RAF Chipmunks
Just saw on a thread a suggestion of the Services buying back Chipmunks - may well not be feasible, MAA and all that, but a modern "Chipmunk" in modern materials and a modern engine, but all the Chipmunk's aerodynamic qualities and handling...........(and the "smell")...................
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Temporarily missing from the Joe Louis Arena
Posts: 2,131
Received 27 Likes
on
16 Posts
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: RNAS Yeovilton
Age: 43
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Welcome RNHF Pilot and many thanks
If you have a moment ... some pics would be wonderful ... especially cockpit shots ...
Best ...
Coff.
If you have a moment ... some pics would be wonderful ... especially cockpit shots ...
Best ...
Coff.
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: RNAS Yeovilton
Age: 43
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The RN Chipmunk has an electric start as I mentioned in post #320.
As far as I know the BBMF machines have electric starts and the Army Chipmunk is electric start also.
All 4 remaining military Chipmunks share the same aircrew manual and FRC's and there is no mention of Coffman Starters in the ADS anymore. There are some variations between the aircraft in terms of instrumentation, navigation and radio fit between them all, which is reflected in the relevant sections of the ADS.
As far as I know the BBMF machines have electric starts and the Army Chipmunk is electric start also.
All 4 remaining military Chipmunks share the same aircrew manual and FRC's and there is no mention of Coffman Starters in the ADS anymore. There are some variations between the aircraft in terms of instrumentation, navigation and radio fit between them all, which is reflected in the relevant sections of the ADS.
RNHF_Pilot,
Does your Chipmunk have the carb heat wired hot or are you allowed to use it?
Does your Chipmunk have the carb heat wired hot or are you allowed to use it?
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just re-discovered this thread after a long long gap! Ive spent years trying to find any Service info on my Chipmunk WG472 (I have all the civilian log books since its de-mob in 1957) First page I look at tonight someone called Ericferrit lists her as
4 BFTS Sywell 1952/1953 - WG472
Ive been into Sywell many times with her without realising she was coming "home".
If anyone else knows of WG472's whereabouts between 1953 and 1957 please let me know!
4 BFTS Sywell 1952/1953 - WG472
Ive been into Sywell many times with her without realising she was coming "home".
If anyone else knows of WG472's whereabouts between 1953 and 1957 please let me know!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: East Sussex UK
Age: 66
Posts: 6,995
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Proplover, Smudge ...
Sadly I've no info on WG472
Proplover ...
I guess you might know Rod Brown ... have you tried contacting him ? Have you also tried the RAF Museum ?
I wish I could be more help ...
Sadly I've no info on WG472
Proplover ...
I guess you might know Rod Brown ... have you tried contacting him ? Have you also tried the RAF Museum ?
I wish I could be more help ...
Proplover:
Contact me off-board,. I have a source for RAF Chipmunk histories...
However, given the time line it's quite possible that 4 BFTS Sywell was the only unit that actually flew WG472. Most likely she went from there to an MU, was subsequently declared non-effective stock and disposed of around 1956/1957.
Contact me off-board,. I have a source for RAF Chipmunk histories...
However, given the time line it's quite possible that 4 BFTS Sywell was the only unit that actually flew WG472. Most likely she went from there to an MU, was subsequently declared non-effective stock and disposed of around 1956/1957.
Last edited by Dora-9; 19th Jun 2015 at 22:50.
Chipmunk W&B - again!
At Coff's behest, I've removed all the spiders/mice/possums (no sign of the infamous carpet python though) out of the enormous box full of RAF Form 700's that I have for WG478.
I came across this 1992 amendment in the Limitations Section (note that the aircraft had a different ZFW and moment than it does now). It also implies that my statement that the front occupant has no effect on the CofG is incorrect:
I came across this 1992 amendment in the Limitations Section (note that the aircraft had a different ZFW and moment than it does now). It also implies that my statement that the front occupant has no effect on the CofG is incorrect:
Dora-9,
Thanks for braving creepy crawlys to get to the 700s. WRT to the carpet python, a friend of mine in Brookfield, always carried his 0.410 when he visited the chook house.
I was amazed to see that the rear seat limit was 264 lbs. Far higher than I expected and now I have no concerns about asking a mate of mine for a ride in his Chipmunk.
DHC were obviously prescient in anticipating the advent of ex-truckie QFIs 30 years down the road!
Wander00,
I had the same thought. Imagine a composite Chipmunk with a carbon fibre spar, stressed to something like +10,-6 G.
It would have to be white of course, but you could put airforce markings on it. A Lycoming still wouldn't look right, but what an aeroplane it would be!
PS I personally would prefer the Canadian bubble-canopy, but I imagine that would be an option. We can but dream.
Thanks for braving creepy crawlys to get to the 700s. WRT to the carpet python, a friend of mine in Brookfield, always carried his 0.410 when he visited the chook house.
I was amazed to see that the rear seat limit was 264 lbs. Far higher than I expected and now I have no concerns about asking a mate of mine for a ride in his Chipmunk.
DHC were obviously prescient in anticipating the advent of ex-truckie QFIs 30 years down the road!
a modern "Chipmunk" in modern materials and a modern engine, but all the Chipmunk's aerodynamic qualities and handling...........(and the "smell")...................
I had the same thought. Imagine a composite Chipmunk with a carbon fibre spar, stressed to something like +10,-6 G.
It would have to be white of course, but you could put airforce markings on it. A Lycoming still wouldn't look right, but what an aeroplane it would be!
PS I personally would prefer the Canadian bubble-canopy, but I imagine that would be an option. We can but dream.
Last edited by India Four Two; 20th Jun 2015 at 06:33.
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: RNAS Yeovilton
Age: 43
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
India Four Two RNHF_Pilot,
Does your Chipmunk have the carb heat wired hot or are you allowed to use it?
Does your Chipmunk have the carb heat wired hot or are you allowed to use it?
RNHF_PILOT,
So in your experience, is the Gypsy Major the ice generator it is reputed to be?
My military Chipmunk experience was all in the "carb air wired hot" variety and the two civil Chipmunks I flew for spinning, was so early in my flying career that I cannot remember the carb air procedures.
So in your experience, is the Gypsy Major the ice generator it is reputed to be?
My military Chipmunk experience was all in the "carb air wired hot" variety and the two civil Chipmunks I flew for spinning, was so early in my flying career that I cannot remember the carb air procedures.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: East Sussex UK
Age: 66
Posts: 6,995
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Good morning Gents ...
Dora-9's 700's are great examples ... we swapped a few eMail's last night on the topic.
That 264 lb aft limit ... I was just wondering what the average mil 'chap' would weigh in all the clobber ?
We used to say 180/200 lb for the 'body' ... but can't recall what was factored in for Bonedome, Life Preserver and Parachute ... can't remember ever being weighed full kitted
Dora-9's 700's are great examples ... we swapped a few eMail's last night on the topic.
That 264 lb aft limit ... I was just wondering what the average mil 'chap' would weigh in all the clobber ?
We used to say 180/200 lb for the 'body' ... but can't recall what was factored in for Bonedome, Life Preserver and Parachute ... can't remember ever being weighed full kitted
Yes, I know it's not an RAF aircraft ...
... but it's still a Chipmunk.
This lovely picture is of CF-EGO (18028), a DHC-1B-2-S5, the last military Canadian Chipmunk type. I flew a few hours in a sister ship, CF-BXI (18058), at the Calgary Flying Club in the 70s. My instructor had about three hours on type - I had 170 hours on the T10, so I think he learned more from me, than the other way round!
This is how a Canadian Chipmunk should look. I know the old saying about if you own an aeroplane, you can paint it any colour you like, but Shuttleworth's T10 in Canadian colours looks just wrong to me.
This lovely picture is of CF-EGO (18028), a DHC-1B-2-S5, the last military Canadian Chipmunk type. I flew a few hours in a sister ship, CF-BXI (18058), at the Calgary Flying Club in the 70s. My instructor had about three hours on type - I had 170 hours on the T10, so I think he learned more from me, than the other way round!
This is how a Canadian Chipmunk should look. I know the old saying about if you own an aeroplane, you can paint it any colour you like, but Shuttleworth's T10 in Canadian colours looks just wrong to me.
Last edited by India Four Two; 22nd Jun 2015 at 18:25.