinds!

[wsmempson]

I thought that the maintenance costs had got a lot better since the Chipmunk had gone on to an LAA permit to fly? I understand that a few are still run on a C of A, so that they can be used for training and hire...?

[abgd]

Perhaps the comparison is moot, given that the Chipmunk is aerobatic but the Turbulent is not, but it's also a tailwheel/taildragger aircraft with crisp handling often described using superlatives: can anybody comment on how they compare?

[pulse1]

I have never flown a Turbulent but I have flown the Chipmunk and Condor. Personally I prefer the handling of the Condor, especially in roll. More crisp is the right word and, with a four point harness, one does feel part of the aeroplane. However, for pure ethos and aerobatics, the Chipmunk is in a world of its own.

[Jetscream 32]

As long as you remember the pedals on the floor are actually required at all times that the engine is turning you'll be fine, handbrake whilst taxing in a crosswind can be fun also...and that when you slow roll them do not worry about the canopy sliding back......caveat... try and catch it before it goes past the retainer for 1 up - otherwise its really embarrassing when it goes all the way to the back stop and you are flying Solo......but for giggles you cannot get a better aircraft :)

[PDR1]

Flew them as an air cadet back in the 70s, and TBH they're the reason I let my PPL lapse as none of the aircraft available to me were as nice to fly!

As an ownership proposition you need to remember that they drink a lot of oil (this is normal, not a sign of an incipient engine problem). It also depends on whether the particular one still has the cartridge starter or has had the electric starter modification.

PDR

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

I think all civilian Chippies (so these days, that's all of them bar the BBMF) don't have cartridge start. And the ring mod on the pistons largely tames the oil consumption, though you wouldn't think it as you crawl underneath post flight all the way down to the rear of the fuselage wiping the oil off!

That's assuming you aerobat it. But doesn't everyone who is lucky enough to fly one?

[Mark 1]

I had a share in a chippy and really enjoyed it ( when it was serviceable)...
But then got a Vans RV-4 which may not quite have the aesthetic character, but it was 70mph faster, more than twice the climb rate, used less fuel, had better handling, was easy to maintain at about 10% of the maintenance cost and didn't leave a pool of oil on the hangar floor!

If it's a good one then go for it, you won't regret the experience.

[Neil Desperandum]

You definitely should - but will you have enough time to fly four airplanes?
;)

[Pace]

Never flown A Chippy but believe some were modified into very sporty machines. Some even with a bubble canopy?
Best handling aircraft I flew was a Sia Marchetti 260 which was a delight to fly but no idea if it has better handling than the Chippy
So what wins the best handling Single Piston ?

Pace

[Jetblu]

Ditto Pace. Neither have I. I've always wanted to have a pole about in a Chippy but the opportunity has not come about yet. I will have to try harder.

[foxmoth]

But then got a Vans RV-4 which may not quite have the aesthetic character, but it was 70mph faster, more than twice the climb rate, used less fuel, had better handling, was easy to maintain at about 10% of the maintenance cost and didn't leave a pool of oil on the hangar floor!
Most who fly one come down with the "RV grin" and I always describe the RV as a Chippie on steroids.

[Jetblu]

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.

[Pace]

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

[foxmoth]

Art Scholl
https://www.eaa.org/en/eaa-museum/museum-collection/aircraft-collection-folder/1950-de-havilland-dhc-1b-2-chipmunk---n1114v

[Baikonour]

built from plan constructing every piece himself.

At the risk of thread drift...

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... :ok:
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.

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

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.

I think that's absolutely right. As well as (Pace) being possibly the best handling SEP (OK, I haven't flown an RV) what the Chippy has in spades is character! It looks like a Spitfire. When you strap it on (you don't 'get into' a Chippy) one slides down into the seat just as one sees Spitfire pilots do - both hands on the windscreen arch top; it just feels so natural. Even when taxying it vibrates, it rattles, it pops, it blatters, it's 'alive!'.

[PDR1]

...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

[foxmoth]

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.:ok:

[Jetblu]

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.

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

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.

[Pace]

Do you think that the fact he built it from plans, constructing every piece himself, would make the ultimate product 'better' to fly?

No I didn't mean because he built every piece from plan it was better ;) 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 :E
Sorry it would have to be ready to go by tomorrow :ok:

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 :E 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

[fatmanmedia]

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

[Jetblu]

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 :ok:


Flying_Anorak

If you still haven't been convinced thus far, consult your AME ;-)

[Pace]

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 :E
Ideal is looks great and performs great
If she performs great but ?? turn the lights off and use your imagination :E

Pace

[PDR1]

So it is your contention that the RVs are best flown with your eyes shut?

Controversial...

:p

PDR

[Jetblu]

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.

[Pace]

JetBlu

Mine is 25 years younger than me looks great with perfect lines and performs great isn't too high maintenance either :E
Make hay while the sun shines

aircraft of course ;)

Pace

[India Four Two]

Some even with a bubble canopy?All of the later RCAF Chipmunks came standard with a beautiful bubble canopy. They also had heaters as you would expect for an aircraft operating in Canadian winters. Here’s C-FBXI at the Springbank airshow last year. I flew her for a few hours many years ago:

http://i30.photobucket.com/albums/c309/india42/IMG_2165_zpsfceeclgk.jpg (http://i30.photobucket.com/albums/c309/india42/IMG_2165_zpsfceeclgk.jpg)

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:

http://i30.photobucket.com/albums/c309/india42/image.jpg1_zpsk9sg2jzp.jpg

I can't imagine SSD waxing lyrical over the Fairey Primer!

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

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!

[18greens]

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.

[Silvaire1]

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.

http://cdn.kitplanes.com/media/newspics/0814/RV-4_019.jpg

http://static1.squarespace.com/static/52871e25e4b0e601addcd783/53fd9d6ae4b04ec10817c496/53fd9d77e4b08eb2b2f59949/1409130725355/chipy_date.jpg

[Maoraigh1]

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.)

[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 :ok:

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]

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 (https://www.atsb.gov.au/media/5333862/AO-2014-180%20Final.pdf) 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.

[9 lives]

I'm not huffing, but I won't drift this thread.... I started another one...

[megan]

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.SSD, could you please expand on the highlighted piece ie in what way was the Gipsy more sensitive? Have flown both, albeit a long, long time ago.

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

Being even older technology than the flat engines, the Gipsy needs a little more care if it is to reach TBO without problems. Some points to watch; none of them unique to the Gipsy, but all of them perhaps more critical if you ignore them:

Always pull through 4 compressions before start, checking for no hydraulicing, 4 good compressions, and the impulse mag click.

After start, warm it gently and thoroughly before roaring off into the blue.

On T/O, open the throttle gently, don't slam it open.

Dont wang the throttle shut at TOC, ease the power off gently instead.

Be 100% religious about rpm limits - NEVER exceed them especially in aerobatics where it is all too easy to do.

In aeros, be gentle in throttle handling - no slamming it open and shut.

Never shock-cool it.

Keep the oil tank regularly topped up. Too little oil and it'll get too hot to do a good job protecting the bearings.

Allow some running at idle RPM to even out temperatures before shutting it down.

Shut it down from idle with both mags 'off' and throttle wide open (to prevent running on).

Just treat it with care at all times and it won't let you down. None of this should be news to any pilot (except maybe the pulling through).

[PDR1]

In what way is that any different to any other engine in this class (with the possible exceptoin of the pulling through, although that's still "best practice" with lyconentals)?

PDR

[9 lives]

SSD's advice about operating the Gipsy is excellent, and in my opinion spot on for any aircooled aircraft engine. (Though shut down other types with the mixture ICO, but for the same reason as SSD states). I have more experience maintaining Gipsys, than the dozen or so hours I have flying them (Tiger Moth), but I think that you'll find that an abused or failing Lycoming or Continental can be more easily/quickly/economically repaired. Not that any engine should be operated so as to invoke the need for repair, but if the engine has to be run hard, I'd be choosing away from the Gipsy for that flight.

[Airbornestu]

Based on the enormous amount of fun I had as a CCF cadet 30 or so years ago, I'd say if you can afford it, go for it - they're flippin' brilliant things.

If only I'd realised at the time how lucky I was, being hung upside down by my harness doing loops, stall turns and all sorts of other silliness rather than doing double maths I'd have done even more of it than I did!

[Silvaire1]

You won't find many aircraft engines that require the owner to remove the valve covers and change the oil in each that splash lubricates the valve gear. While you're in there doing that every 25 hrs on the Gipsy, you adjust the valve lash. It's an engine utilizing early 1920s technology that was superseded in most other practical applications by the mid 1930s. It was used in 1946 because the Canadian designers were forbidden by their UK customer from using anything better.

It's interesting to conjecture why Dehavilland or others didn't try seriously to develop a modern light aircraft engine themselves, instead of giving up. I've seen it suggested that the post-war Blackburn Bombardier would have been a good replacement for the Gipsy, especially given how underpowered the Chipmunk ended up being, but others would know better than me whether the Blackburn engine was any less of a archaic antique than the Gipsy by the 1950s.

Another possibility would have been been to 'borrow' a German design for use in postwar British aircraft, as per BSA Bantam (DKW) motorcycle engine and Bristol (BMW) car engines.

[Stanwell]

Powerplant-wise, we had a similar situation here in Oz with the de Havilland DHA-3 Drover.
Immediately post war, there was a requirement for an 8 passenger feeder/utility aircraft to replace the dear old DH-84 Dragon.

An aircraft similar to, but more rugged than, the DH Dove was seen to be the answer.
Now, through the war years, the Gipsy Major had been produced, in quantity, locally and by 1946, considerable stocks of these engines were on hand.
At that time, American dollars were in short supply and we had plenty of Gipsy Majors just sitting around, - so, the three-engined Gipsy powered Drover came about.

After some years experience using that venerable powerplant, most of them were re-engined with Lycoming IO-360s and gave excellent service after that.
The Gipsy-engined ones were better looking, though. (Grin).
.

[mothminor]

Totally agree with SSD`s wise words :ok:


I joined a large chippy group a year ago - no regrets
Make sure the group keep track of all the TNS`s required (ours keep a spread-sheet).
The engine fund is very important, to cope with the unexpected as well as the inevitable.


For touring and hour building get a Jodel (smaller the better)
A Condor is hard to beat on a budget
but for bags of Fun in a Vintage Aeroplane, go for the Chippy. :D

[Wide-Body]

Guess I am a lucky guy. In the Wide-Body household we have been lucky to own many of the types mentioned here. Condor, Chipmunk, Cub, Maule, Yak 52, RV8 and Chilton DW-1. Let's take the DW1 out of the equation as it is a single seater, even though its handling is amazing and It looks great

For many years my favorite was the Chippy, even after flying some heavy metal the is just something very right with the chipmunk handling. Many hundreds of hours spent wiffadilling around the country. I still have my love affair with the Yak, but beauty contest winner she is not. Funny enough the Condor has great affection in my heart. It wins the most underrated aircraft award around. Great machine for having fun at a great price.

Now to upset SSD, after a 4 years of owning the RV8 whilst maintaining my love affair with the DHC-1 I have come to a personal conclusion. The RV8 is a better handling aircraft . As for looks I believe that the paint scheme influences the look of the aircraft greatly. Luckily Chipmunk owners have better taste than some RV ones.

As for the C150, if you can get someone to fly an aerobatic sequence well in an aerobat they will be able to do well in anything. A great little trainer.

Love SSD engine advice, should be mandatory reading for all.

To answer the initial post. Buy a good one, just do your research first. Fly it for a few years, love it and learn from it. Then buy an RV ;-)

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

Wide, you certainly don't upset me by saying the RV8 handles better than a Chippy. I have not flown one, you have extensive experience of both, so I respect your opinion. All I have ever claimed for the dHC 1 is it out handles,by some margin, anything I have flown.

[Small Rodent Driver]

Wide, you certainly don't upset me by saying the RV8 handles better than a Chippy. I have not flown one, you have extensive experience of both, so I respect your opinion. All I have ever claimed for the dHC 1 is it out handles,by some margin, anything I have flown.

Don't listen SSD! ;)

I have flown an RV-8 and was considering buying one prior to having purchased my current labour and cash intensive mount.

Save to say that I wasn't bowled over enough by its handling to sway me. Chippy is definitely sweeter.

I may however be persuaded on the grounds of practicality and usability in the not too distant future.

Part ex anybody?

[foxmoth]

Save to say that I wasn't bowled over enough by its handling to sway me. Chippy is definitely sweeter.

But then the nice bit with the RV is you are not struggling for height, anyone that can do a decent sequence in a Chippie without losing height is doing very well, the height problem with the RV is that you have to watch out for any airspace above you!

[Small Rodent Driver]

But then the nice bit with the RV is you are not struggling for height, anyone that can do a decent sequence in a Chippie without losing height is doing very well, the height problem with the RV is that you have to watch out for any airspace above you!


Indeed. Slowing the thing down from cruise to manoeuvre entry speed can be an issue.

[Flying_Anorak]

Thanks for all your advice guys, the deed is now done and I look forward to getting better acquainted!