What could you replace a Chipmunk with?

[maxred]

Ah yes, guys the smell....., that smell of nostalgia in the cockpit. Now nothing beats that

[marlat]

I fly from a gliding club that uses lycoming engined Chipmunk as tugs so I am familiar with the conversion. They are not cleared for aeros so you have immediately lost one of the key essential elements of the Chippie.

Mark 1 - The RV-8 certainly looks like a realistic alternative to the Chippie, one question though, and that is around the undercarriage. It does appear to have a wide track but with those long legs coming out at an angle from the centre of the fuselage, do you find that it rocks from side to side whilst taxiing? The Chippie feels planted when manouvreing around farm strips where the surface is uneven, how does the RV-8 compare?

EDMJ - the Citabria Decathlon, Cub et. al do offer many characistics of the Chippie especially being seated on the centreline. However the high wing seems to me to be a hinderance to all round visability (although I must admit I have not flown in an aircraft of this type to actually know if this is true).

Shaggy Sheep Driver - I have never really understood why the Chippie is nicknamed the poor mans Spitfire. A wing with straight leading edge and deep wing section; fabric covered wings, rudder, and elevator; a wide track undercart; and that large framed sliding canopy always remind me of the Hawker Hurricane. Certainly each time I strap myself into mine thats the aeroplane that I make believe I am flying!

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

Yes yes! The smell! I forgot that lovely aroma as you slide back the canopy; oil, leather, fuel, and maybe some things you'd perhaps rather not know. Whatever, it smells just like a Spitfire, Hurricane, Lancaster, and early jets like the Venom and Vampire.

It is a smell evocative of old Brit aeroplanes. No other types have it. It is priceless! Couple that with the fighter-like cockpit, the Mil-standard heavy rivetting of the skin, the perfectly balanced and sharp handling through the friction-free controls, the lovely sound of the Gipsy compared to a flat four, and the fabulous looks.... There is NO replacement for a dHC1. Except, perhaps, a Spitfire 1X!

[Dr Jekyll]

Varga Karchina anybody? Don't know much about them but they always looked like a tricycle Chipmunk.

[Rod1]

Lyk engines Chipmunks have been cleared for aerobatics – the Supermonk was one such conversion.

Rod1

[mmgreve]

Zlin 526 ?

[J.A.F.O.]

Replace a Chipmunk? REPLACE A CHIPMUNK?

That's like saying you're thinking of replacing your champagne and have heard that Vimto is cold and wet and sparkling. It's like saying that you want to replace chocolate and have heard that raisins are sweet, would they do? It's like saying that you want to replace sex and have heard that cycling gets your heart racing.

Replace a Chipmunk? It's irreplaceable.

[Mark 1]

Mark 1 - The RV-8 certainly looks like a realistic alternative to the Chippie, one question though, and that is around the undercarriage. It does appear to have a wide track but with those long legs coming out at an angle from the centre of the fuselage, do you find that it rocks from side to side whilst taxiing? The Chippie feels planted when manouvreing around farm strips where the surface is uneven, how does the RV-8 compare?

It doesn't rock, but it feels stiffer and less damped than the Chippy. The RV-4 could get into a resonance over bumpy ground. Not noticed that in the -8, but we don't have much unpaved surface in California. I've taken it into some of the better back country strips in Idaho with no issues, but have picked up several scratches on the bottom of the spats.

Maybe not Spitfire, but the RV-8 does make a reasonable low budget P51 (I have the obligatory invasion stripes, chequer-board nosebowl etc).

And Shaggy, I did have a couple of retired airline pilots recognize the aircraft they did their CoAT evaluation in at Hamble many years earlier. One put his head in the cockpit, drew in a deep breath and said "Ah, just like I remember it, the unforgettable smell of leather and vomit".
I do miss it, but not enough to want another one.

[Genghis the Engineer]

I very much enjoyed the 3 hours or so I've done in the Chippie, and look forward to another opportunity to fly one sometime (not outside the realms of possibility I may buy a share in one sometime in the near future).

However, I have to say it really did not come close to the sheer smile factor of the Harvard.

Anybody who gets the chance, I would also very strongly recommend the Easy Raider as a truly gorgeous little tandem taildragger. Well, from the front seat anyhow.

Sorry to say I've yet to have an opportunity to fly a Spitfire or Hurricane. Maybe one day. I'm certainly open to offers!

G

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

Genghis - have you tried the Yak52? Eats Harvards for brekkers at a fraction the costs. But even at twice the running cost of the dHC1 together with inifnately more power and better aerobatic capability than the Chippy, I'll take the old Brit classic over the '52 any day (and I had a share in a '52 for a few years so do know them quite well).

[stickandrudderman]

Well,
(And I can't beleive I'm saying this, it seems like only yesterday that I got my licence!)
I have flown a Spitfire, a Chipmunk, a Cap10, a Harvard, and a Citabria.
Obviously nothing touches the Spitfire but after that my order of preference would be:
Chipmunk
Cap10
Citabria
Harvard.

Now if only my Falco was a taildragger it would slot in behind or alongside the Chippy.
I haven't yet flown an RV but someone on here keeps promising me a go in one.................

[maxred]

SSD. That's a great shot of your machine. Lovely.

Got a good few hours in both the 52, and a 50, which I had a share in whilst owning my Chippie.

For all that the YAKS had the power, I still loved the Chipmunk, even yearning to get back flying, after stepping out of a YAK flight.

Has yours still got the thumb prints embedded in the back cockpit shelf???

[Genghis the Engineer]

Originally Posted by Shaggy Sheep Driver

Genghis - have you tried the Yak52? Eats Harvards for brekkers at a fraction the costs. But even at twice the running cost of the dHC1 together with inifnately more power and better aerobatic capability than the Chippy, I'll take the old Brit classic over the '52 any day (and I had a share in a '52 for a few years so do know them quite well).

I've logged Harvard and Chipmunk, and handled the controls of a Yak-52. My recollection is of enjoying the Harvard most, then the Chipmunk, then the Yak - but I flew them years apart with developing experience as I went along, so my comparisons may not be what I'd say if I was flying all three the same weekend now.

I confess I do also have very happy memories of the good old Bloodknot - which doesn't seem to have captured the world's hearts as well as the Chippie has. Probably because it has a training wheel I suspect.

I suspect that one of main reasons the Chipmunk will stay so popular is that tandem seating became unfashionable amongst aircraft designers - but it is very nice if you don't like looking at your pax or prefer to pretend you're flying a single seat fighter.

G

[ponshus]

Come on Chipmunk lovers, they’re a terrible bit of kit. They are slow, unheated, have very little endurance, lose a startling amount of speed in a turn, are spin prone and tandem seating is antisocial and not good for instruction.
Having said that, they are very pretty and as I learned to fly on them I am very fond of them. BUT surely no sensible person would ever think of owning one.

[Sir Niall Dementia]

Ponshus;

They may be all of those things, but if I could get a good one I'd flog all of my present toys to own it. I spent a wonderful season a very long time ago as a tug pilot and fell deeply in love with the chippie. Since then I've flown all sorts of stuff from an Evans VP1 to an A330 and all sorts of big helicopters, I did my PPL on a Tiger Moth, I spend my working life operating (and I do mean operating) big corporate stuff, but the chippie will always be perfect for me.

SND (205.4 hours on chippies and still smitten)

[Jan Olieslagers]

surely no sensible person would ever think of owning one

That is as maybe, but doesn't really say anything. A perfectly sensible person would never own any private aircraft, of whichever model.
Private flying begins with a little brain twist.

[foxmoth]

not good for instruction

??!!??

What absolute rot - FAR better instructional machine than most of the rubbish used nowadays!

And if you think they are "spin prone" it shows how bad YOUR instruction and experience must be!

[Mickey Kaye]

Foxmouth

If its so good why do very people use it?

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

I've had a share in and been flying the lovely G-BCSL since the late 1970s. Spin prone it's not.

It has no luggage space.
It has no heater.
It cruises at a mere 90 kts.
It will make your hands dirty.
It has a short duration.
It has a noisy and draughty cockpit.

It is, far and away, the best aeroplane I have ever flown in my 30+ years of aviating bar none (and I've flown a few). Fly one if you haven't already - you will be amply compensated for the minor shorcomings listed above.

[foxmoth]

If its so good why do very people use it?

Because it is not a cheap aircraft to operate - that is the big problem with getting a decent training aircraft and why most Schools use the aircraft they do instead of the best for the job. There have been many threads on which is the best training aircraft for schools and I think on all of them the C152 comes top for exactly this reason, though many instructors would much prefer other aircraft.

(And why do so many PILOTS get my name wrong - do they not know their classic aircraft types or can they just not read?)