What could you replace a Chipmunk with?
Joined: Dec 1999
Posts: 3,077
Likes: 1
From: Oop North, UK
Not wound up, but I do find it amazing how many Aviation people put FoxMOUTH (and not intentionally as yours obviously is).
When people talk about balance in yaw and roll they are normally talking about the ball, most will say it is the most harmonised on the controls, and that includes pitch as well. This is why I like the RV so much, it seems to have that same harmonisation of controls.
Someone suggested that the chippy was the best balanced, yaw and roll, aircraft that they had ever flown.
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 1,966
Likes: 0
From: Norfolk
Harmonisation
No doubt if one were to search this forum, I'll have alluded to the fantastic control harmony that the Chipmunk has.
I'd never own one (although a good friend does) but I do enjot flying them!
I've also probably banged-on about my opportunity to fly the late Nigel R's Mighty-Monk. The older I get the less delighted I am with my polite refusal - whilst current on Pitts', I felt I was probably painting myself into a corner with low DHC1 time and poor currency!
Stik
I'd never own one (although a good friend does) but I do enjot flying them!
I've also probably banged-on about my opportunity to fly the late Nigel R's Mighty-Monk. The older I get the less delighted I am with my polite refusal - whilst current on Pitts', I felt I was probably painting myself into a corner with low DHC1 time and poor currency!
Stik
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 2,524
Likes: 1
From: United Kingdom
47 posts and nobody has come up with the obvious answer - What could you replace a Chipmunk with? Nothing but another Chipmunk, and I say that having flown every type so far mentioned (excluding the VP1 and the P51) and a few more besides. I have flown only two types that I enjoyed as much as the DHC-1, the DH114 and, even better, the DH104 (one of which I owned for a few months back when I was earning real money).
Oh, and I agree with foxmoth - only a hamfisted imbecile could find the Chippie 'spin-prone' (whatever that is).
Ahhh, De Havilland!
Oh, and I agree with foxmoth - only a hamfisted imbecile could find the Chippie 'spin-prone' (whatever that is).
Ahhh, De Havilland!
Joined: Dec 1999
Posts: 3,077
Likes: 1
From: Oop North, UK
You are of course correct in de Havilland - from "the Havilland" not sure what the correct term for the bit of English language it is (Tautology I think), but maybe brings into question the Moth club - "The de Havilland Moth Club"
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 799
Likes: 0
From: Gt. Yarmouth, Norfolk
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.
.... apart from "spin prone", though I don't understand what that means in the context of a DHC-1. Do you mean low, slow and tight turn = flick and spin? If so, don't be low and slow when in a tight turn
Joined: Dec 1999
Posts: 3,077
Likes: 1
From: Oop North, UK
Do you mean low, slow and tight turn = flick and spin? If so, don't be low and slow when in a tight turn
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 399
Likes: 0
From: suffolk
I note lots of people have mentioned RVs as a generic type but there are 12 types of RV.
Whilst they are all above average you really should only compare the 3, 4and 8 in this context because the pilot its on the centreline ( the 3 is single seat).
The 4 is the best handling 2 seater, the roll axis is exactly on the bridge of the nose for an average height pilot. Its excess of power compared to the chippy makes it nicer handling in my opinion.
Whilst they are all above average you really should only compare the 3, 4and 8 in this context because the pilot its on the centreline ( the 3 is single seat).
The 4 is the best handling 2 seater, the roll axis is exactly on the bridge of the nose for an average height pilot. Its excess of power compared to the chippy makes it nicer handling in my opinion.
Joined: Oct 1999
Posts: 3,325
Likes: 2
From: UK
Its excess of power compared to the chippy makes it nicer handling in my opinion.
The Yak 52's 360 bhp is way more than the dHC1's 145 bhp , but the Chippy has better harmonised handling than does the Yak.
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 4,777
Likes: 9
From: Blighty
To answer this question, you have to look at what the RAF replaced it with. The Bulldog.
Except that it didn't replace it entirely. The Bulldog came along in the early 70s and replaced the Chippy in the University Air Clubs Squadrons but the Chippy was still being used for elementary flying training for direct entry pilots until 1993 and only left RAF service at the same time as it's replacement. I never hear anyone waxing lyrical over the Bulldog like they do the Chipmunk.
When the RAF EFTS was being closed down to be replaced by a civillian contractor, there were five contenders using four different aircraft - the T67, the SAH1, the FFA Bravo and the Zlin 242L. The EFTS instructors flew them all and we were unanimous that the Zlin was the best, but none were as good as the Chippy. In the end the T67 won based on the whole training package rather than the quality of the aircraft - and no one will ever convince me it was a worthy successor.
OK, so the Chiipy is costly, underpowered, doesn't carry enough fuel, expensive to run, slow, cold and prone to spin according to the posts here, but for pure flying pleasure and delight in handling, there is no better. No aircraft built since 1948 can match it.
So in my opinion, the question as to what can replace the Chipmunk can best be answered with "nothing".
Except that it didn't replace it entirely. The Bulldog came along in the early 70s and replaced the Chippy in the University Air Clubs Squadrons but the Chippy was still being used for elementary flying training for direct entry pilots until 1993 and only left RAF service at the same time as it's replacement. I never hear anyone waxing lyrical over the Bulldog like they do the Chipmunk.
When the RAF EFTS was being closed down to be replaced by a civillian contractor, there were five contenders using four different aircraft - the T67, the SAH1, the FFA Bravo and the Zlin 242L. The EFTS instructors flew them all and we were unanimous that the Zlin was the best, but none were as good as the Chippy. In the end the T67 won based on the whole training package rather than the quality of the aircraft - and no one will ever convince me it was a worthy successor.
OK, so the Chiipy is costly, underpowered, doesn't carry enough fuel, expensive to run, slow, cold and prone to spin according to the posts here, but for pure flying pleasure and delight in handling, there is no better. No aircraft built since 1948 can match it.
So in my opinion, the question as to what can replace the Chipmunk can best be answered with "nothing".
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 4,777
Likes: 9
From: Blighty
Continuing on from my previous post, I feel inclined to give my opinion on some of the aircraft mentioned already from my experience of flying them. Bearing in mind that of my roughly 2000 hours of light aircraft flying, about a thousand are on the Chipmunk - I'm inclined to be a little biased!
Bulldog: Capable, but not as nice to handle. The original Pup is a nicer aeroplane.
Slingsby T67: Started off as a wooden aircraft designed by Rene Fournier - a sculptor and not an aircraft designer. The original RF6 was nice, it lost something in Slingsby's translation. The handling is not pleasant.
FFA Bravo: Heavy and too stable. Control harmonistaion feels odd.
SAH1: A nice try - and British. But too lightweight and had a homebuilt feel. Handles nicely.
GROB 115: OK, but still feels a bit like the G109 motorglider it was developed from. Only the 115T is cleared for aerobatics though.
Zlin 242L: Nice, but heavy. Well built and has powerful controls which lack perfect harmonisation which detract form the overall impression. Designed by a Pole - like the Chippy.
SF260: Lovely, powerful - but complex. It's an airborne Ferrari and the front line attack aircraft in some smaller countries. A different sort of aeroplane.
Yak 52: Good, powerful, but not as nicely harmonised. Feels a bit agicultural but it's in a different league to the Chippy.
Harvard: Again a different league and operating costs way higher.
Extras (various): A different class of aircraft, but very nice. An Extra 300 is way too costly to operate to be compared.
Nord 3202: A more powerful French Chippy. Nice, but rare and much more costly to run.
Decathalon: The Decathalon is the only light aircraft I fly these days. This is because there is one at a flying club near my in-laws which I hire on my infrequent visits to the UK. But I only hire it as there is no Chipmunk to rent nearby! It's aeroabatic (It's a standard) and a taildragger, but I wouldn't call it an overly nice aircraft to fly. The controls are light and powerful, but not well harmonised. And like many American aircraft, it's just a bit too stable in pitch to be a good aeroabtic mount. In a slow roll, the stick ends up pushed all the way to the instrument panel. Also, the view with the high wing is poor.
Pitts (various): The S1 is nice, but very limiting in most aspects, except for doing aerobatics in the airfield overhead. The S2, much more capable, but again a specialist aircraft and a different category to the Chippy.
C152 Aerobat: Don't make me laugh!
Supermunk: The RAFGSA converted ones are not cleard for spinning and aerobatics which defeats the object in owning one.
Vans: I've only flown the RV4 and my impression was that it was the closest think to a Chippy without being a Chippy. But the harmonistaion is not quite as good, although close. The advantage of being able to chose your engine/prop combination is a big plus. I was planning on building one, but a move overseas scuppered that idea.
Cap10: A mate and I were trying to find a Chippy to buy just over 10 years ago. But all the ones we saw had limited engine life and/or TNs outstanding. So we looked at the CAP 10 as the closest thing available. It's a lovely aircraft with crisp handling. The original Emeraude from which it was developed is a beautiful little machine. But they have maintenance issues if they have the wooden spar and although more capabale as an aerobatic mount than they first appear, they are still not a nice to fly as the Chippy. And interestingly, there is a thread on this forum about what could replace a CAP10 - the first respondant (not me!) suggests the Chippy!
The Chippy still wins in my book!
Bulldog: Capable, but not as nice to handle. The original Pup is a nicer aeroplane.
Slingsby T67: Started off as a wooden aircraft designed by Rene Fournier - a sculptor and not an aircraft designer. The original RF6 was nice, it lost something in Slingsby's translation. The handling is not pleasant.
FFA Bravo: Heavy and too stable. Control harmonistaion feels odd.
SAH1: A nice try - and British. But too lightweight and had a homebuilt feel. Handles nicely.
GROB 115: OK, but still feels a bit like the G109 motorglider it was developed from. Only the 115T is cleared for aerobatics though.
Zlin 242L: Nice, but heavy. Well built and has powerful controls which lack perfect harmonisation which detract form the overall impression. Designed by a Pole - like the Chippy.
SF260: Lovely, powerful - but complex. It's an airborne Ferrari and the front line attack aircraft in some smaller countries. A different sort of aeroplane.
Yak 52: Good, powerful, but not as nicely harmonised. Feels a bit agicultural but it's in a different league to the Chippy.
Harvard: Again a different league and operating costs way higher.
Extras (various): A different class of aircraft, but very nice. An Extra 300 is way too costly to operate to be compared.
Nord 3202: A more powerful French Chippy. Nice, but rare and much more costly to run.
Decathalon: The Decathalon is the only light aircraft I fly these days. This is because there is one at a flying club near my in-laws which I hire on my infrequent visits to the UK. But I only hire it as there is no Chipmunk to rent nearby! It's aeroabatic (It's a standard) and a taildragger, but I wouldn't call it an overly nice aircraft to fly. The controls are light and powerful, but not well harmonised. And like many American aircraft, it's just a bit too stable in pitch to be a good aeroabtic mount. In a slow roll, the stick ends up pushed all the way to the instrument panel. Also, the view with the high wing is poor.
Pitts (various): The S1 is nice, but very limiting in most aspects, except for doing aerobatics in the airfield overhead. The S2, much more capable, but again a specialist aircraft and a different category to the Chippy.
C152 Aerobat: Don't make me laugh!
Supermunk: The RAFGSA converted ones are not cleard for spinning and aerobatics which defeats the object in owning one.
Vans: I've only flown the RV4 and my impression was that it was the closest think to a Chippy without being a Chippy. But the harmonistaion is not quite as good, although close. The advantage of being able to chose your engine/prop combination is a big plus. I was planning on building one, but a move overseas scuppered that idea.
Cap10: A mate and I were trying to find a Chippy to buy just over 10 years ago. But all the ones we saw had limited engine life and/or TNs outstanding. So we looked at the CAP 10 as the closest thing available. It's a lovely aircraft with crisp handling. The original Emeraude from which it was developed is a beautiful little machine. But they have maintenance issues if they have the wooden spar and although more capabale as an aerobatic mount than they first appear, they are still not a nice to fly as the Chippy. And interestingly, there is a thread on this forum about what could replace a CAP10 - the first respondant (not me!) suggests the Chippy!
The Chippy still wins in my book!
Last edited by Dan Winterland; 2nd November 2011 at 00:57. Reason: add photo (and spelling corrections)