What could you replace a Chipmunk with?
Fair comment, it is the 'Vans' RV series, as opposed to the 'Rans' S series (as well as bicycles but not AFAIK tents). However, whether Rans or Vans, it's still no match for a Chipmunk.
Sorry to all Vans owners!
As for Chippys being prone to spinning, I know it was successfully rebuked - I was using it as an illustration of the attitude prevailing. In fact, of course the Chippy was designed to spin. It was designed as a military trainer when the front line fighters were Spitfire, Mustangs, Tempests etc. Learning on an aircraft which had any spin tendancy removed would make it worse trainer. Plus any increased safety margin at the stall would probably make it more stable and less manoeuvreable - most would agree the handling of the aircraft is it's best feature.
Chippy spinning has a bit of a myth about it which probably arose from the high accident statistics it achieved in RAF service. There were some initial probalems, remedied with the fitting of anti spin stakes and a wider chord rudder. And later in it's service, pilots would climb in one on an Air Training Corps summer camp, think "it's only a Chippy" and then go and have an accident. This prompted an excellent article called "a wolf in sheeps clothing" in the RAF safey magazine 'Air Clues' which highlighted and tried to remedy the errors made by complacent fighter pilots.
In a thousand hours of flying it, I never found it particularly prone to spinning. It's true that you can induce a spin with use of aileron against any roll at the stall, but this is true of many types. I have spun the Chippy many hundreds of times and never had a unpleasant experience. In fact, when we used to teach the RAF students incipeint spinning, the handling was impecable. Entering a spin from about 60 knots in various attitudes, the student was given control and all he/she had to do to recover was centralise the control cloumn and close the throttle - the spin would recover almost immeditely (if acted on promptly enough) - which is exactly what you wanted in a military trainer and why it was so good.
As for Chippys being prone to spinning, I know it was successfully rebuked - I was using it as an illustration of the attitude prevailing. In fact, of course the Chippy was designed to spin. It was designed as a military trainer when the front line fighters were Spitfire, Mustangs, Tempests etc. Learning on an aircraft which had any spin tendancy removed would make it worse trainer. Plus any increased safety margin at the stall would probably make it more stable and less manoeuvreable - most would agree the handling of the aircraft is it's best feature.
Chippy spinning has a bit of a myth about it which probably arose from the high accident statistics it achieved in RAF service. There were some initial probalems, remedied with the fitting of anti spin stakes and a wider chord rudder. And later in it's service, pilots would climb in one on an Air Training Corps summer camp, think "it's only a Chippy" and then go and have an accident. This prompted an excellent article called "a wolf in sheeps clothing" in the RAF safey magazine 'Air Clues' which highlighted and tried to remedy the errors made by complacent fighter pilots.
In a thousand hours of flying it, I never found it particularly prone to spinning. It's true that you can induce a spin with use of aileron against any roll at the stall, but this is true of many types. I have spun the Chippy many hundreds of times and never had a unpleasant experience. In fact, when we used to teach the RAF students incipeint spinning, the handling was impecable. Entering a spin from about 60 knots in various attitudes, the student was given control and all he/she had to do to recover was centralise the control cloumn and close the throttle - the spin would recover almost immeditely (if acted on promptly enough) - which is exactly what you wanted in a military trainer and why it was so good.
Dan, there are still Chippies in RAF service. They are with the BBMF to give the ex-jet jockeys tailwheel time before converting onto the Spit, Hurri, DC3 or Lancaster. See the little beauties on Welcome to the BBMF - The Chipmunk
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 3,325
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here's ours next to a BBMF one.... Think ours looks better!
Didn't the Chippy once have the reputation of having killed more senior RAF officers than any other type? Come a nice sunny day the brass hats would dust of their flying suits and take to the skies.
"It's only a Chippy" indeed, but it'll bite all right if you don't treat it with the respect with which you have to treat all aeroplanes.
Didn't the Chippy once have the reputation of having killed more senior RAF officers than any other type? Come a nice sunny day the brass hats would dust of their flying suits and take to the skies.
"It's only a Chippy" indeed, but it'll bite all right if you don't treat it with the respect with which you have to treat all aeroplanes.
I don't think the chipmunk could beat the Shack in that respect, although I did fly with a co-pilot that was killed in a Chippie.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Sywell
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Of my 1000 odd GA VFR hours, 50% are spread out over 10 different Chipmunks. I'm right up there with all the Chipmunk obsessives.
I've flown the Tiger Moth, Harvard, Emeraude, Cap10, RV6 etc etc and, having looped and rolled a Spitfire T9, however delightful, the Chipmunk still has the closer aileron/elevator harmonisation.
I also heard from the actual test pilot who did the original Chipmunk spin-strake testing that, although the strakes made an insignificant difference to the spin characteristics, because the accidents subsequently stopped/deteriorated(?) after they were fitted, they decided not to promulgate that fact.
A Chipmunk can only be replaced by a Chipmunk. However, there is one aircraft that has not been mentioned at all yet, which fits the bill quite well. It has two issues: The tailwheel is at the wrong end and there are none in England (AFAIK). It is a contemporary of the Chipmunk, with lots of character, and outperforms the RVs. It is the Beechcraft T-34 Mentor. I would absolutely love to fly one again.
Beechcraft T-34 Mentor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Anyone else here flown one? Fun isn’t it?
I've flown the Tiger Moth, Harvard, Emeraude, Cap10, RV6 etc etc and, having looped and rolled a Spitfire T9, however delightful, the Chipmunk still has the closer aileron/elevator harmonisation.
I also heard from the actual test pilot who did the original Chipmunk spin-strake testing that, although the strakes made an insignificant difference to the spin characteristics, because the accidents subsequently stopped/deteriorated(?) after they were fitted, they decided not to promulgate that fact.
A Chipmunk can only be replaced by a Chipmunk. However, there is one aircraft that has not been mentioned at all yet, which fits the bill quite well. It has two issues: The tailwheel is at the wrong end and there are none in England (AFAIK). It is a contemporary of the Chipmunk, with lots of character, and outperforms the RVs. It is the Beechcraft T-34 Mentor. I would absolutely love to fly one again.
Beechcraft T-34 Mentor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Anyone else here flown one? Fun isn’t it?
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: london
Posts: 676
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Herts.
Posts: 118
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've just checked wsmempson's link on G-INFO, and read that this example is a Certificate of Airworthiness, but is Non-EASA. Does this mean that chipmunks are going to need Permit's to Fly soon?
AFAIK all Chipmunks are non-EASA aeroplanes, as are Bulldogs, DC-3s and DC-6s, but that doesn't mean they have to be on a permit. There is no development due in the foreseeable future that is likely to change that.
No, the UK CAA has expressed its intention to make the privileges of an EASA licence valid on UK registered Annex II aircraft so you will be able to fly the Chipmunk on either an EASA or a UK national licence.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Aberdeen
Posts: 247
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Foxmoth,
l wasn`t interested in the ball. The chippy isn`t a looker but it flatters pilots, it is just perfect.
How to replace it ?
Build a new one.
l really don`t have a clue about spin training these days.......
lt used to be it wasn`t required, people were killed, spin training is
required, nobody killed, spin training not required, people killed, ... etc.
People produced airplanes that " wouldn`t spin " until some *rse found a way.
Always one.
l wasn`t interested in the ball. The chippy isn`t a looker but it flatters pilots, it is just perfect.
How to replace it ?
Build a new one.
l really don`t have a clue about spin training these days.......
lt used to be it wasn`t required, people were killed, spin training is
required, nobody killed, spin training not required, people killed, ... etc.
People produced airplanes that " wouldn`t spin " until some *rse found a way.
Always one.
Last edited by overun; 6th Nov 2011 at 04:57.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Oop North, UK
Posts: 3,076
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Foxmoth,
l wasn`t interested in the ball. The chippy isn`t a looker but it flatters pilots, it is just perfect.
l wasn`t interested in the ball. The chippy isn`t a looker but it flatters pilots, it is just perfect.
Also very puzzled by your bit about spinning - posted after a few glasses of something maybe as it does not seem to make sense? When spin training was required there certainly WERE people killed through it, often though because they and their instructor had learnt spinning properly, often because they learnt in an aircraft that was normally very benign, then span in an aircraft that DID spin properly, but they had not REALLY learnt how to deal with it!
I also would like to know which aircraft you refer to in:-
People produced airplanes that " wouldn`t spin " until some *rse found a way
???
Last edited by foxmoth; 6th Nov 2011 at 05:51.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Aberdeen
Posts: 247
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Foxmoth.
My feeling is that the chippy is an ungainly bird on the ground. A pawnee looks better.
l respect your feelings. Obviously l don`t agree, but this is real life and l have to tell it as l feel it.
As for spin training l`m just repeating what was happening in the 70`s, with caa guides to the issuing of ppl`s.
Off and on like a whores drawers. ( my chances of spelling that correctly after a few ..... ? ).
Unspinnable aircraft.
Alexander Sliecker - ok, hands up with that one - produced the Ask 21, a
fairly benign 2 seat trainer which had to be loaded with lead weights on a
threaded bar through the tail fin to induce it to lurch towards the down
going wing, at which point it would recover itself - unless a little too much
weight was added at which point the nose would rise to slightly above the
horizon and all sounds of airflow would stop.
Low noise.
Lack of control effectiveness.
High rate of sink.
l won`t bore you with the other stall indications, but it was an after market mod designed as an after thought for the K23.
A single seat first solo machine that could not spin.
My brief for the first solo ( not a few l may add ) was to move the stick
forward and back, find the mid point, keep it there whilst balancing the
wings. It will fly when ready. The nose wheel was regularly stoven in by
the people who didn`t know that the elevator woke up after the
mainplane, so that if the stick wasn`t on its way forward when the wing
produced lift it was on its way back. The end result was the same.
Oodles of people went on to fly powered aircraft after this training.
Sorry about the delay. but the facts are correct. (1500hrs on the K21)
My feeling is that the chippy is an ungainly bird on the ground. A pawnee looks better.
l respect your feelings. Obviously l don`t agree, but this is real life and l have to tell it as l feel it.
As for spin training l`m just repeating what was happening in the 70`s, with caa guides to the issuing of ppl`s.
Off and on like a whores drawers. ( my chances of spelling that correctly after a few ..... ? ).
Unspinnable aircraft.
Alexander Sliecker - ok, hands up with that one - produced the Ask 21, a
fairly benign 2 seat trainer which had to be loaded with lead weights on a
threaded bar through the tail fin to induce it to lurch towards the down
going wing, at which point it would recover itself - unless a little too much
weight was added at which point the nose would rise to slightly above the
horizon and all sounds of airflow would stop.
Low noise.
Lack of control effectiveness.
High rate of sink.
l won`t bore you with the other stall indications, but it was an after market mod designed as an after thought for the K23.
A single seat first solo machine that could not spin.
My brief for the first solo ( not a few l may add ) was to move the stick
forward and back, find the mid point, keep it there whilst balancing the
wings. It will fly when ready. The nose wheel was regularly stoven in by
the people who didn`t know that the elevator woke up after the
mainplane, so that if the stick wasn`t on its way forward when the wing
produced lift it was on its way back. The end result was the same.
Oodles of people went on to fly powered aircraft after this training.
Sorry about the delay. but the facts are correct. (1500hrs on the K21)
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Oop North, UK
Posts: 3,076
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ah, misunderstood what you were getting at there, not flown the K21, actually looks like it might fly OK which would make a big change compared to most aircraft that will not spin, I expect you could make most aircraft hard to spin, but would probably spoil the handling, which would certainly be a crime with the Chippie!
!
