Chipmunk - Should I?
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
From: UK
Based on the enormous amount of fun I had as a CCF cadet 30 or so years ago, I'd say if you can afford it, go for it - they're flippin' brilliant things.
If only I'd realised at the time how lucky I was, being hung upside down by my harness doing loops, stall turns and all sorts of other silliness rather than doing double maths I'd have done even more of it than I did!
If only I'd realised at the time how lucky I was, being hung upside down by my harness doing loops, stall turns and all sorts of other silliness rather than doing double maths I'd have done even more of it than I did!
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 346
Likes: 1
From: USA
You won't find many aircraft engines that require the owner to remove the valve covers and change the oil in each that splash lubricates the valve gear. While you're in there doing that every 25 hrs on the Gipsy, you adjust the valve lash. It's an engine utilizing early 1920s technology that was superseded in most other practical applications by the mid 1930s. It was used in 1946 because the Canadian designers were forbidden by their UK customer from using anything better.
It's interesting to conjecture why Dehavilland or others didn't try seriously to develop a modern light aircraft engine themselves, instead of giving up. I've seen it suggested that the post-war Blackburn Bombardier would have been a good replacement for the Gipsy, especially given how underpowered the Chipmunk ended up being, but others would know better than me whether the Blackburn engine was any less of a archaic antique than the Gipsy by the 1950s.
Another possibility would have been been to 'borrow' a German design for use in postwar British aircraft, as per BSA Bantam (DKW) motorcycle engine and Bristol (BMW) car engines.
It's interesting to conjecture why Dehavilland or others didn't try seriously to develop a modern light aircraft engine themselves, instead of giving up. I've seen it suggested that the post-war Blackburn Bombardier would have been a good replacement for the Gipsy, especially given how underpowered the Chipmunk ended up being, but others would know better than me whether the Blackburn engine was any less of a archaic antique than the Gipsy by the 1950s.
Another possibility would have been been to 'borrow' a German design for use in postwar British aircraft, as per BSA Bantam (DKW) motorcycle engine and Bristol (BMW) car engines.
Last edited by Silvaire1; 23rd April 2016 at 14:46.
Joined: Jun 2014
Posts: 1,697
Likes: 0
From: eastcoastoz
Powerplant-wise, we had a similar situation here in Oz with the de Havilland DHA-3 Drover.
Immediately post war, there was a requirement for an 8 passenger feeder/utility aircraft to replace the dear old DH-84 Dragon.
An aircraft similar to, but more rugged than, the DH Dove was seen to be the answer.
Now, through the war years, the Gipsy Major had been produced, in quantity, locally and by 1946, considerable stocks of these engines were on hand.
At that time, American dollars were in short supply and we had plenty of Gipsy Majors just sitting around, - so, the three-engined Gipsy powered Drover came about.
After some years experience using that venerable powerplant, most of them were re-engined with Lycoming IO-360s and gave excellent service after that.
The Gipsy-engined ones were better looking, though. (Grin).
.
Immediately post war, there was a requirement for an 8 passenger feeder/utility aircraft to replace the dear old DH-84 Dragon.
An aircraft similar to, but more rugged than, the DH Dove was seen to be the answer.
Now, through the war years, the Gipsy Major had been produced, in quantity, locally and by 1946, considerable stocks of these engines were on hand.
At that time, American dollars were in short supply and we had plenty of Gipsy Majors just sitting around, - so, the three-engined Gipsy powered Drover came about.
After some years experience using that venerable powerplant, most of them were re-engined with Lycoming IO-360s and gave excellent service after that.
The Gipsy-engined ones were better looking, though. (Grin).
.
Last edited by Stanwell; 23rd April 2016 at 18:30.
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 90
Likes: 0
From: norfolk
Totally agree with SSD`s wise words 
I joined a large chippy group a year ago - no regrets
Make sure the group keep track of all the TNS`s required (ours keep a spread-sheet).
The engine fund is very important, to cope with the unexpected as well as the inevitable.
For touring and hour building get a Jodel (smaller the better)
A Condor is hard to beat on a budget
but for bags of Fun in a Vintage Aeroplane, go for the Chippy.
I joined a large chippy group a year ago - no regrets
Make sure the group keep track of all the TNS`s required (ours keep a spread-sheet).
The engine fund is very important, to cope with the unexpected as well as the inevitable.
For touring and hour building get a Jodel (smaller the better)
A Condor is hard to beat on a budget
but for bags of Fun in a Vintage Aeroplane, go for the Chippy.
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 195
Likes: 0
From: South East
Chipmunk Yes
Guess I am a lucky guy. In the Wide-Body household we have been lucky to own many of the types mentioned here. Condor, Chipmunk, Cub, Maule, Yak 52, RV8 and Chilton DW-1. Let's take the DW1 out of the equation as it is a single seater, even though its handling is amazing and It looks great
For many years my favorite was the Chippy, even after flying some heavy metal the is just something very right with the chipmunk handling. Many hundreds of hours spent wiffadilling around the country. I still have my love affair with the Yak, but beauty contest winner she is not. Funny enough the Condor has great affection in my heart. It wins the most underrated aircraft award around. Great machine for having fun at a great price.
Now to upset SSD, after a 4 years of owning the RV8 whilst maintaining my love affair with the DHC-1 I have come to a personal conclusion. The RV8 is a better handling aircraft . As for looks I believe that the paint scheme influences the look of the aircraft greatly. Luckily Chipmunk owners have better taste than some RV ones.
As for the C150, if you can get someone to fly an aerobatic sequence well in an aerobat they will be able to do well in anything. A great little trainer.
Love SSD engine advice, should be mandatory reading for all.
To answer the initial post. Buy a good one, just do your research first. Fly it for a few years, love it and learn from it. Then buy an RV ;-)
For many years my favorite was the Chippy, even after flying some heavy metal the is just something very right with the chipmunk handling. Many hundreds of hours spent wiffadilling around the country. I still have my love affair with the Yak, but beauty contest winner she is not. Funny enough the Condor has great affection in my heart. It wins the most underrated aircraft award around. Great machine for having fun at a great price.
Now to upset SSD, after a 4 years of owning the RV8 whilst maintaining my love affair with the DHC-1 I have come to a personal conclusion. The RV8 is a better handling aircraft . As for looks I believe that the paint scheme influences the look of the aircraft greatly. Luckily Chipmunk owners have better taste than some RV ones.
As for the C150, if you can get someone to fly an aerobatic sequence well in an aerobat they will be able to do well in anything. A great little trainer.
Love SSD engine advice, should be mandatory reading for all.
To answer the initial post. Buy a good one, just do your research first. Fly it for a few years, love it and learn from it. Then buy an RV ;-)
Joined: Oct 1999
Posts: 3,325
Likes: 2
From: UK
Wide, you certainly don't upset me by saying the RV8 handles better than a Chippy. I have not flown one, you have extensive experience of both, so I respect your opinion. All I have ever claimed for the dHC 1 is it out handles,by some margin, anything I have flown.
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 208
Likes: 0
From: Dubai
Wide, you certainly don't upset me by saying the RV8 handles better than a Chippy. I have not flown one, you have extensive experience of both, so I respect your opinion. All I have ever claimed for the dHC 1 is it out handles,by some margin, anything I have flown.
I have flown an RV-8 and was considering buying one prior to having purchased my current labour and cash intensive mount.
Save to say that I wasn't bowled over enough by its handling to sway me. Chippy is definitely sweeter.
I may however be persuaded on the grounds of practicality and usability in the not too distant future.
Part ex anybody?
Joined: Dec 1999
Posts: 3,077
Likes: 1
From: Oop North, UK
Save to say that I wasn't bowled over enough by its handling to sway me. Chippy is definitely sweeter.
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 208
Likes: 0
From: Dubai
But then the nice bit with the RV is you are not struggling for height, anyone that can do a decent sequence in a Chippie without losing height is doing very well, the height problem with the RV is that you have to watch out for any airspace above you!
