Chipmunk - Should I?
Joined: Jan 2011
Posts: 1,663
Likes: 0
From: Gone
I'm guessing that Maoraigh1 is reinforcing Pace's and 18Greens analogy that ugly birds are ok. Probably eloquently summed up by Stanwell.
Silvaire1
Lovely photo of the Chippy
The other photo would look better suited with 4 servos, a 91cu nitro 2 stroke and a plastic Hector sitting under the bubble.
Silvaire1
Lovely photo of the Chippy
The other photo would look better suited with 4 servos, a 91cu nitro 2 stroke and a plastic Hector sitting under the bubble.
Joined: Oct 1999
Posts: 3,325
Likes: 2
From: UK
There are plenty of groups that have tried to run a Chipmunk without realising it is not a cheap aeroplane to maintain. I don't know why that should be, as Chippy costs are well known - maybe there are a some dreamers out there who think it can be done cheaply?
You have to realise this is a military aeroplane not designed for cheap maintenance, it is a classic for which some parts are becoming expensive (read:rare). Well run groups budget for all of this and buy up likely spares as and when they become available so they are 'in stock' for when needed.
A big bill for an engine rebuild (or replacement with a zero-timed unit) does not usually come as a surprise.
You can run a very big group around a Chipmunk because unlike a tourer, it isn't going to be taken away from base for long so diary slots can be plentiful despite the number of shareholders. A couple of hours and it's often back for the next member; even if it goes to a fly-in usually 2 members share the flight and it's only away for a day. The high utilisation in such a group keeps flying costs down.
A big group, so long as it is well run by folk who know the aeroplane well, is a great one to join. Guess how I know!
You have to realise this is a military aeroplane not designed for cheap maintenance, it is a classic for which some parts are becoming expensive (read:rare). Well run groups budget for all of this and buy up likely spares as and when they become available so they are 'in stock' for when needed.
A big bill for an engine rebuild (or replacement with a zero-timed unit) does not usually come as a surprise.
You can run a very big group around a Chipmunk because unlike a tourer, it isn't going to be taken away from base for long so diary slots can be plentiful despite the number of shareholders. A couple of hours and it's often back for the next member; even if it goes to a fly-in usually 2 members share the flight and it's only away for a day. The high utilisation in such a group keeps flying costs down.
A big group, so long as it is well run by folk who know the aeroplane well, is a great one to join. Guess how I know!
Joined: Jan 2011
Posts: 1,663
Likes: 0
From: Gone
VictorGolf
I'm unconvinced that Shaggy was offering what you may call a defence to the problem you presented.
I would suggest 'that' scenario could happen in any good, bad or ugly aircraft group if it wasn't set up to cater for that anomaly.
I'm unconvinced that Shaggy was offering what you may call a defence to the problem you presented.
I would suggest 'that' scenario could happen in any good, bad or ugly aircraft group if it wasn't set up to cater for that anomaly.
Joined: Oct 1999
Posts: 3,325
Likes: 2
From: UK
Quite so, Jet. Any knowledgeable owner will be pleasantly surprised if an engine reaches TBO or beyond and won't be stretching the fund so it can't meet an earlier than TBO demise of the power unit.
The Gipsy Major is quite capable of reliably reaching TBO especially in a high utilisation group. However it is more sensitive than a Lycoming to poor engine handling by its pilots, and that can lead to an earlier than necessary replacement being required.
It's vital, therefore, that Chippy group members thoroughly understand the idiosyncrasies of this venerable old engine and handle it accordingly, and that new group members are checked out not just on the aeroplane, but also on the engine. It's this lovely power unit that gives the aeroplane much of its character, which is why I've never considered a dHC1 with a non-standard engine to be a real Chippy.
The Gipsy Major is quite capable of reliably reaching TBO especially in a high utilisation group. However it is more sensitive than a Lycoming to poor engine handling by its pilots, and that can lead to an earlier than necessary replacement being required.
It's vital, therefore, that Chippy group members thoroughly understand the idiosyncrasies of this venerable old engine and handle it accordingly, and that new group members are checked out not just on the aeroplane, but also on the engine. It's this lovely power unit that gives the aeroplane much of its character, which is why I've never considered a dHC1 with a non-standard engine to be a real Chippy.
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 346
Likes: 1
From: USA
There are plenty of groups that have tried to run a Chipmunk without realising it is not a cheap aeroplane to maintain. I don't know why that should be, as Chippy costs are well known - maybe there are a some dreamers out there who think it can be done cheaply?
You have to realise this is an English military aeroplane not designed for cheap maintenance, it is a classic for which some parts are becoming expensive (read:rare). Well run groups budget for all of this and buy up likely spares as and when they become available so they are 'in stock' for when needed.
You have to realise this is an English military aeroplane not designed for cheap maintenance, it is a classic for which some parts are becoming expensive (read:rare). Well run groups budget for all of this and buy up likely spares as and when they become available so they are 'in stock' for when needed.
There are lots of military trainers from eras before and after that don't have the same level of designed in maintenance requirements, and I think many of those "dreamers" own them, individually and without undue hassle. The Stearman is one that comes to mind, with its 220 Continental, or the various Cub-like L-birds with their flat engines. Even a Ryan PT22 with long obsolete Kinner radial is probably easier to own. British origin stuff very often incorporates fussy ownership issues as par for the course, while other stuff sought to eliminate the hassles. I know the Chipmunk is really Canadian but the lump on the front and so many of its systems were dictated by the customer.
I remember once having an artillery engineer at Piccatiny Arsenal explain to me the differences between the Russian D-30 howitzer that he liked and was studying and the British designed M119 that he was tasked with developing for US forces. One difference he noted was that the British gun was designed to have a devoted mechanic on the crew!
I'd like to have a Chipmunk just because I think they're cool, but I think I'd like to have an 'engineer' (mechanic) on staff that wouldn't be necessary for some other comparable planes.
Joined: Oct 1999
Posts: 3,325
Likes: 2
From: UK
Please don't be so presumptuous as to 'fix' my posts. Disagree with them by all means, but please don't try to tell me what you think I should have posted. And BTW the 'C' in dHC1 stands for 'Canada', not England,but I see you knew that.
No-one has produced a Chippy without the maintenance overhead. Many have tried, mainly by swapping the engine, which simply removes the soul of the aeroplane. As they say in Yorkshire, "you get owt for nowt ". The hassle of Chippy ownership is the price of aerial delight. Other aeroplanes are available if that price is too high.
The ones you mention - I've flown the Stearman and a WACO which is bit like it, and have a lot of time in the L4 and some in the Super Cub.
Good fun, especially the L4 which I have a particular liking for, but Chippies they ain't!
No-one has produced a Chippy without the maintenance overhead. Many have tried, mainly by swapping the engine, which simply removes the soul of the aeroplane. As they say in Yorkshire, "you get owt for nowt ". The hassle of Chippy ownership is the price of aerial delight. Other aeroplanes are available if that price is too high.
The ones you mention - I've flown the Stearman and a WACO which is bit like it, and have a lot of time in the L4 and some in the Super Cub.
Good fun, especially the L4 which I have a particular liking for, but Chippies they ain't!
Last edited by Shaggy Sheep Driver; 22nd April 2016 at 09:01.
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 346
Likes: 1
From: USA
Yes, I know it's really Canadian but the lump on the front and so many of its systems were dictated by the customer.
All the details about the ex-PZL designer and etc are also well known.
No-one has produced a Chippy without the maintenance overhead.
Last edited by Silvaire1; 21st April 2016 at 22:50.
Joined: Jan 2008
Aviation Qualifications: CPL
Posts: 650
Likes: 45
From: Canada
C150? Old ones do the job as cheap as chips trainers, but they will never be an aeroplane.
I'm sure a Chipmunk is a true delight to fly, those I trust tell me so. If the budget permits, and the role is filled, buy Chipmunk by all means! I don't know what it costs to operate one, though I've been hired to make some special tools, and modify pistions to simply enable the rebuild of the engines. I have participated in a Gypsy rebuild, and conducted field repairs. I'm sure that there are type clubs and support groups to keep a Chipmunk happily airborne, and that is as it should be. They must have set prices to remain profitable, as any business must be to survive. My appreciation to those who will bear the expense to keep worthy older aircraft in service.
But understand why you're considering the Chipmunk - Nice to fly, iconic, and able to be fitted with a nice looking canopy if you wish
. But you're not buying one if you simply want to be airborne with predictable economy, and lesser expectation of feeling the sky - there are more than 100,000 boring, lack-lustre handling American spam cans out there for that! Great sales for a reason, longevity because of simple economy of scale. My other flying aircraft is a type certified model, of which only 38 were ever made, and only six survive (though I also own a second, which will be the seventh flying in the world this summer). Mine also has a one off, totally unique engine installation, which is flawed, so I know a thing or two about owning an unusual, and hard to support aircraft. And it has terrible handling compared to my 150!
Simply understand the realistic operating cost of the aircraft you want to own, and assure you have decent contingency fund for it beyond that. It's not the plane's fault if it's expensive to maintain compared to the economy models in which nearly all of us learned to fly.
To be objective, I've never flown the DHC-1 (though would delight for the opportunity), but have owned a 150 for 29 years.....
Joined: Oct 1999
Posts: 3,325
Likes: 2
From: UK
Step, there are a lot of folk who are happy with C150s and their ilk. I learned to fly in them and if the Chippy hadn't come along to reveal to me what flying could be like, I'd have given up flying after a few months I'm sure.
I flew for fun, not utility. For me the C150 wasn't fun - it was an 'insult to the airman's art' as Brian Lecomber put it in 'Talkdown'.
Chippies are a nich aeroplane - they are short range, noisy, oily, expensive to operate, no heat, no luggage space. But for pure fun flying, my kind of flying, none of that matters. The sublime handling, the character, the looks, and the graceful aeros leave those negative points in the shade.
But it isn't for everyone. And it certainly isn't a 'go places' machine.
I flew for fun, not utility. For me the C150 wasn't fun - it was an 'insult to the airman's art' as Brian Lecomber put it in 'Talkdown'.
Chippies are a nich aeroplane - they are short range, noisy, oily, expensive to operate, no heat, no luggage space. But for pure fun flying, my kind of flying, none of that matters. The sublime handling, the character, the looks, and the graceful aeros leave those negative points in the shade.
But it isn't for everyone. And it certainly isn't a 'go places' machine.
Joined: Jan 2008
Aviation Qualifications: CPL
Posts: 650
Likes: 45
From: Canada
I flew for fun, not utility.
I'm not here to advance a 150, nor any other type as being superior, far from it. 150's, like so many GA types, are a large compromise - though less so in operating expense. Perhaps they are the antitheses of the Chipmunk, other than seat count. Fair enough, something has to be! But they fill a needed role, and are justifiably popular. I certainly know more privately owned ones than working ones - and they are flown!
I read frequently here of pilots expressing concern about the cost to fly. I'm confident that for every pilot who has openly worried about the cost of their flying, there is another who has budgeted well, and flies within their means. I opine that it would be unwise for a pilot to approach Chipmunk ownership with "flying economy" in mind, unless they are comparing it to Spitfire ownership!
I have a flying budget, and I consider how I spend it to balance enjoyment of flying, and proficiency. This summer, I hope to rent an hour flying a PBY Catalina, but ownership is certainly out of the question! I never expect to afford even another few hours flying one. It burns more avgas in an hour than my flying boat does in 20 hours. I'll give up 20 hours of proficiency in my flying boat - once! I maintain ample currency on many GA types, because I fly many regularly. I worry about the pilot who chooses to spend their budget to maybe fly once a month on the aircraft of their dreams. During those ten or twelve hours a year, their dreams are fulfilled, but ten or twelve hours a year is inadequate to be proficient as a pilot, particularly as a new pilot on an unusual type.
I salute aviation dreamers, I certainly was one, and to my delight, I have been able to fly nearly every light civil aircraft of my dreams, with one more to add next week. But a part of that has always being well current and proficient on something - even just the modest 150, so I was simply a good pilot, and ready for the next opportunity. Consider the cost of ownership, and how it will affect your flying overall, and if you can truly afford it, by all means, buy it and fly it!
Joined: Oct 1999
Posts: 3,325
Likes: 2
From: UK
I opine that it would be unwise for a pilot to approach Chipmunk ownership with "flying economy" in mind, unless they are comparing it to Spitfire ownership!
And in all those years there was never a 'cash call' on group members - we just paid our modest monthly fee and monthly hours-based flying bill. With a potentially costly bill-generating aeroplane like a Chippy, the group has to be very well run to achieve this. Our's was.
Joined: Dec 1999
Posts: 3,077
Likes: 1
From: Oop North, UK
I would go with SSDs assessment of the 150, I have always described it (and the Piper Cherokee and its derivatives) as being designed to go from A-B with minimum interference from the pilot, if that floats your boat then fine, personally I would rather find a bit more cash and fly something like the Chippie or the RV, the RV fits more for me because I do go down South from time to time and dont want to do this at 90kts! If you just want to be in the air and want economy though I would go for a C42, cheaper again and nicer handling!
Joined: Oct 1999
Posts: 3,325
Likes: 2
From: UK
Oh dear. Step has gone off in a huff because I won't forgive the C150 it's appalling handling and boring character and started a "we shouldn't express a contrary opinion of any aeroplane lest it upsets owners of such machines" thread.
Sorry Step. I call it as I see it. You don't have to agree with me of course, but on my planet we learn from open discussion and expression of honest opinions. Wanting to repress that because someone might not like it is regressive.
Sorry Step. I call it as I see it. You don't have to agree with me of course, but on my planet we learn from open discussion and expression of honest opinions. Wanting to repress that because someone might not like it is regressive.
Joined: Mar 2005
Aviation Qualifications: Military
Posts: 6,563
Likes: 953
From: Aus
The Gipsy Major is quite capable of reliably reaching TBO especially in a high utilisation group. However it is more sensitive than a Lycoming to poor engine handling by its pilots, and that can lead to an earlier than necessary replacement being required.
Joined: Oct 1999
Posts: 3,325
Likes: 2
From: UK
Being even older technology than the flat engines, the Gipsy needs a little more care if it is to reach TBO without problems. Some points to watch; none of them unique to the Gipsy, but all of them perhaps more critical if you ignore them:
Always pull through 4 compressions before start, checking for no hydraulicing, 4 good compressions, and the impulse mag click.
After start, warm it gently and thoroughly before roaring off into the blue.
On T/O, open the throttle gently, don't slam it open.
Dont wang the throttle shut at TOC, ease the power off gently instead.
Be 100% religious about rpm limits - NEVER exceed them especially in aerobatics where it is all too easy to do.
In aeros, be gentle in throttle handling - no slamming it open and shut.
Never shock-cool it.
Keep the oil tank regularly topped up. Too little oil and it'll get too hot to do a good job protecting the bearings.
Allow some running at idle RPM to even out temperatures before shutting it down.
Shut it down from idle with both mags 'off' and throttle wide open (to prevent running on).
Just treat it with care at all times and it won't let you down. None of this should be news to any pilot (except maybe the pulling through).
Always pull through 4 compressions before start, checking for no hydraulicing, 4 good compressions, and the impulse mag click.
After start, warm it gently and thoroughly before roaring off into the blue.
On T/O, open the throttle gently, don't slam it open.
Dont wang the throttle shut at TOC, ease the power off gently instead.
Be 100% religious about rpm limits - NEVER exceed them especially in aerobatics where it is all too easy to do.
In aeros, be gentle in throttle handling - no slamming it open and shut.
Never shock-cool it.
Keep the oil tank regularly topped up. Too little oil and it'll get too hot to do a good job protecting the bearings.
Allow some running at idle RPM to even out temperatures before shutting it down.
Shut it down from idle with both mags 'off' and throttle wide open (to prevent running on).
Just treat it with care at all times and it won't let you down. None of this should be news to any pilot (except maybe the pulling through).
Joined: Jan 2008
Aviation Qualifications: CPL
Posts: 650
Likes: 45
From: Canada
SSD's advice about operating the Gipsy is excellent, and in my opinion spot on for any aircooled aircraft engine. (Though shut down other types with the mixture ICO, but for the same reason as SSD states). I have more experience maintaining Gipsys, than the dozen or so hours I have flying them (Tiger Moth), but I think that you'll find that an abused or failing Lycoming or Continental can be more easily/quickly/economically repaired. Not that any engine should be operated so as to invoke the need for repair, but if the engine has to be run hard, I'd be choosing away from the Gipsy for that flight.