Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Misc. Forums > Aviation History and Nostalgia
Reload this Page >

How to fly the Chipmunk (1968)

Aviation History and Nostalgia Whether working in aviation, retired, wannabee or just plain fascinated this forum welcomes all with a love of flight.

How to fly the Chipmunk (1968)

Old 11th Mar 2017, 20:05
  #21 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: CYWH (Victoria)
Posts: 5,517
Why on earth would you set brake before you need it?
SSD,

I understand your arguments, but given that most solo students in the RAF had very few hours, I suspect that CFS decided that having a preset brake in a crosswind landing, was lower risk than having a student grab the brake lever in an effort to retrieve a landing gone wrong.
India Four Two is offline  
Old 12th Mar 2017, 13:44
  #22 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Glasgow
Posts: 332
The approved RAF crab technique nearly ended my aviation career prematurely on my first experience (at summer camp) of applying it on runways.

Later in commercial aviation in Scotland on Dakotas I was taught how to land in the typically brutal X-winds to be found in the Hebrides i.e crossed controls (not wing-down!) with the flaps whipped up on touchdown as an early form of lift dump.

At the time I was also flying for Turnhouse AEF. Having satisfied myself that this technique worked on Chipmunks (as indeed it has on the other 40 types flown since) I tried to persuade the RAF to learn soomething from the commercial world.
Attempt dismissed - "Not the way we do it"

I feel heart-sorry for all those who had to suffer traumatic moments before they got the hang of the timing involved in the "crab" technique
scotbill is offline  
Old 13th Mar 2017, 02:26
  #23 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Canada
Posts: 339
I still have my RCAF Chipmunk checklist from the late fifties and in the pre landing check it just says "Brakes". It does not specify what was to be done so I have to think the details
were explained as part of the training.
innuendo is offline  
Old 13th Mar 2017, 08:53
  #24 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: uk
Posts: 543
I am surprised no one has mentioned ‘My, Friend, Fred, Has, Hairy, Balls’!
staircase is offline  
Old 13th Mar 2017, 11:01
  #25 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: CYWH (Victoria)
Posts: 5,517
I still have my RCAF Chipmunk checklist from the late fifties and in the pre landing check it just says "Brakes".
innuendo,

I have copies of the 1958 and 1968 "Operating Instructions" and in both cases, the 'Pre-Landing Check' included 'Brakes - Fully OFF.' There is no mention of what to do in the event of crosswinds.

Interestingly, in 1958, the canopy was required to be open for landing, 'unless axes installed.' By 1968, this had changed to 'as required'.
India Four Two is offline  
Old 13th Mar 2017, 11:45
  #26 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 3,334
I think the nonsense about applying brake before landing came from one particular set of handling notes written, with ab initio pilots in mind, by someone who probably hadn't flown it much. It is rightly ignored by those who do know the aeroplane.

I-42, interesting what you say about the canopy - we were taught the opposite (canopy closed for t/o and landing). Is that because Canadian Chippies had the one-piece 'blown' canopy whereas ours was the 'glasshouse' type with removable side panels for egress if inverted on the ground?
Shaggy Sheep Driver is offline  
Old 13th Mar 2017, 13:45
  #27 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: SEUK
Age: 73
Posts: 640
In my copy of the Chipmunk FRCs the pre-landing checks are identical to those in post #14, presumably compiled by people who knew what they were talking about.

Perhaps SSD can furnish details of his background concerning training on this aircraft type.
Discorde is offline  
Old 13th Mar 2017, 13:48
  #28 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: CYWH (Victoria)
Posts: 5,517
SSD,

I presume that the reason for the installation of the axe was to allow emergency escape in the event of a jammed canopy:



I wonder what the cockpit escape options were for the UK Chipmunks with a bubble canopy?
India Four Two is offline  
Old 13th Mar 2017, 20:04
  #29 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 3,334
I-42, as I said, removable side panels in the canopy. One rotated a small yellow handle retained by thin locking wire to prevent accidental operation, but easily overcome by deliberate action.

The perspex side panel could then be pushed out of the way leaving an escape route from the inverted machine. There are 2 such panels, one for the front seat occupant, one for the rear.

No axe in the UK Chippy. Can you confirm yours had the bubble canopy not the 'glass house'?
Shaggy Sheep Driver is offline  
Old 13th Mar 2017, 20:20
  #30 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: SE Qld, Australia
Age: 74
Posts: 1,026
I still have my RCAF Chipmunk checklist from the late fifties and in the pre landing check it just says "Brakes".
Probably muddying the waters as to why the RCAF and RAF advocated different procedures, but bear in mind that Canadian-built Chipmunks have a different undercarriage geometry (legs mounted further aft and with less forward rake) when compared to UK-built examples.

I-42, as I said, removable side panels in the canopy.
Not just UK (and Portuguese)-built Chippies - the initial batch of DHC-1B's (1B-2-S1's and -S2's) which also had the "glasshouse" canopies had jettisonable side-panels too, only on the RHS.

I'm writing this to mainly provide some historical context. My feeling is that the RAF left this procedure in all the editions of the Handling Notes for a good reason, yet Dan Winterland (a Chipmunk instructor at EFTS and always a generous source of "good gen") tells me that at that stage they simply ignored this procedure. So much for what I think!
Dora-9 is offline  
Old 13th Mar 2017, 20:26
  #31 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: SE Qld, Australia
Age: 74
Posts: 1,026
I42, I look at that drawing (thank you btw) and as always think what a superior cockpit it was when compared to the T.10 - cageable AH, three-pointer engine gauge, post lights, electrical switch panel incorporating an ammeter positioned where you can actually see it, magneto switches placed so that they're visible from outside the cockpit, internal engine primer etc etc. And they didn't paint it that claustrophobic "coal hole" black either!
Dora-9 is offline  
Old 13th Mar 2017, 20:56
  #32 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 3,334
Dan Winterland (a Chipmunk instructor at EFTS and always a generous source of "good gen") tells me that at that stage they simply ignored this procedure.
Yes, we've been here before with this old chestnut. Dan put it to rest then, but any experienced Chippy pilot will hopefully have worked it out for themselves regardless of misleading pilot notes.

Originally Posted by Dan Winterland
You have to remember that the pilot's notes are written by a chap (albeit a clever one - he's a test pilot) who has never flown the aircraft before and has limited time and a limited budget to get the book written. In the Chippy's case, the chap came up with the idea of using brake for landing in strong crosswinds and left it at that. I was involved with the Chippy on and off for about the last 10 years of it's life (excluding BBMF) in the RAF and in that time brake was never used for landing as an SOP despite being in the Pliot's Notes and the FRCs (checklists) for all of those years. The x-wind limit is 15 knts, full rudder was perfectly adquate to maintain straight in these conditions. However, with a gust, the technique which SSD advocates (a squeeze of brake) work wonders. Applying full rudder in a panic with the brakes set slightly will invariaby end up in a groundloop which is why we didn't.
Shaggy Sheep Driver is offline  
Old 13th Mar 2017, 22:12
  #33 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: CYWH (Victoria)
Posts: 5,517
I-42, as I said, removable side panels in the canopy.
SSD,
Yes, I know that. Checked that wire locking during pre-start checks in T10s. Probably a couple of hundred times!

My question was about UK Chippies with the "Masefield Mod":



I flew CF-BXI / 18058. Saw her again at the Springbank Airshow In 2015. She was grounded, because the "wrong kind of paint" had been used!



Dora-9,

I do remember having to learn a "new" cockpit! The bubble canopy was so nice. Made it feel even more like I was flying a mini-Spitfire instead of a mini-Hurricane. Had a heater too, way before that mod crept into the T10 fleet. The only thing that looks wrong, in my opinion, is the lack of gear fairings.

When I flew BXI, the original military radio was still fitted, which was a pain. The receiver had analog tuning, so when changing frequencies, you had to transmit a tone and then wind the receiver tuning knob until you heard the tone. ATC were not impressed! I imagine that setup is long gone.

Last edited by India Four Two; 13th Mar 2017 at 22:28.
India Four Two is offline  
Old 14th Mar 2017, 00:15
  #34 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: SE Qld, Australia
Age: 74
Posts: 1,026
This is not a Masefield canopy, but appears on several Australian Chipmunks - it's another of those Glen Caple mods, which are CASA approved (which these days is really saying something). But it definitely comes with the axe!

Dora-9 is offline  
Old 14th Mar 2017, 00:43
  #35 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: SE Qld, Australia
Age: 74
Posts: 1,026
The bubble canopy was so nice
It sure is! That, and the light coloured interior, made it seem vastly roomier.
Dora-9 is offline  
Old 14th Mar 2017, 00:59
  #36 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: SE Qld, Australia
Age: 74
Posts: 1,026
SSD:

any experienced Chippy pilot will hopefully have worked it out for themselves regardless of misleading pilot notes.
Maybe, just maybe, your post could appear to be condescending? Please read my post again - my quibble is not with the technique per se - I don't use it either - but as to why this was always retained in the Notes, even if the troops at the coalface were ignoring it. I've had a lot to do with writing airline manuals (admittedly not quite the same thing, but I'd have thought the same principles applied) and, even then, before these days of circling lawyers, nothing was ever in them that shouldn't have been. If it became evident that the troops were ignoring something published then it was either enforced, altered or removed - it was never just left in...
Dora-9 is offline  
Old 14th Mar 2017, 01:01
  #37 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 879
Dora 9
Does the Australian bubble canopy (Bill Whitney) come with an axe?
I have copy of the EO from Bill and did not see the axe specified.
John
rjtjrt is offline  
Old 14th Mar 2017, 05:15
  #38 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: SE Qld, Australia
Age: 74
Posts: 1,026
Hi John:

PM sent...
Dora-9 is offline  
Old 14th Mar 2017, 13:16
  #39 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 3,334
Dora - I have no idea why it was never removed as I never had anything to do with producing those notes or implementing dHC1 flying training in the RAF. Different times back then, maybe? More pragmatic, less litigious, and more reliant on airmanship than 'the book'?

If you really want to know, best ask the RAF, perhaps?
Shaggy Sheep Driver is offline  
Old 14th Mar 2017, 16:07
  #40 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 178
Pilots Notes 2nd Edition - October 1963

Mike6567 is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.