Chipmunk - Should I?
 

Seriously contemplating adding a small share in one to my 'hangar' - any reason why not to, anything to be wary of?

Thanks.

Apart from a big grin on flying it there are some maintenance issues to consider, IIRC fuselage tie bars, xrays on U/c and a few others to look out for!

Those who know say it has the handling characteristics of a Spitfire. The only thing to be wary of is the depletion of wallet cause you'll just want to fly so much. First solo in this one 29 July 1962.

http://www.edcoatescollection.com/ac1/austb/VH-BSP1.jpg

Somebody once told me that a Jungmann was a better handling aircraft than the Chipmunk. I dispute that.

Loved flying the Chipmunk and seriously considering getting involved in another.

I'm certain SSD will be along in a moment to extol the virtues of the Chippy.

Delightful aircraft if properly maintained. A bitch if it aint.

megan

You beat me to it by two months !

FA,

Of course you should, but as others have said, look at the maintenance history carefully.

With regard to comparing the Chippie with a Spitfire, I am lucky enough to have flown both :cool: Without doubt, the Chipmunk is much nicer to fly, but the elliptical wing and the 27 litre Merlin of the Spit more than make up for the heavy ailerons and super-sensitive elevators. :)

SRD - here I am! When I bought into G-BCSL as a founder member of the Barton Chipmunk Group in 1979 the then CFI (who had formed the group for us new PPLs to have something interesting to fly after the prosaic club C150s) said "it'll spoil you for anything else".

I thought he was exaggerating. He wasn't! It is far and away best handling aeroplane with the most 'character' I have ever flown, and I've flown a few. Had a share in a Yak52 for a few years - knocked the Chippy into a cocked hat for capability. But it just wasn't as much fun.

I haven't flown a Spitfire but I know a few lucky souls who have flown one and the Chippy. Obviously the Spit is in a different world performance wise, but for handling.... at least one prefers the Chippy.

So not only should you; you MUST!

This sums it up for me - me having fun at Kenyon Hall Farm strip in our beloved SL:

http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b1...psun6ikalq.jpg

Having been fortunate enough to have flown the Harvard, Mustang and Spitfire (Back seats on the last two) I can honestly say that my overwhelming respect for the Chipmunk remains intact.

It really does handle like a Spitfire without the power and speed inertia but in all other respects does replicate that feeling of 'wearing the aircraft'.

The handling is superb and I often tell people it's the difference between learning to ride on a school Dobbin and climbing onto your first dressage horse.

Owning one outright or being in a small group will seriously hurt your wallet. You are placed at the top end of GA maintenance bills but if you can join a group that is caring for it's aircraft and sharing the bills then you will never regret your decision to join.

Just watch the crosswinds!

I thought that the maintenance costs had got a lot better since the Chipmunk had gone on to an LAA permit to fly? I understand that a few are still run on a C of A, so that they can be used for training and hire...?

Perhaps the comparison is moot, given that the Chipmunk is aerobatic but the Turbulent is not, but it's also a tailwheel/taildragger aircraft with crisp handling often described using superlatives: can anybody comment on how they compare?

I have never flown a Turbulent but I have flown the Chipmunk and Condor. Personally I prefer the handling of the Condor, especially in roll. More crisp is the right word and, with a four point harness, one does feel part of the aeroplane. However, for pure ethos and aerobatics, the Chipmunk is in a world of its own.

As long as you remember the pedals on the floor are actually required at all times that the engine is turning you'll be fine, handbrake whilst taxing in a crosswind can be fun also...and that when you slow roll them do not worry about the canopy sliding back......caveat... try and catch it before it goes past the retainer for 1 up - otherwise its really embarrassing when it goes all the way to the back stop and you are flying Solo......but for giggles you cannot get a better aircraft :)

Flew them as an air cadet back in the 70s, and TBH they're the reason I let my PPL lapse as none of the aircraft available to me were as nice to fly!

As an ownership proposition you need to remember that they drink a lot of oil (this is normal, not a sign of an incipient engine problem). It also depends on whether the particular one still has the cartridge starter or has had the electric starter modification.

PDR

I think all civilian Chippies (so these days, that's all of them bar the BBMF) don't have cartridge start. And the ring mod on the pistons largely tames the oil consumption, though you wouldn't think it as you crawl underneath post flight all the way down to the rear of the fuselage wiping the oil off!

That's assuming you aerobat it. But doesn't everyone who is lucky enough to fly one?

I had a share in a chippy and really enjoyed it ( when it was serviceable)...
But then got a Vans RV-4 which may not quite have the aesthetic character, but it was 70mph faster, more than twice the climb rate, used less fuel, had better handling, was easy to maintain at about 10% of the maintenance cost and didn't leave a pool of oil on the hangar floor!

If it's a good one then go for it, you won't regret the experience.

You definitely should - but will you have enough time to fly four airplanes?
;)

Never flown A Chippy but believe some were modified into very sporty machines. Some even with a bubble canopy?
Best handling aircraft I flew was a Sia Marchetti 260 which was a delight to fly but no idea if it has better handling than the Chippy
So what wins the best handling Single Piston ?

Pace

Ditto Pace. Neither have I. I've always wanted to have a pole about in a Chippy but the opportunity has not come about yet. I will have to try harder.

Most who fly one come down with the "RV grin" and I always describe the RV as a Chippie on steroids.

I'll probably get flamed for saying this but IMHO the Chippy and RV are incomparable. The Chippy is iconic and oozing nostalgia whereas the RV breed is Meccano like kit build.

Jetblu

I had the delight of flying a friends homebuilt RV6A which he built from plan constructing every piece himself. It took him five years to build and nearly caused a divorce but it was a beautiful aircraft to fly one you almost thought into turns without a conscious movement
Wasn't there a super chippy or something like that?

Pace

Art Scholl
https://www.eaa.org/en/eaa-museum/mu...pmunk---n1114v

At the risk of thread drift...

Do you think that the fact he built it from plans, constructing every piece himself, would make the ultimate product 'better' to fly?

I completely get the achievement and respect the amount of work and that in itself is a great ambition... :ok:
But surely, building everything to plan but from scratch will not make the final product any better than doing it from the kit received from the factory? OK, you can adjust some things to your specific needs, but you can do that anyway within the same confines as if you bought a kit.

And with the best will and tools in the world, those components which come ready made in the kit are probably made to a higher degree of accuracy/better tolerance when they come from Van's than done in your own garage?

I've always thought of the 'building from plans' really only making sense where there was no kit option. Unless, of course, you want the utter achievement of doing it all yourself, but without really getting anything extra for it.

I'm not at all dissing your friend or your statement - just genuinely curious...

B.

I think that's absolutely right. As well as (Pace) being possibly the best handling SEP (OK, I haven't flown an RV) what the Chippy has in spades is character! It looks like a Spitfire. When you strap it on (you don't 'get into' a Chippy) one slides down into the seat just as one sees Spitfire pilots do - both hands on the windscreen arch top; it just feels so natural. Even when taxying it vibrates, it rattles, it pops, it blatters, it's 'alive!'.

...and unless you've suffered the embarrassment of not noticing that ALL the cartridges ignited (due to worn breech blocks) when you pulled the starter, so you're oblivious to the smoke that is pouring from the cowl while you're head-in checking ts&ps until a fireman bangs on the canopy then you haven't lived! It is (of course) totally harmless, but you have to shut it down and then they have to find an armourer to refill the magazine, so the aircraft is unserviceable for at least half a day...

It only happened to me once, at AEF6 (RAF Abingdon, some time in 1975 IIRC) but it's not something you forget!

And to *my* eyes the RV6 is as ugly as an ugly thing that has been dragged out of bed early after clubbing until 4 in the morning, while the chippie is elegant and stylish.

But beauty is in the eye of the beer-holder, of course.

PDR

Personally I like the look of the RV's, though I do think the tandem once look best - and you can slide into the seats with your hands on the siderails.
I would agree though that, if you want character and nostalgia then you want the Chippie, if you want performance then go for the RV.:ok:

I wasn't going to go as far as saying that the RV was an ugly b*tch, but since PDR1 has, I concur. ;)
It's cramped too. If I was into aero's and wanted performance I would probably go for the Yak 52 or an Extra.
But that's just *my* choice.

That's why I went for the '52 - that, and the fact a share was handily available. It felt more like a warbird than a light aeroplane, was far more capable aerobatically than the Chippy, could do party tricks like near-vertical climbs after take off, but at aeros power and RPM setting drank fuel at a prodigious rate. It also just didn't have that lovely co-ordinated handling ....or a fraction of the character. And it was the most undemanding (and therefore uninteresting and unrewarding) aeroplane to land that I have ever flown (provided you remembered to lower the gear!).

When the group disbanded after another member landed gear-up I was more than happy to go back to my first love, the fabulous Chipmunk.

No I didn't mean because he built every piece from plan it was better ;) I think it was more financial not paying for others labour.

You really have to love the building probably more than the flying to do that and I would often find him in the garage where he lived for five years much to the dismay of his wife.

I am such a restless soul I would not have the patience to even put a kit together never mind construct every piece from a set of plans :E
Sorry it would have to be ready to go by tomorrow :ok:

But I had the pleasure of flying it with him a number of times and scared him to bits with my antics as it delighted in all manner of everything other than straight and level :E probably my choice of a personal fun aircraft and an aircraft which felt like an extension of yourself

SSD I know what you mean about character as far as twins went I loved the Baron 55 which again for a twin oozed character and good handling mixed with that bit of magic which other twins didn't have. Something hard to put your finger on as to why

Pace

I didn't know that any of the RV aircraft were designed, I thought it was designed by a blind man, sorry that's nasty, a person of limited vision. It has to be the ugliest aircraft in the air, compared to something like a DA40 or a Panthera, it looks like something from the 1820's.

Fats

Shaggy

"I was more than happy to go back to my first love, the fabulous Chipmunk".


Anyone serious about aviation and vintage aircraft would share your thoughts. The Chippy just oozes personality and is probably as close one could get to a Spit at a fraction of the cost. Enjoy her :ok:


Flying_Anorak

If you still haven't been convinced thus far, consult your AME ;-)

Fatmanmedia

We were talking about handling not how an aircraft looks which is in the eye of the beholder.

Some men like fat women, some skinny but what good is a picture perfect woman if you can just look at her and she doesn't perform :E
Ideal is looks great and performs great
If she performs great but ?? turn the lights off and use your imagination :E

Pace

So it is your contention that the RVs are best flown with your eyes shut?

Controversial...

:p

PDR

Pace

I think the terminology you are referring to goes something like this....

"You don't have to look at the fireplace while you're poking the fire"


I'll take a miss, she's all yours. :)


Anyway, no room for ugly birds in ere. Let's get back to the Chippy.

JetBlu

Mine is 25 years younger than me looks great with perfect lines and performs great isn't too high maintenance either :E
Make hay while the sun shines

aircraft of course ;)

Pace

All of the later RCAF Chipmunks came standard with a beautiful bubble canopy. They also had heaters as you would expect for an aircraft operating in Canadian winters. Here’s C-FBXI at the Springbank airshow last year. I flew her for a few hours many years ago:

http://i30.photobucket.com/albums/c3...psfceeclgk.jpg

British civil Chipmunks also came with a bubble canopy (Mk. 22?) although interestingly, the canopies are not interchangeable with Canadian ones.

I think Chipmunks and RVs are both beautiful in their own ways. Let's just be grateful that the Chipmunk won the competition for a new RAF trainer, rather than this ugly duckling:

http://i30.photobucket.com/albums/c3...psk9sg2jzp.jpg

I can't imagine SSD waxing lyrical over the Fairey Primer!

Fairey only ever made ugly aeroplanes. One day, when no-one was looking, someone from Dassault broke into the Fairey drawing office and sketched out a Mirage, to give Fairey an idea that ugliness wasn't a prerequisite in an aeroplane.

That became the Fairey Delta 2. The only good looking aeroplane ever to come out of that firm, and so obviously a cuckoo chick!

I'm feeling the need to wade in here to redress the chippie /RV4,6,7,8 balance.

The chipmunk is a lovely aeroplane, best control harmony , gorgeous to fly , spins beautifully , smells amazing etc but when you weigh in maintenance, cleaning a litre of oil off the fuselage after each flight, the faffy starting procedure, the crazy brakes, the ring pull engine stop you really need to love it.

The rv is pretty nice to fly, awfully fast and (relatively)cheap to maintain. Yes it lacks character but makes up in accessibility. There is no pre engine start or post stop messing around.

If someone else was paying I'd fly a Chippie. But I'm not an engineer and like flying so it's the lycoming power for me.

To answer the op you must own a chipmunk at least once in your life.

I looked very closely at buying a Chipmunk once. They are nice to fly but my impression after a period of study was that there was for decades a small staff of people paid to justify their own existence by studying the design and mandating seemingly hundred of (effectively) ADs... some of which were unnecessary, and some of which were later reversed in chaotic fashion. It's a maze of nonsense that I think would have killed any civil design in a few years. That plus an engine with 1920s level design weaknesses, impractical maintenance issues and unsolvable oil leaks made me go in a different direction. Nice to fly but painful to own was my conclusion.

I think the Chipmnk has pretty lines spoiled by some slighty frumpy details like the RAF canopy and unfaired landing gear. The RV with its constant chord wing is arguably less elegant in concept... but I think the detail design of the RV is generally cleaner. Just my opinion. Obviously either the RV4 or RV8 have tremendously better performance on 150 HP.

http://cdn.kitplanes.com/media/newsp...4/RV-4_019.jpg

http://static1.squarespace.com/stati...chipy_date.jpg

After getting my PPL on Jackeroos, I converted to Chipmunks in 1 hour 20 minutes. After 5 hours 15 minutes I converted in 40 minutes to a C150. Maybe for aerobatics, but otherwise I don't see the attraction of the Chipmunk. (26 years in a Jodel DR1050 taildragger Group.)