Chipmunk in a crosswind
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 3,325
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not many 8,000 ft density altitude airports in UK.
You have consistantly avoided the points I and others have made, deliberately obsfucating them with irrelevant side-statements. Maybe you'll get over it, but probaly not as I think it's endemic.
Your statement above effectively saying the Chippy brakes are not fit for purpose when they are in fact superb for the job (as pretty much every experienced Chippy pilot on here has confirmed) is inexplicable.
You have consistantly avoided the points I and others have made, deliberately obsfucating them with irrelevant side-statements. Maybe you'll get over it, but probaly not as I think it's endemic.
Your statement above effectively saying the Chippy brakes are not fit for purpose when they are in fact superb for the job (as pretty much every experienced Chippy pilot on here has confirmed) is inexplicable.
Last edited by Shaggy Sheep Driver; 6th Dec 2012 at 19:49.
SSD
Are you seriously making the argument that the Chippie brake system is a better design then Toe Brakes ?
Are you seriously making the argument that the Chippie brake system is a better design then Toe Brakes ?
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 3,325
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Are you seriously making the argument that the Chippie brake system is a better design then Toe Brakes ?
Last edited by Shaggy Sheep Driver; 6th Dec 2012 at 20:40.
You have to look at the philosophy behind the Chippy's brake system in context. It was designed to fill a requirement for a military training aircraft in 1945 - it wasn't designed for weekend flyers in the 21st century. Most RAF fighter at the time had a brake system which was actuated by a bicycle style lever on the control column, differential braking (and steering) was acheived by moving the rudder bar. As it was was designed to train pilots who would untimately end up on these types, it had a similar system.
As it is, I don't think there's a lot wrong with it. In three years flying with it professionally, it was fine for the purpose. The biggest issue we had was that you could get brake fade on the leeward side if taxying for any length of time in a crosswind which would neccessitate a stop pointing into wind to cool the offending unit. And out students coped well with the system - they were ab-initios who usually soloed in just over 10 hours of instruction.
As for the type's other qualities, personally there isn't a light aeroplane I have flown which matches the Chippy (I've flown about 30 types from the usual spam cans through to Falcos, Extras and Pitts') It's handling is superlative and it's the most enjoyable type from a pure handling perspective. Sure, it could do with a bit more power and an engine that keeps runnng upside down, but all light aircraft are a compromise. And it's interesting to note that the aircraft bought in to replace the Chippy (the Bulldog) only replaced it in the University Air Squadrons. The Chipmunk remained the elemntary trainer for regular RAF pilots until 1993 because it produced better pilots. That's 45 years in service!
As a training aircraft, it's exceptional.
As it is, I don't think there's a lot wrong with it. In three years flying with it professionally, it was fine for the purpose. The biggest issue we had was that you could get brake fade on the leeward side if taxying for any length of time in a crosswind which would neccessitate a stop pointing into wind to cool the offending unit. And out students coped well with the system - they were ab-initios who usually soloed in just over 10 hours of instruction.
As for the type's other qualities, personally there isn't a light aeroplane I have flown which matches the Chippy (I've flown about 30 types from the usual spam cans through to Falcos, Extras and Pitts') It's handling is superlative and it's the most enjoyable type from a pure handling perspective. Sure, it could do with a bit more power and an engine that keeps runnng upside down, but all light aircraft are a compromise. And it's interesting to note that the aircraft bought in to replace the Chippy (the Bulldog) only replaced it in the University Air Squadrons. The Chipmunk remained the elemntary trainer for regular RAF pilots until 1993 because it produced better pilots. That's 45 years in service!
As a training aircraft, it's exceptional.
Last edited by Dan Winterland; 7th Dec 2012 at 02:25. Reason: Spilling
I think that UK aviation has always been blighted by dogmatic, outdated thinking - consider QNH & QFE, the OHJ, signals square, painfully slow acceptance of GPS etc etc etc. As I pointed out earlier, in most respects the PT-26 is superior to the Chipmunk, yet it was out of production before the Chipmunk entered production! Compare the Auster AOP.9 with the Cessna O-1 Bird Dog. With its all metal, stressed skin construction and horizontally-opposed engine, the Cessna certainly looks a lot more modern than the fabric-covered Auster and its inverted, in-line engine. Yet, incredibly, the Bird Dog flew before the AOP.9!
Ever seen a Supermarine Attacker? Its a jet fighter, but has the 3rd wheel at the back!!
Oh and before anyone else says "the C in DHC means Canada" - I know.
The DH bit means de Havilland, that well-known British company.
Janie's post was spot on - vive le difference! Dan's post is valid (although it does still highlight the UK aviation industry's predelection to look backward, not forward.)
SSD - if the Chipmunk's brake system is the best for aerobatic aircraft, why isn't it fitted to the Pitts/Eagles/Extras and Sukhois of the world? Serious question - and I'd be grateful for an answer. Thanks.
Ever seen a Supermarine Attacker? Its a jet fighter, but has the 3rd wheel at the back!!
Oh and before anyone else says "the C in DHC means Canada" - I know.
The DH bit means de Havilland, that well-known British company.
Janie's post was spot on - vive le difference! Dan's post is valid (although it does still highlight the UK aviation industry's predelection to look backward, not forward.)
SSD - if the Chipmunk's brake system is the best for aerobatic aircraft, why isn't it fitted to the Pitts/Eagles/Extras and Sukhois of the world? Serious question - and I'd be grateful for an answer. Thanks.
Last edited by Thud105; 7th Dec 2012 at 09:04.
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: truro
Age: 68
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi for a bit of fun dads last comment was "try taxying A Sea Fury with its original brakes, on a rolling, pitching, wet,icy carrier deck in the dark.
Gordon
Gordon
Last edited by gpugh; 7th Dec 2012 at 09:16.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 3,325
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thud, I can only speak from personal experience. The aerobatic types I have flown beside the Chippy are Citabria, Stearman, Yak 52, and Aerobat and of all those I personally find the Chippy's sytem my favorite and the Yak's the worst (especially if you let the free-castor nosewheel cock-over to full lock).
At least some of the aeroplanes you mention don't have free-castoring tailwheels. Tieing the tailwheel to the rudder with springs removes that carefree ability to spin the aeroplane 360 degrees in almost its own length (and if one asks why anyone would want to do that, let me just say 'because it's fun'). I suspect that if the Chippy had that arrangement, its unusual braking system might lose its charm.
As my check out instructor on the type said, back in 1979; "if you can taxy this aeroplane confidently, you can fly it". I doubt he'd have said that if it had toe brakes. So I guess the real answer as why I think it's best for that aeroplane is 'it suits it so well'.
I've flown a great many light aeroplanes in the 3.5 decades (nearly) that I've been flying, and the Chipmunk is, for me, far and away the nicest to fly. Far from the most capable, and in some respects quite limited (range!). But definately the one with the biggest grin factor.
At least some of the aeroplanes you mention don't have free-castoring tailwheels. Tieing the tailwheel to the rudder with springs removes that carefree ability to spin the aeroplane 360 degrees in almost its own length (and if one asks why anyone would want to do that, let me just say 'because it's fun'). I suspect that if the Chippy had that arrangement, its unusual braking system might lose its charm.
As my check out instructor on the type said, back in 1979; "if you can taxy this aeroplane confidently, you can fly it". I doubt he'd have said that if it had toe brakes. So I guess the real answer as why I think it's best for that aeroplane is 'it suits it so well'.
I've flown a great many light aeroplanes in the 3.5 decades (nearly) that I've been flying, and the Chipmunk is, for me, far and away the nicest to fly. Far from the most capable, and in some respects quite limited (range!). But definately the one with the biggest grin factor.
Last edited by Shaggy Sheep Driver; 7th Dec 2012 at 09:16.
All good points well made SSD. And yes for pure handling in a light aircraft, the Chipmunk (and also the Beagle Pup) take a lot of beating. To be honest, if offered a PT-26 or Chipmunk - I'd take the Chippie (unless there was also a PT-22 going begging!)
Last edited by Thud105; 7th Dec 2012 at 09:25.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Norfolk
Posts: 1,057
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thread drift coming up..............Actually the PT-26 looks a nice aeroplane too - what are they like to fly ??
I'm a fan of 'if it looks right it'll fly right' - both the Chippie and the PT-26 seem to be in that category (and the PT-17 IMHO)
But strangely enough not the Tiger for me, but the Stampe (SV-4) - Oh yes
I'm a fan of 'if it looks right it'll fly right' - both the Chippie and the PT-26 seem to be in that category (and the PT-17 IMHO)
But strangely enough not the Tiger for me, but the Stampe (SV-4) - Oh yes
The -26 is fine; decent range, toe brakes, electric start but - it has to be said - in flight the Chipmunk is finer!
The Tiger Moth is truly terrible, but still fun (if you enjoy a challenge).
The Tiger Moth is truly terrible, but still fun (if you enjoy a challenge).
Last edited by Thud105; 7th Dec 2012 at 12:21.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 3,325
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I found the Tiger Moth technically a big disapointment. The old adage doesn't apply - it looks good, but it doesn't fly good! Awful ailerons, terrible control harmony.
But - I loved it! Its character, and the sheer fact it's an open cockpit biplane just made a really fun aeroplane to fly!
But - I loved it! Its character, and the sheer fact it's an open cockpit biplane just made a really fun aeroplane to fly!
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 3,325
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I keep remembering other aerobatic types I've flown. The Tiger Moth, the Stampe, the Jungman (just one flight as P2 but hands-on).
The Stampe I flew had a lycoming engine so not a real one. But.. nice. Not as nice as the Chippy, though. But miles ahead of the Tiger Moth!
Jungman - limited time to judge it but it handled really nicely. I'd need longer, and to be P1, to give a meaningful opinion of it.
The Stampe I flew had a lycoming engine so not a real one. But.. nice. Not as nice as the Chippy, though. But miles ahead of the Tiger Moth!
Jungman - limited time to judge it but it handled really nicely. I'd need longer, and to be P1, to give a meaningful opinion of it.
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Dubai
Posts: 207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jungman - limited time to judge it but it handled really nicely. I'd need longer, and to be P1, to give a meaningful opinion of it.
Thinking seriously about it, give me the Chippy any day. BTW the Jungmann has toe brakes. Coupled with dreadful ground handling.
SRD
