Chipmunk in a crosswind
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 3,325
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Four arms, 2 each side, if you include the flap lever. Another one for the fuel selector, could be on left or right? Then there's the radio, transponder, altimeter subscale knob, mags, carb heat, canopy release.... Crikey, an octopus with twice the normal alloctaion of arms couldn't do it.... 
Thing is... And I know this might be a tad obvious... you don't need to operate all of these things at once!
maxred - can I lend you a longer-handled scraper to use on that barrel?
Thing is... And I know this might be a tad obvious... you don't need to operate all of these things at once!
maxred - can I lend you a longer-handled scraper to use on that barrel?
Last edited by Shaggy Sheep Driver; 30th Nov 2012 at 18:15.
OK - I can see I'm going to have to spell it out.
The T-6, T-28 and P-51 do not have clunky brakes.
If the DH system is so good - why does no-one design aircraft with it today?
The T-6, T-28 and P-51 do not have clunky brakes.
If the DH system is so good - why does no-one design aircraft with it today?
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: GLASGOW
Posts: 1,289
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yo, Thud, there are times in life when, well it might be best to retire gracefully.
It may be something in the water, all the recent flooding.
It may be something in the water, all the recent flooding.
Last edited by maxred; 30th Nov 2012 at 19:09.
I have a copy of the official de Havilland logo on my desk as I type. It says 'DH'.
Somehow, I think that that silly brake system would look a bit odd on the flightdeck of a 747, or even in the cockpit of a Stearman. Still, what would Boeing know eh?
Still, I admire the spirited, albeit irrational and blinkered defence. What about the Coffmann starter, and stupidly-sized gas tank -or are they other examples of design genius that I've missed?
Somehow, I think that that silly brake system would look a bit odd on the flightdeck of a 747, or even in the cockpit of a Stearman. Still, what would Boeing know eh?
Still, I admire the spirited, albeit irrational and blinkered defence. What about the Coffmann starter, and stupidly-sized gas tank -or are they other examples of design genius that I've missed?
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 3,325
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You continue to slag off the superb brake system on the dHC1, and haven't yet said what's wrong with it! I've told you what's right with it... if you disagree, perhaps you could enlighten us as to what do you think is wrong with it?
Our Chippy is electric start.
Small fuel tanks were because it wasn't ever designed to be a tourer. It was a basic military trainer, so short sorties. 18 gallons is more than enough; no point in carting loads of fuel on circuits or a local aeros sortie, and the lower weight translates into better performance.
Did that not occur to you before you queried the limited fuel capacity? It seems it didn't.
Our Chippy is electric start.
Small fuel tanks were because it wasn't ever designed to be a tourer. It was a basic military trainer, so short sorties. 18 gallons is more than enough; no point in carting loads of fuel on circuits or a local aeros sortie, and the lower weight translates into better performance.
Did that not occur to you before you queried the limited fuel capacity? It seems it didn't.
Last edited by Shaggy Sheep Driver; 30th Nov 2012 at 20:05.
Why should you have to use your feet and hands to apply differential braking? That's what's wrong with it.
So someone who owned your Chippy realised that a Coffmann starter for a 145hp putt-putt was just plain stupid and put a sensible electric starter on it. Well done them.
Just because you have sensibly-sized tanks - you don't have to fill them up. But when you need the range - its nice to have it. Unless the tanks are a stupid size, when you simply can't. I guess that's why the civvy Chippies did have sensibly-sized tanks. Remember, you don't have to fill them up.
Did that not occur to you before you praised the limited fuel capacity? It seems it didn't.
So someone who owned your Chippy realised that a Coffmann starter for a 145hp putt-putt was just plain stupid and put a sensible electric starter on it. Well done them.
Just because you have sensibly-sized tanks - you don't have to fill them up. But when you need the range - its nice to have it. Unless the tanks are a stupid size, when you simply can't. I guess that's why the civvy Chippies did have sensibly-sized tanks. Remember, you don't have to fill them up.
Did that not occur to you before you praised the limited fuel capacity? It seems it didn't.
Last edited by Thud105; 30th Nov 2012 at 20:32.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Oop North, UK
Posts: 3,076
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hey guys, how about some perspective here,
The Chippie is an old lady and not far from when NO aircraft had brakes, so that was a good thing when included in any way! The question of a couple of clicks on or manual braking is something that has always divided Chippie pilots and always will, I learnt both and teach both, letting people pick what they think is best for them.
As far as the argument for American aircraft goes, they might be better than the Chippie on the ground, but there are few light aircraft until you get to the RVs that can match the Chippie for handling in the air, and THAT, IMHO is where it counts!
The Chippie is an old lady and not far from when NO aircraft had brakes, so that was a good thing when included in any way! The question of a couple of clicks on or manual braking is something that has always divided Chippie pilots and always will, I learnt both and teach both, letting people pick what they think is best for them.
As far as the argument for American aircraft goes, they might be better than the Chippie on the ground, but there are few light aircraft until you get to the RVs that can match the Chippie for handling in the air, and THAT, IMHO is where it counts!
Last edited by foxmoth; 30th Nov 2012 at 22:16.
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: truro
Age: 68
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi my father instructed on Chipmunks with the Navy for many years and he says that the correct proceedure for setting the brakes was whilst still on the ground to apply full rudder then apply the brakes noting the number of clicks required and each aircraft was different, you would then have to remember the number of clicks for that aircraft that you could apply as required and in this way you would still have full use of the rudder without any restriction, never any brake set on take off or landing, was supposed to add unless x wind and thats when you needed to remember the specific no of clicks for that aircraft
Last edited by gpugh; 5th Dec 2012 at 07:19.
"The Chippie is an old lady and not far from when NO aircraft had brakes."
Wrong. Its post WWII, when just about everything had brakes.
Even flown a PT-26? It looks a lot like a Chipmunk. It has toe brakes, reasonable range and an electric starter.
I think that Fairchild stopped making them before de Havilland started making Chipmunks!
However, the Chipmunk sure does fly better!
Wrong. Its post WWII, when just about everything had brakes.
Even flown a PT-26? It looks a lot like a Chipmunk. It has toe brakes, reasonable range and an electric starter.
I think that Fairchild stopped making them before de Havilland started making Chipmunks!
However, the Chipmunk sure does fly better!
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 3,325
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My (limited) experience with a Chipmunk left me with the impression of a delightful aircraft, and taxiing it was really kind of fun... but only once you got used to the idea that you can't keep your hand on throttle when driving around on the ground... which really is a flaw of the design.
I usually set a couple of notches for taxy and then leave the brake lever alone until lined up for T/O. It taxys well, going precisely where your feet point it. Once lined up and with the tailwheel straight I pull the brake lever hard back and then release it to let it fly forward - so I know I have no brake set.
I don't touch that lever again (except for the pre-landing 'brakes off' check - pull it back and release) until I've vacated the runway on landing. Sometimes, in a strong crosswind (what this thread's about) I have tweaked the brake lever back with a curled little finger to augment full rudder; but I've vary rarely needed to do that.
The OP gives a good description of what can easily happen if you land with the brakes set.
The Chippy is as manouverable on the ground as it is in the air, and just as delightful. For sheer taxying fun, press full rudder, add a bit of power, keep the stick back, and do full 360s both ways (judging the correct moment of rudder reversal to reverse the turn after exactly 360 degrees is good practice for your feet!). And it's fun rotating cleanly around one main wheel, then the other as only a fully castoring tailwheel allows! I've never taxyed a toe or heel braked aeroplane that has such carefree, pure, ground handling as the dHC1.
But like most good things in life, it seems strange, even not nice, at first. Only when you are used to it do you realise how superbly good it is!
Last edited by Shaggy Sheep Driver; 30th Nov 2012 at 23:42.
Having flown Chipmunks, Yak/Nanchangs, Heel brake Cubs, T Carts, Luscombes, Champs and Citabrias; and another 50 + types that had toe brakes I know what I would rather have ....................Toe Brakes.
However I really like the Chipmumk. It is a really pretty aircraft (especially those that have the original Canopy, not the iron mongers cast aways fitted to the UK ones) and has absolutely delightful flying characteristics.
The only problem with the airplane is the Canadian designers were forced to use crap UK systems like the brake system, all of the electrical components and the boat anchor Dripsy Major engine.
However I really like the Chipmumk. It is a really pretty aircraft (especially those that have the original Canopy, not the iron mongers cast aways fitted to the UK ones) and has absolutely delightful flying characteristics.
The only problem with the airplane is the Canadian designers were forced to use crap UK systems like the brake system, all of the electrical components and the boat anchor Dripsy Major engine.
I recognise SSD's quote as my own. Here's my thoughts on the matter - based on a thousand hours on the Chippy, a majority of them spent instructing RAF Pilots.
As mentioned in the quote, from about 1985, the RAF never set brakes for landing in my experience. I know it was in the manuals, but at the max cross wind limit of 15 knots, it is more likely to make you groundloop than not. The reason being is that as you slow down having applied brake on one side, the fin/rudder becomes less effective and the brake will take over very quickly. If the release isn't anticipated in time, the aircraft will have already started swinging and releasing the brake to control yaw by centring the rudder will not establish directional control by rudder alone, as the aircraft is directionally unstable on the ground and you have now released the brake as well as taken away some of the aerodynamic control. The continued natural response is to steer with your feet and the subsequent inevitable large inputs will likely lead to a groundloop.
Although "wheeling" on is a useful technique for many taildraggers in a x-wind, it dosen't work well in the Chippy as the C of G is already quite close to the mainwheels and having the tail up just moves it closer and makes it less directionally stable - and also introduces the possibility of nosing over if the brakes are used too enthusiasticly.
The Chippy is easily landed in a 15 knot cross wind will full rudder alone and tail down. The technique I was taught, used and then also taught others is to land on three points, using rudder as necessary. As the aircraft slows down and aerodynamic directional contol is lost, very small brake application of just a small squeeze with what will be full rudder at that stage will keep you straight.
As for having brake applied for the whole flight, brakes were never left on in flight in the RAF. The first item in the after take off checks was "Brakes - Off", "Brakes - Off" was also an item in the HASELL checks and the last item of the pre landing checks was "Brakes - as required". (We never applied them). The reason being is that in aeros or a spin recovery, it was thought that the resistance felt as the brake master cylinder was pressurised could lead the pilot to think he/she had reached full rudder application. Although in reality, an adrenaline fed boot will easily overcome the pressure.
As for the test pilot comments - lots of aircraft have stuff in the manuals based on the TP's limited experience of the type which is subsequently overidden by later experience gained while operating the type on the front line. Many of the aircraft I flew in the military had information which was largely ignored as the experience levels increased. The manuals took a long time to amend. Sixty years and still waiting in the Chippy's case!
As mentioned in the quote, from about 1985, the RAF never set brakes for landing in my experience. I know it was in the manuals, but at the max cross wind limit of 15 knots, it is more likely to make you groundloop than not. The reason being is that as you slow down having applied brake on one side, the fin/rudder becomes less effective and the brake will take over very quickly. If the release isn't anticipated in time, the aircraft will have already started swinging and releasing the brake to control yaw by centring the rudder will not establish directional control by rudder alone, as the aircraft is directionally unstable on the ground and you have now released the brake as well as taken away some of the aerodynamic control. The continued natural response is to steer with your feet and the subsequent inevitable large inputs will likely lead to a groundloop.
Although "wheeling" on is a useful technique for many taildraggers in a x-wind, it dosen't work well in the Chippy as the C of G is already quite close to the mainwheels and having the tail up just moves it closer and makes it less directionally stable - and also introduces the possibility of nosing over if the brakes are used too enthusiasticly.
The Chippy is easily landed in a 15 knot cross wind will full rudder alone and tail down. The technique I was taught, used and then also taught others is to land on three points, using rudder as necessary. As the aircraft slows down and aerodynamic directional contol is lost, very small brake application of just a small squeeze with what will be full rudder at that stage will keep you straight.
As for having brake applied for the whole flight, brakes were never left on in flight in the RAF. The first item in the after take off checks was "Brakes - Off", "Brakes - Off" was also an item in the HASELL checks and the last item of the pre landing checks was "Brakes - as required". (We never applied them). The reason being is that in aeros or a spin recovery, it was thought that the resistance felt as the brake master cylinder was pressurised could lead the pilot to think he/she had reached full rudder application. Although in reality, an adrenaline fed boot will easily overcome the pressure.
As for the test pilot comments - lots of aircraft have stuff in the manuals based on the TP's limited experience of the type which is subsequently overidden by later experience gained while operating the type on the front line. Many of the aircraft I flew in the military had information which was largely ignored as the experience levels increased. The manuals took a long time to amend. Sixty years and still waiting in the Chippy's case!
Join Date: Jun 1996
Location: Check with Ops
Posts: 741
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wise words from Dan, which echo many of Shaggy's. GPugh's father was one of my first instructors on the Chippy and I still remember him teaching me the brake-setting technique (for taxying) as we sat beneath a wind-swept, grey sky at Roborough Airport (I used to cheat and write down the number of 'clicks' for the subsequent taxy-in). My experience pales when compared to Dan's (I only have around 400 hrs in the Chippy, as an AEF and glider tug pilot) but his and Shaggy's technique of using just a little, progressively applied, light braking when you've got full rudder to counter the crosswind works well. We were taught brakes off for landing and it was only after clearing the runway that you re-set the number of 'clicks' for taxying.
As far as ergonomics go, the Chippy wouldn't win any modern prizes for design but who cares? It took little time to 'balance' the workload between throttle, braking and stick and once you've got used to it you don't even think about it. I'm not a lover of heel brakes but I'm quite happy to put up with them when mucking around in a Silvaire
Likewise, I wasn't a fan of differential braking on the Jet Provost but was more than happy with the same thing on the Hunter
Now, I'm not suggesting we all have a big, group hug and start singing kumbaya but let's just accept that DH built the Chippy the way it is and enjoy it, no matter whether we think we could have done better or not. They are lovely aircraft to fly and I wish now I'd taken more advantage of the opportunities I had to fly them.
Finally, to the OP, I hope you've had your question answered; landing with brakes off and just a squeeeeeze of brake, once you've reached the rudder limit, to keep the nose straight at low speeds would seem to be the way ahead.
(And to GPugh, I hope your father is well and pass him my kind regards. His Grading advice and tuition set in motion a very happy and fulfilling career for me on the SHAR and I'm grateful he saw fit to send me off on my first solo Chippy flight)
As far as ergonomics go, the Chippy wouldn't win any modern prizes for design but who cares? It took little time to 'balance' the workload between throttle, braking and stick and once you've got used to it you don't even think about it. I'm not a lover of heel brakes but I'm quite happy to put up with them when mucking around in a Silvaire
Likewise, I wasn't a fan of differential braking on the Jet Provost but was more than happy with the same thing on the Hunter Now, I'm not suggesting we all have a big, group hug and start singing kumbaya but let's just accept that DH built the Chippy the way it is and enjoy it, no matter whether we think we could have done better or not. They are lovely aircraft to fly and I wish now I'd taken more advantage of the opportunities I had to fly them.
Finally, to the OP, I hope you've had your question answered; landing with brakes off and just a squeeeeeze of brake, once you've reached the rudder limit, to keep the nose straight at low speeds would seem to be the way ahead.
(And to GPugh, I hope your father is well and pass him my kind regards. His Grading advice and tuition set in motion a very happy and fulfilling career for me on the SHAR and I'm grateful he saw fit to send me off on my first solo Chippy flight
)
The Chippy is easily landed in a 15 knot cross wind will full rudder alone and tail down. The technique I was taught, used and then also taught others is to land on three points, using rudder as necessary.
One of the saddest sights I recall was watching the landings on the day the Shackleton was retired as three successive arrivals demonstrated that the RAF technique had fatally undermined pilots' confidence in Xwinds.
Moderator
Thread Starter
Thanks to you all for an interesting three pages.
I think I'll stick to brakes off next time and just squeeze the brake lever as needed. I can identify with the unstable swing syndrome mentioned above and as I am lucky enough to have big concrete runways where I operate from there is plenty of room to experiment with finding the right brake lever pressure.
BB
I think I'll stick to brakes off next time and just squeeze the brake lever as needed. I can identify with the unstable swing syndrome mentioned above and as I am lucky enough to have big concrete runways where I operate from there is plenty of room to experiment with finding the right brake lever pressure.
BB
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: ...back of the drag curve
Age: 61
Posts: 558
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Amazing how its turned into a 'American aeroplanes are better than Canadian' thread.
I've flown Chipmunk, P51 and T6 and they all have their foibles. Toe brakes suit the American types, there's nothing wrong with the Chipmunk brakes if you understand that they are just different and fly them accordingly..try landing in the max crosswind for a Jodel D150, 23kts, with differential brakes that come on at the extreme of rudder travel........
If you want crazy design, try an Auster with worn heel brakes..
SSD, you must remember that the Americans invented the aeroplane. Therefore they know best.
I've flown Chipmunk, P51 and T6 and they all have their foibles. Toe brakes suit the American types, there's nothing wrong with the Chipmunk brakes if you understand that they are just different and fly them accordingly..try landing in the max crosswind for a Jodel D150, 23kts, with differential brakes that come on at the extreme of rudder travel........
If you want crazy design, try an Auster with worn heel brakes..
SSD, you must remember that the Americans invented the aeroplane. Therefore they know best.
Last edited by 'Chuffer' Dandridge; 1st Dec 2012 at 08:25.