What could you replace a Chipmunk with?
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 3,325
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whether the Chippy looks good or not is in the eye of the beholder. It is, however, generally considered a looker by most according to folk I talk to and opinions on Internet forums (including PPRuNe where there was even a thread entitled 'The Chipmunk is Beautiful').
What is indisputable however is that it does not flatter a pilot. One of the reasons it is such a good trainer is that is it easy to fly, but difficult to fly well. If you have any shortcomings in your technique, the Chippy will find them and show them to the world; there is no hiding place!
What is indisputable however is that it does not flatter a pilot. One of the reasons it is such a good trainer is that is it easy to fly, but difficult to fly well. If you have any shortcomings in your technique, the Chippy will find them and show them to the world; there is no hiding place!
Last edited by Shaggy Sheep Driver; 6th Nov 2011 at 17:45.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Looking for the signals square at LHR
Posts: 236
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"You would not want to replace the Chipmunk just the outdated piece of junk that pulls it along and covers the airframe in oil !
the Chipmunk is about the nicest aircraft I have ever flown attached to the worst engine that I have ever worked on."
Ditto from me.
I have quite a few DH types in my books and, without question and from a pilot's perspective, they have all been superior aircraft with a decided "house" character. Least favourite were the DH82A and the DH114. The DH 89 was quite fun but prone to wing-tip stall on occasions. Lots of others were somewhere in between but in terms of being a pleasure to fly and having the best harmonised controls of any aircraft I have flown, the DHC1 stands head and shoulders above all others of my acquaintance.
An American sawmill engine has never appealed in this context - it seems alien to the ethos of this aircraft - but years ago, I had to give up the notion of fitting a Blackburn Bombadier. This would at a stroke have provided more power and rid me of the incontinence of Major Halford's child but the red tape (50 years ago) proved insurmountable and it never happened.
I have affection for a lot of aircraft but nothing like the fondness I have for the viceless and delightfully responsive Chippie. OK, so you had to be careful of the number of turns in a spin but so what?
Regardless of how well I flew the kite, it would always fly better than me and provided a constant encouragement to better airmanship.
Sadly, few of today's pilots have any understanding of the type of flying afforded by this type of machine, one which was expressly designed to do those things which are expressly designed out of modern tinware. Pity.
GQ.
the Chipmunk is about the nicest aircraft I have ever flown attached to the worst engine that I have ever worked on."
Ditto from me.
I have quite a few DH types in my books and, without question and from a pilot's perspective, they have all been superior aircraft with a decided "house" character. Least favourite were the DH82A and the DH114. The DH 89 was quite fun but prone to wing-tip stall on occasions. Lots of others were somewhere in between but in terms of being a pleasure to fly and having the best harmonised controls of any aircraft I have flown, the DHC1 stands head and shoulders above all others of my acquaintance.
An American sawmill engine has never appealed in this context - it seems alien to the ethos of this aircraft - but years ago, I had to give up the notion of fitting a Blackburn Bombadier. This would at a stroke have provided more power and rid me of the incontinence of Major Halford's child but the red tape (50 years ago) proved insurmountable and it never happened.
I have affection for a lot of aircraft but nothing like the fondness I have for the viceless and delightfully responsive Chippie. OK, so you had to be careful of the number of turns in a spin but so what?
Regardless of how well I flew the kite, it would always fly better than me and provided a constant encouragement to better airmanship.Sadly, few of today's pilots have any understanding of the type of flying afforded by this type of machine, one which was expressly designed to do those things which are expressly designed out of modern tinware. Pity.
GQ.
Last edited by Gipsy Queen; 10th Nov 2011 at 23:40.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 3,325
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is the Blackburn engine as reliable as the Dripsy? In UK I'd say you'd have no chance of getting CAA approval for such a Major (pun intended!) change without some sort of massively expensive re-certification excercise.
There seems to be a consensus that the Chipmunk is very good to fly, but the Moth isn't.
Is there any reason why DH or DHC couldn't have built what was essentially a Chipmunk 15 or 20 years earlier?
Is there any reason why DH or DHC couldn't have built what was essentially a Chipmunk 15 or 20 years earlier?
So ......are there any modern alternative engines for the Chippy ???
For an unelegant solution to this problem on the SV4, find images of OO-KAT. But don't ask me how they ever managed to get approval for this mod, must have been one hell of paperwork.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 3,325
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is there any reason why DH or DHC couldn't have built what was essentially a Chipmunk 15 or 20 years earlier?
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Looking for the signals square at LHR
Posts: 236
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Is the Blackburn engine as reliable as the Dripsy? In UK I'd say you'd have no chance of getting CAA approval for such a Major (pun intended!) change without some sort of massively ex'pensive re-certification excercise.
Reliability? Dunno. The Bombardier was the last development of the long line of Cirrus models. Memory is getting a bit dim now but I recall the Bombardier being used in the Auster AOP9 and I think a small helicopter of the mid-'fifties used it as well. In military form, the engine was rated at a bit over 200hp, about 25hp more than the "civilian" variant and therefore a useful increase of the Gipsy Major Mk10's 145hp for only a notional weight increase but it was never approved on the civil register. When I approached them, the bowler hats adopted their customarily negative and unhelpful attitude, the people at Brough weren't much better so in the face of this obduracy of officialdom, I gave up with proceeding with what was an entirely appropriate idea and, I still feel, would have been a very successful conversion. Apart from a brief period when Sir Sefton Brancker was in charge, the UK has never provided any real encouragement of light aviation and what was left after the War was finished off by Wedgwood Benn. Something akin to the US "Experimental" category would be allowing the plebs far too much autonomy.
I remember that having calculated the static centres of mass of the Blackburn and DH engines, there was room for the former forward of the standard bulkhead so minor modification of the engine braces and mounts should have proved sufficient. For a moment, I flirted with the notion of fitting a Regnier 4L.04 but felt that this would prove even more fraught with obstacles. I was sort of interested in Art Scholl's Ranger conversion and thought a Walter as used in a Zlin I occasionally flew might do but it was always back to the bureaucrats (who, in retrospect, saved me a ton of money!)
I never discovered the accepted TBO figures of the Bombardier but given its lineage, I suspect that with operational experience these might have bettered the DH powerplant. Actually, I have no real knowledge of Blackburn engines beyond having had a pair of Cirrus Minors (90hp) struggling to get me aloft in the Miles Gemini in which I took my multi rating.
But in looking back, I wonder if monkeying with the Chippie spec would have produced any real benefits. There have been so many occasions of a nicely-handling a/c being unacceptably compromised by the changing of some component. An example coming to mind is the 90hp Victa Airtourer which was a fun machine but the 150hp variant, whilst obviously benefiting from the power increase, was not so well balanced and not so nice to fly as a consequence.
Perhaps those lucky enough to own a DHC1 should accept the foibles of the engine, keep a good supply a rags handy, a short length of 4 X 2 in the after cockpit to thump the starboard mag impulse mechanism when gooed up with cold oil and just continue to enjoy a thoroughly delightful aeroplane. How I envy you . . .
GQ.
And to Dr Jekyll,
Some Moths were very nice to fly, the Puss and Leopard particularly so. I didn't care greatly for the Tiger and after having spent a couple of hours in a Stampe SV4, never bothered to fly one again.
Reliability? Dunno. The Bombardier was the last development of the long line of Cirrus models. Memory is getting a bit dim now but I recall the Bombardier being used in the Auster AOP9 and I think a small helicopter of the mid-'fifties used it as well. In military form, the engine was rated at a bit over 200hp, about 25hp more than the "civilian" variant and therefore a useful increase of the Gipsy Major Mk10's 145hp for only a notional weight increase but it was never approved on the civil register. When I approached them, the bowler hats adopted their customarily negative and unhelpful attitude, the people at Brough weren't much better so in the face of this obduracy of officialdom, I gave up with proceeding with what was an entirely appropriate idea and, I still feel, would have been a very successful conversion. Apart from a brief period when Sir Sefton Brancker was in charge, the UK has never provided any real encouragement of light aviation and what was left after the War was finished off by Wedgwood Benn. Something akin to the US "Experimental" category would be allowing the plebs far too much autonomy.
I remember that having calculated the static centres of mass of the Blackburn and DH engines, there was room for the former forward of the standard bulkhead so minor modification of the engine braces and mounts should have proved sufficient. For a moment, I flirted with the notion of fitting a Regnier 4L.04 but felt that this would prove even more fraught with obstacles. I was sort of interested in Art Scholl's Ranger conversion and thought a Walter as used in a Zlin I occasionally flew might do but it was always back to the bureaucrats (who, in retrospect, saved me a ton of money!)
I never discovered the accepted TBO figures of the Bombardier but given its lineage, I suspect that with operational experience these might have bettered the DH powerplant. Actually, I have no real knowledge of Blackburn engines beyond having had a pair of Cirrus Minors (90hp) struggling to get me aloft in the Miles Gemini in which I took my multi rating.
But in looking back, I wonder if monkeying with the Chippie spec would have produced any real benefits. There have been so many occasions of a nicely-handling a/c being unacceptably compromised by the changing of some component. An example coming to mind is the 90hp Victa Airtourer which was a fun machine but the 150hp variant, whilst obviously benefiting from the power increase, was not so well balanced and not so nice to fly as a consequence.
Perhaps those lucky enough to own a DHC1 should accept the foibles of the engine, keep a good supply a rags handy, a short length of 4 X 2 in the after cockpit to thump the starboard mag impulse mechanism when gooed up with cold oil and just continue to enjoy a thoroughly delightful aeroplane. How I envy you . . .
GQ.
And to Dr Jekyll,
Some Moths were very nice to fly, the Puss and Leopard particularly so. I didn't care greatly for the Tiger and after having spent a couple of hours in a Stampe SV4, never bothered to fly one again.
Last edited by Gipsy Queen; 11th Nov 2011 at 22:33.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 3,325
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Perhaps those lucky enough to own a DHC1 should accept the foibles of the engine, keep a good supply a rags handy, a short length of 4 X 2 in the after cockpit to thump the starboard mag impulse mechanism when gooed up with cold oil and just continue to enjoy a thoroughly delightful aeroplane. How I envy you . . .
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: In the shadows
Age: 80
Posts: 290
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Memories......
Five years ago I climbed into the front seat of the very RAF Chipmunk in which I did the last solo cross-country of my basic training some 44 years before. The smell, the noise, just everything about it sent me back to when I was 18 and the smile on my face when we landed an hour later lasted for days and days.....
So ......are there any modern alternative engines for the Chippy ???
The Thielert Centurion 2.0 diesel weighs 134kg, and produces 135hp, or 155hp with the 2.0S version. (Dripsy Major 1C is somewhere between 136kg & 150kg and 145hp (or was when new).
If it could be rotated clockwise a few degrees, maybe it might even fit in a Dripy Major cowling?
At least, being a diesel you might get rather better range from your paltry 18 gallons.
Last edited by Mechta; 13th Nov 2011 at 21:55.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Gt. Yarmouth, Norfolk
Age: 68
Posts: 799
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would love to try and get to the bottom of the statement that Chipmunks are expensive to maintain and therefore run.
Ours costs between £2,000 and £3,000 per annum in maintenance and £100 per hour to fly (slightly subsidised by the group's other activities). When it chewed bearings recently the bill was around £12k (without any work on the cylinders, which were in good condition). That sounds to me to be comparable to a PA28 or C172 being run in a group environment. Would a similar engine problem on a Lyco cost any less to sort?
I know that there are serious spares issues as regards the engines, but despite that a large number of de Havillands and other aircraft using the Gypsy engine seem to manage to stay in the air year in year out.
Ours costs between £2,000 and £3,000 per annum in maintenance and £100 per hour to fly (slightly subsidised by the group's other activities). When it chewed bearings recently the bill was around £12k (without any work on the cylinders, which were in good condition). That sounds to me to be comparable to a PA28 or C172 being run in a group environment. Would a similar engine problem on a Lyco cost any less to sort?
I know that there are serious spares issues as regards the engines, but despite that a large number of de Havillands and other aircraft using the Gypsy engine seem to manage to stay in the air year in year out.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 3,325
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think it's becuase the aeroplane was designed for the military at a time when the RAF had hundreds of technicians, so lengthy maintenance proceedures were not a problem for that customer. Jobs on Chippys take longer than similar jobs on Cessnas or suchlike - things are harder to get at. Ease of maintenance was not high on the designers priorities.
Also, spares can be horrendously expensive because of scarcity. As an example, some years ago we had to replace a fuel tank. This is just a rubber bladder, but it cost us £4,000 for one! In more enlightened countries, metal fuel tanks can be used to replace the inferior rubber ones at much lower cost, but as these are not 'original equipment' on the type, the CAA will not allow their fitting!
Also, spares can be horrendously expensive because of scarcity. As an example, some years ago we had to replace a fuel tank. This is just a rubber bladder, but it cost us £4,000 for one! In more enlightened countries, metal fuel tanks can be used to replace the inferior rubber ones at much lower cost, but as these are not 'original equipment' on the type, the CAA will not allow their fitting!
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Looking for the signals square at LHR
Posts: 236
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Been going back a bit and just noticed BillieBob's comments (Nr48).
Rather off topic but we seem to have some similar types in our logs. However, I'm a little surprised at his liking for the 114. It was not among my favourites. And if people complain about incontinent Chippies, they should live with a Heron for a while. Those Sixes were almost as bad and there were four of them! But I share BillieBob's liking of the 104. This was DH at their best and I loved the aircraft so much I adopted the engine as a moniker!
I always thought it a pity that they had the bump in the roof. Rather spoiled the otherwise clean lines but I suppose the Vampire gear was cheaper than a redesign.
Also noticed something overlooked the first time around - the Chippie's claimed propensity for spinning. Utter rubbish! Why this bunkum persists as urban legend I do not know. A properly rigged DHC1 would not necessarily drop a wing from a fully stalled condition; indeed, it could nearly always be held upright with the rudder. It would spin only when it was asked to and disregarding effects of prop torque, it would spin in either direction with equal facility. The question mark in this flight regime was the tendency for the aircraft to go flat if full elevator and rudder were left on for too long. For this reason I limited spins to four turns and had no trouble but it has to be admitted that there were those who perished from non-recoverable flat spins.
But, given sufficient provocation, they all bite . . . .
GQ.
Rather off topic but we seem to have some similar types in our logs. However, I'm a little surprised at his liking for the 114. It was not among my favourites. And if people complain about incontinent Chippies, they should live with a Heron for a while. Those Sixes were almost as bad and there were four of them! But I share BillieBob's liking of the 104. This was DH at their best and I loved the aircraft so much I adopted the engine as a moniker!
I always thought it a pity that they had the bump in the roof. Rather spoiled the otherwise clean lines but I suppose the Vampire gear was cheaper than a redesign.
Also noticed something overlooked the first time around - the Chippie's claimed propensity for spinning. Utter rubbish! Why this bunkum persists as urban legend I do not know. A properly rigged DHC1 would not necessarily drop a wing from a fully stalled condition; indeed, it could nearly always be held upright with the rudder. It would spin only when it was asked to and disregarding effects of prop torque, it would spin in either direction with equal facility. The question mark in this flight regime was the tendency for the aircraft to go flat if full elevator and rudder were left on for too long. For this reason I limited spins to four turns and had no trouble but it has to be admitted that there were those who perished from non-recoverable flat spins.
But, given sufficient provocation, they all bite . . . .
GQ.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Gt. Yarmouth, Norfolk
Age: 68
Posts: 799
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Also, spares can be horrendously expensive because of scarcity. As an example, some years ago we had to replace a fuel tank. This is just a rubber bladder, but it cost us £4,000 for one! In more enlightened countries, metal fuel tanks can be used to replace the inferior rubber ones at much lower cost, but as these are not 'original equipment' on the type, the CAA will not allow their fitting!
The point you make shows the continuing idiocy of compelling the fitting of "original" equipment when there is something cheaper, more modern and safer available. There is no virtue in the term "original" and what was original was often a compromise, or something fitted because it happened to be available. This is not something permit types suffer from and as we know they are not falling out fo the sky.
The chippy isn`t a looker
