Here we go again with the old couple of notches of brake argument for the Chippie - I have done both (taught in the RN using it) and can honestly say that it works either way. I would try without first (though actually I would go with what your instructor says) but if it does not work then try with. The important bit is the one that says do NOT do Aeros/spinning with any brake set.:eek:

I was taught this too but I started with 2 notches and moved up to three as experience increased. I was always concious that excess rudder would kick in brake and was wary that severe application would snap the aircraft into a ground loop in the opposite direction. At least you could feel the brake coming on.
------------------------------------------------

Unbelievable! You were taught to land with two notches, and with experience YOU INCREASED IT? Despite the fact you were aware that hitting brake WILL tend to cause a swerve the wrong way whe you run out of the brake-limited rudder travel?

Try it with no brake. Then, if you need brake, you pull it on while full rudder is already applied, and you get a nice smooth pull in the correct direction which does the job. Rather than jamming it on without choice as you run out of rudder and hit brake, you g-e-n-t-l-y pull with the little finger of you left hand to give just the brake you need.

Finesse is what will work. Let's start thinking this stuff through, instead of flying by rote. These grand old aeroplanes desrve nothing less!

SSD

To give credit where it's due, the RAF did operate the Chipmunk professionally, continuously, for about half a century, God knows how many hours and has a wealth of operating experience that should carry some weight. In my experience of RAF Chippy operation, half flap was used, the carb heat was not wirelocked hot and brake was applied on landing as described.

By then you've left it too late. The two notches of brake may restrict rudder travel slightly, but when on the ground, increases the yawing moment that you can apply to the aircraft and hence increases the control authority. The application of differential braking on all Chipmunks that I have flown has been progressive and not abrupt.

By then you've left it too late. The two notches of brake may restrict rudder travel slightly, but when on the ground, increases the yawing moment that you can apply to the aircraft and hence increases the control authority.

No, you haven't left it too late. Your finger is around the lever and you can apply it at any time - and still get the increased yawing advantage. It goes like this:

Land, with brakes fully off. Once the tail is down, throttle closed, and the stick hard back, the left hand drops a few inches and the little finger is round the brake lever. You have unencumbered footwork to keep it straight. But, if you feel it going, despite full opposite rudder, you pull back gently with your left hand and you get instant smooth approriate brake which you can increase and decrease at leasure while holding full rudder.

That has to be better than restricted rudder movement, followed by a brake application you can't reduce without also reducing rudder.

With practice, you can also taxi without brakes, saving brake wear. Just use judicious pulls on the brake lever to augment rudder for tightish turns or turns against the weathercocking effect.


SSD

Different people find different ways to achieve a particular result. It does not follow that only one way is right. I flew a fair number of hours in a Chippy and never had the slightest problem with the technique I was taught.

I then moved on to a Stampe which has braking at the extremes of rudder movement which is a similar situation to that provided by the Chippy with a couple of notches of brake. Full rudder on landing is required, if at all, at the end of the landing roll just where a bit of brake will assist.

However the important point is that no brake must be applied when spinning.

Don't worry Modelman, I had the wing of the SuperCub scraping along the grass during my conversion :eek:

Modelman,

Well if nothing else, you will see that there is no hard and fast, right or wrong way with taildraggers. However, the overwhelming point is 'don't let up on the concentration - ever!!' because the one sure thing is that they will bite you in the behind if you you do!!

best of luck
The Winco

Notches of brake?
 

My instructor (25 years the owner/operator of said Chippie who is also an examiner and top bloke too) mentioned at the time some peoples penchant for slight brake set for taxying/takeoff/landing but he preferred to avoid it.
How do you set '2 notches' as in my 1 hour's experience,I seem to remember it didn't have any detents,only a little collar that was pushed down after firm pull for the application of the parking brake.

My thread certainly has stirred up some debate (not like Pprune:rolleyes:) but all interesting stuff-thanks all.

Really starting to think I need to decide my future direction in recreational flying-the Chippie is very appealing ( I've always like the look of Cubs as well-have built many well flying models of it).All the opening of cowlings, pulling ticklers,pumping primers right at the carb ( as opposed to plungers mysteriously connected to somewhere you can't see) adds greatly to the flying experience.

MM

modelman - sounds like you have a wise instructor who thinks things through and has the experience to know what works. There are detents on the brakes you can set using the collar on the lever, and it can be useful to have a couple set for taxying.

You will LOVE the Chippy. I've flown loads of types, and it's my favorite. I abandoned it for Yak 52 for a short while, but returned to the DHC 1.

SSD

The RAF Pilot's manual does mention setting notches of brake fo landing, but in my experience (over 1000hrs) of instructing on the Chippy with the RAF, it was never necessary. If it got to the point where it was, you were outside the crosswind limits!

But i often used a squeeze of brake with full rudder applied, but this is a technique for the experienced only.

Brake/no Brake? Oh dear.
Tried it all ways and prefer 2-3 notches in any crosswind just to cover the period between deciding whether throttle is finished with and moving hand to the other handle.
However, cannot speak highly enough of leaving a little throttle on in the flare. More tail feather authority and less chance of arriving in a swing inducing state.
Stick with the Chipmunk, do some grass field stuff ( especially unmarked runways where you have no passing white markers to give old eyes a cue for height reference), learn to nail the speed on finals, settle a bounce with a bit of judicious throttle, beware you'll need more space to get out of than into a challenging strip, enjoy the quiet and the smell of warm oil as you do the post trip clean down......I'm a sad person!!!

Perhaps, but there are a lot like you.

This one was about Cubs but it shows that you're not alone.
Super Cubs

tailwheel conversion
 

Personal opinion on tail wheel conversion go for something like the Supercub. The Chipmunk is a great aircraft and an excellent trainer but the Supercub is lighter and is more sprightly.

I am still learning on Chipmunks and love the character. Not going to enter the brake debate but the one I fly ise set up with just a little brake right at the extremes of rudder travel. This isnt right and on some cross wind take offs having brake applied when you least want it isnt good.

I'm not going into this one again, either, having had a vigorous debate with SSD in another place!

However, I'd be very concerned with your Chipmunk to ensure that FULL rudder travel is available, despite the brakes being misadjusted. Attempting to recover from a spin is not the time to find out you haven't!.

You HAVE to be able to move the Chippy rudder from stop to stop (brakes off, obviously) during the pre-flight checks. I once discovered that not to be the case, getting some brake near the stops.

I snagged the aeroplane, and the engineers fixed it pretty quickly.
formationfoto - that Chippy needs grounding 'till it's fixed. It's not safe to fly like that, and it can be fixed very simply and quickly.

Islander2 - SSD exists only here, not in any 'other place'.

SSD

Sorry to be so late in answering the original post.

Welcome to the wonderful world of conventional undercarriages.

The Chipmunk doesn't have a lockable tailwheel because it doesn't need one; only needs proper handling.

The reason you are finding it challenging is that the BASIC flying skills required were not sufficiently developed by the previous types you have flown.

All you need to master the aircraft is a change in mindset.
Two common questions asked by new taildragger pilots are 1, which way does it swing? and 2, how much rudder do you need?

The correct answers are, 1 It doesn't; not when I fly it, and 2, as much as it takes.

These answers may not be helpful initially but when you consider that no two take-offs or landings are the same but they are the only answers which can accurately fulfill all the possible situations and show your confidence.
The Chipmunk is a lovely aeroplane, by the way.

Hi

I've just finished converting to tailwheel & done a full JAR PPL from microlight PPL on a Vans RV6. I already have 450+ hours on 3-axis, mostly Tecnam P92. It was excellent fun, my instructor was superb.

I've done 99% of the conversion on hard and I'm really happy about it. I have landed on grass a few times and I found it much easier, even with strong cross-winds. However, I don't have the apparent fear of hard runways and crosswinds of others in my club.

It took me a good 15-20 hours before I felt happy with the takeoffs and natural with the stick right back, as modelman commented. I went through a stage when I thought I would never nail it. I would meander off to the left wondering if there was ever enough rudder! Passing the exam second time round feels almost better than the first!!! :)

I've got no advice but stick with it, that first greaser after all the struggle is well worth it.

best wishes

Mark T

You have to remember that the pilot's notes are written by a chap (albeit a clever one - he's a test pilot) who has never flown the aircraft before and has limited time and a limited budget to get the book written. In the Chippy's case, the chap came up with the idea of using brake for landing in strong crosswinds and left it at that. I was involved with the Chippy on and off for about the last 10 years of it's life (excluding BBMF) in the RAF and in that time brake was never used for landing as an SOP despite being in the Pliot's Notes and the FRCs (checklists) for all of those years. The x-wind limit is 15 knts, full rudder was perfectly adquate to maintain straight in these conditions. However, with a gust, the technique which SSD advocates (a squeeze of brake) work wonders. Applying full rudder in a panic with the brakes set slightly will invariaby end up in a groundloop which is why we didn't.

Applying a couple of notches brake doesn't actaully restrict rudder movement. It will give he impression that movement is limited, because you are pressurising the brake cylinder and resistance is felt - firm presssure will pressurise the cylinder and full deflection will happen.

Here's a diagram of the brake system which should reveal all.

http://i210.photobucket.com/albums/b...chippy/503.jpg

And now for a 'Ahhhh, De Havilland!' moment.

http://i210.photobucket.com/albums/b...py/chippys.jpg

Thanks for that, Dan. I'm glad you've confirmed that use of brakes, despite being in the POH, was not in SOPs in the RAF. It was worrying me that someting so obviously 'wrong' might be RAF practice despite their extensive experience on the aeroplane.

SSD