What could you replace a Chipmunk with?
Thread Starter
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
From: Inside the EGBE, EGBG, EGBK triangle
What could you replace a Chipmunk with?
An idle question but what (if any) modern kit or factory built aircraft that are certified and realistically obtainable would be a suitable replacement for a DHC-1 Chipmunk? The RAF's opinion was a Grob or Slingsby Firefly but neither of these to my mind match the Chippies key characteristics - tandem seating in a cockpit with good all round visability, low wing monoplane, tailwheel with a robust undercarriage that has a wide track, good short field performance, and capable of aerobatic flight (but not sustained inverted).
Are there any modern aircraft that come close to these without the Chippies chief draw back of covering everything in oil
?
Are there any modern aircraft that come close to these without the Chippies chief draw back of covering everything in oil
?
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 195
Likes: 0
From: South East
Hi Marlat
I replaced my beloved Chippy with an RV-8. For the pilot the RV does everything in the air a chippy does but better.
Now the downside, not public transport certified. The gear and tail would need strengthening for service use.
You can still get the bottom of your RV-8 covered in oil too
I replaced my beloved Chippy with an RV-8. For the pilot the RV does everything in the air a chippy does but better.
Now the downside, not public transport certified. The gear and tail would need strengthening for service use.
You can still get the bottom of your RV-8 covered in oil too
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 1,214
Likes: 0
From: S Warwickshire
The back seat of an RV-8 is not a great spot for either instructor or student; limited control access and poor (if any) view of the instruments.
There isn't much in the way of tandem seat available in the certified world, mostly competition machinery such as Extra, Zlin or Pitts.
If you accept SBS seating, then a CAP would meet most of the other criteria - the 10C is still in production. YAK52s are plentiful, but the running costs are likely to be at least double.
There isn't much in the way of tandem seat available in the certified world, mostly competition machinery such as Extra, Zlin or Pitts.
If you accept SBS seating, then a CAP would meet most of the other criteria - the 10C is still in production. YAK52s are plentiful, but the running costs are likely to be at least double.
A little less conversation,
a little more aviation...
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 696
Likes: 0
From: Bracknell, UK
Hi Marlat
I replaced my beloved Chippy with an RV-8. For the pilot the RV does everything in the air a chippy does but better.
Now the downside, not public transport certified. The gear and tail would need strengthening for service use.
You can still get the bottom of your RV-8 covered in oil too
I replaced my beloved Chippy with an RV-8. For the pilot the RV does everything in the air a chippy does but better.
Now the downside, not public transport certified. The gear and tail would need strengthening for service use.
You can still get the bottom of your RV-8 covered in oil too
Thread Starter
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
From: Inside the EGBE, EGBG, EGBK triangle
That Nigeran RV certainly looks pretty in that paint job! My question is not about what makes a good military ab-inito trainer but what matches the Chippies characteristics which are ones that I feel make an ideal fun light aeroplane. For me, sitting on the centre line is important as it feels more natural/comfortable, so side by side cockpits don't really work. So it would appear that the RV series is probably the only option?
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 5,658
Likes: 501
From: Canada
Joined: Jan 1999
Posts: 6,209
Likes: 2
From: north of barlu
As much as I like the RV aircraft I think my vote would be for the Extra 200.
I found the 200 a very nice aircraft to fly, the 200HP engine keeps the fuel costs down and also keeps the stress on the airframe down further reducing cost.
On the whole I found the 200 a much more enjoyable aircraft to fly than the 300 with more than enough power for "fun aerobatics" but short on power for other than basic competition aerobatics.
I found the 200 a very nice aircraft to fly, the 200HP engine keeps the fuel costs down and also keeps the stress on the airframe down further reducing cost.
On the whole I found the 200 a much more enjoyable aircraft to fly than the 300 with more than enough power for "fun aerobatics" but short on power for other than basic competition aerobatics.
Joined: Jan 1999
Posts: 6,209
Likes: 2
From: north of barlu
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.
the Chipmunk is about the nicest aircraft I have ever flown attached to the worst engine that I have ever worked on.
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 1,337
Likes: 59
From: At home
The RAFGSA operate a number of 180hp Lycoming powered Chipmunks. They were trying to sell one of the fleet recently, so if you want a Chippie but not a 'Dripsy Major' it could be worth asking.
I don't know which, if any, are currently for sale, but if you search for G-ATVF it will give you an idea.
I don't know which, if any, are currently for sale, but if you search for G-ATVF it will give you an idea.
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 133
Likes: 0
From: South
I'll have to agree with some of the other posters and suggest a powerplant exchange.
Having worked with the Dripsy a few years ago, it's fantastically easy to look after by virtue of how primitive it is, but the oil... So much oil. With all of the old engines like that, you get good ones and bad ones, each has it's own character. I came across engines which would burn (and/or throw out) almost as much oil as fuel, and others which didn't use much more than your average flying school 30year old C152.
But switch to a Lycoming, and I can't see any reason to give up an airframe like the Chippy!
Having worked with the Dripsy a few years ago, it's fantastically easy to look after by virtue of how primitive it is, but the oil... So much oil. With all of the old engines like that, you get good ones and bad ones, each has it's own character. I came across engines which would burn (and/or throw out) almost as much oil as fuel, and others which didn't use much more than your average flying school 30year old C152.
But switch to a Lycoming, and I can't see any reason to give up an airframe like the Chippy!
Joined: Dec 1999
Posts: 3,077
Likes: 1
From: Oop North, UK
Another vote here for the RV8, I have often described it as a Chippie on Steroids
. Only real bugbear for me as an instructor are the rear rudder pedals which are ok in the air but no good for sorting someone out on the ground.
. Only real bugbear for me as an instructor are the rear rudder pedals which are ok in the air but no good for sorting someone out on the ground.
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 1,214
Likes: 0
From: S Warwickshire
I've had a Chipmunk, 2 RV-4s and now an RV-8. Without a doubt the RV-8 is the best all rounder. It doesn't meet your requirement of a certified aircraft, but has been well designed and engineered. The RV-4 is cheaper to obtain and, if you don't mind the solo aerobatics limitation (actually weight and CG limit) and the reduced space, you will have one of the best all round handling, performing and touring capable aircraft around. The -8 adds payload, range, load versatility and cockpit/baggage space.
I have dual aerobatic capability, 170 KTAS cruise at altitude, 1800 ft/min climb, nearly 1000nm range (at 150 KTAS) and night/IFR capability (in US) at significantly lower ownership costs than the Chippy. With modern EFIS units, some people have added a slave PFD for the back cockpit.
As was mentioned , the rear seat rudder pedal option is not very robust, so it wouldn't be any use as a primary tailwheel trainer and being amateur built, couldn't be used as a club/school aircraft other than to the limit of the shared ownership concession.
It also is one of the least demanding tailwheel aircraft in terms of its ground handling; comparable to the Chippy although stiffer and springier gear legs.
I have dual aerobatic capability, 170 KTAS cruise at altitude, 1800 ft/min climb, nearly 1000nm range (at 150 KTAS) and night/IFR capability (in US) at significantly lower ownership costs than the Chippy. With modern EFIS units, some people have added a slave PFD for the back cockpit.
As was mentioned , the rear seat rudder pedal option is not very robust, so it wouldn't be any use as a primary tailwheel trainer and being amateur built, couldn't be used as a club/school aircraft other than to the limit of the shared ownership concession.
It also is one of the least demanding tailwheel aircraft in terms of its ground handling; comparable to the Chippy although stiffer and springier gear legs.
Joined: Oct 1999
Posts: 3,325
Likes: 2
From: UK
The RV might well be an excellent alternative to the Chippy 'on paper' and on on performance too. But you could never pretend you were flying a little Spitfire, like what you can in the lovely dHC1. 
And the Dripsy Major? Get the 'ring mod' done and they only throw out half the oil they did before! Anyway, it gives the aeroplane even more 'character' than it already has. A Lycominged one just ain't a Chippy.
And the Dripsy Major? Get the 'ring mod' done and they only throw out half the oil they did before! Anyway, it gives the aeroplane even more 'character' than it already has. A Lycominged one just ain't a Chippy.