Warbird Information Exchange

Great stuff! Thanks guys!

_________________
Red

Those are two of the boards that I mentioned are dead/dying. I was involved from the beginning with the first one, and people very rarely post there anymore. Same with the second one.

Like I said...we're just out having too much fun flying to post anything...

David has pretty much answered the questions regarding the spar and the pistons. Does the OP have any other questions?

On another note the new book looks interesting. The description from the publisher is sort of bullocks in that this isn't the "first ever history of the Chipmunk" to be published, nor did the Chipmunk "serve" (means military service to me) in Australia. The "First 40..." and the "First 50..." year books were good, so we'll see how it will compare. At 400+ pages it certainly is about 4 times the size of the 50 year book so that's promising.

_________________
ChipmunkBob
DHC-1 T.10 WK639
RAF '52-'95

No more questiones at this point. Just need to agree on the price with the seller, and I will pull the trigger.

Woot!

_________________
Red

Bollocks? Gee, tough audience fingering the hole in their doughnut...

The blurb's just blurb, but having re-read it after your caustic remarks I don't see that they claim it's "the first ever history", except with the critical caveat of the first time with the insight of those best positioned to tell - fair and important claim for the book.

Certainly it's often taken that 'served' implies military service, but again that's pretty hardline when the blurb is a accurate summary of the places the type has been used - particularly where they also add 'contribution to civil aviation in Australia'.

The mistake-free book is yet to be published, and the Chippie is poorly served with books on the type given its popularity (I've been discussing a book project with a Chippie enthusiast) but with that delightful reception, maybe authors and publishers would be better concentrating on types with a more friendly audience.

I don't have any connection with the book, or the publisher, but I do know what it takes to make one - and to criticise one usefully. It's clear that the work gone into this book will have outrun any meaningful profit, and the authors are trying to provide a resource with a good deal of primary data - a thankless task, and even less worthwhile when someone criticises the blurb without even reading it properly.

Sorry to have a go, but harsh and (IMHO) unfair criticism isn't constructive directed at anyone. Some get their kicks looking after and flying their Chippies, others providing data on the type of various kinds. A pleasant and constructive reception isn't much to ask to for us all.

Regards,

_________________
James K

"Switch on the underwater landing lights"
Emilio Largo, Thunderball.

www.VintageAeroWriter.com

Well, I wasn't going to reply to this comment since I've just seen it (like I said, I have better things to do than troll forums), but since my comments are being called into question (and it's a slow day at work) I'll defend them.

I like the "fingering the hole in your doughnut" remark. That's a good one. We usually call it "contemplating one's navel" or something like that.

You may think the blurb is just a blurb, but as someone who has owned a Chippie for 10 years and with many hundreds of hours in that wonderful front cockpit I'd like to see a little more substance and a lot less advertising flash.

To wit:

The "blurb" (which I did read correctly BTW) mentions Canada, Great Britain, Portugal and Australia as places the DHC-1 served. As we've discussed the Chippie did not "serve" in the military of Australia. So to your point of it being an "accurate summary of the places the type has been used..." I would submit that there are MORE Chippies "being used" in the US than there are in Australia, yet I don't see that mentioned there. And the blurb not only mentions the four places once but twice. The 3 manufacturing locations (well four actually - 2 in GB) and then Australia.

My comment that the blurb incorrectly states that this is the "first history..." stands. Your point that this book is the first written by "those best positioned to tell" has little merit. The "First Forty", "First Fifty" and a small book about Chipmunks at 3AEF were written by people who had extreme first hand knowledge about the Chipmunk, Rod Brown being one of them. And oddly enough no US contributors (hopefully I'm wrong - none are mentioned but for instance I'd like to see info on the Art Scholl-type conversions and the current "warbird" scene).

I never said I expected the book to have mistakes, and I don't have issues with the book, the editors, the publishers or you. In fact I've been looking forward to buying one of these ever since I found out about it from Rod last year. I was simply pointing out some issues with the book's description taken from the website of an aviation book publisher.

I noticed that you say that you have no connection with the book or publisher but then go on to say it is "mistake free". Hmmm... I'm sure it is.

The description could have been better written and a little more accurate.

That's the only point I was trying to make. Sorry if it came across as "harsh" or "caustic" to you.

That's all I have to say about that.

BTW - when is this darn thing supposed to be available anyway?????

_________________
ChipmunkBob
DHC-1 T.10 WK639
RAF '52-'95

Oh dear!

Clear this summarises your comprehension problem quite neatly. I don't have any connection to this book. Nothing, none.

Previously in the post (not 'going on to say') I point out that "The mistake-free book is yet to be published" - Not "This mistake-free book is yet to be published". So a) I don't have any connection to the book; b) I don't know anything about the content except what I can read, but if you wish to be as pedantic about 'served' as specific as you choose, then c) you should understand the difference in the context between 'this' actual item and a rhetorical utopian achievement not arriving any time soon.

Maybe, and I certainly agree it could be better. However your beef with 'served' in Australia is arguable - but the blurb writer goes on to specify Australian civil aviation, leaving the matter clear enough except those who need to spend more time aviating perhaps.

If 'bollocks' is your mild reaction to minor problems, I'm sure your vocabulary's a gas at cocktail parties.

The internet is open to misunderstandings, so I was just pointing out that your reaction seemed a bit harsh - as a disinterested but qualified reader. Of course one can always ignore feedback, or shoot the messenger.

Rather than getting all wrapped around the axle, I'd be delighted to buy you a drink and discuss the follies of blurb-writers and critics and editors, and move on to more enjoyable things. Let's leave it on that promise, rather than falling out over alleged precise terminology.

No I don't know when the book's out, it's September now, so an e-mail to the Aviation Bookshop as per link should reveal all, I'd expect.

Regards,

_________________
James K

"Switch on the underwater landing lights"
Emilio Largo, Thunderball.

www.VintageAeroWriter.com

I just heard back from them and it will be available the second week in October!

_________________
ChipmunkBob
DHC-1 T.10 WK639
RAF '52-'95

I got my copy last week. directly from Hugh Shields, though...

However, I saw it for sale at CWH on Monday, so it is out on the market.

Just ordered it from CWH!!!!!

_________________
ChipmunkBob
DHC-1 T.10 WK639
RAF '52-'95

Good to hear it. Let us know what you think!

_________________
James K

"Switch on the underwater landing lights"
Emilio Largo, Thunderball.

www.VintageAeroWriter.com

CHipmunks are awesome! I have about 30 hours in one and even got to take it to Oshkosh for a friend. His was a DHC-1 and was bonestock original.
A few points of interest:
1) Always thought they performed like a T-34 with the 225 hp engine. It actually flies a lot more like a 150hp. SuperCub.
2) the original Fairey Reed propellor performs nicely especially at cruise. We were told there are no more spares available.
3) Depending on your perspective, the airplane either needs another 30 hp. or could stand to be a couple hundred pounds lighter.
4) "Dripsy Major" love the sound of the inline. It sounds like a vintage british sports car. It sounds like the prop is ripping through the air. Putting a modern engine on the front would be a huge subtracton in flying enjoyment.
5) My friends used to freak out if I taxied and didn't have the stick all the way back in my lap. They had ground looped it a couple of times. The tailwheel is fully swiveling and mimics heavier taildraggers. Just like the SNJ with non steerable tailwheel or the P-51 with the stick forward to disengage the tailwheel, once you tap a brake and start a turn the aircraft will continue in motion until you give it opposite brake. It won't stop with a touch of opposite rudder, as will a modern taildragger with a Scott tailwheel.
6) Ours had a red handled air vent knob, canopy jettison knob, and also a cartridge start knob all painted red in the front right part of the instrument panel. The new owner was taking his bird home and somewhere over New Mexico he got hot, pulled a red knob and jettisoned the canopy!
7) On the way to Oshkosh, I had to stop about every hour and fifteen minutes to put oil in the Dripsy Major. I was told to use the Aeroshell 40weight non detergent. I soon as I landed at Oshkosh I sought out a couple of Chipmunk owners and asked them about the oil consumption. My friend and his corporate pilot had been putting too light a weight of oil in it for about 6 years! It needs the heavier stuff like they put in radial engines. the oil burn decreased by 50% after that.
The original brakes on ours were weak and would barely hold. If you had Clevelands on it you could get Supercub style short landings. Unfortunately it takes about 50% more takeoff roll than landing roll with the original brakes so , no need for better brakes.
It's a great aircraft and ranks in the top 10% of those I have flown.

Just to add a few comments after 10 years of ownership and many hundreds of hours in Chippies...

1) Always thought they performed like a T-34 with the 225 hp engine. It actually flies a lot more like a 150hp. SuperCub.
Except at cruise, where you are lucky to see 105kias. Aren't super cubs clipping along at 125 or more? See #3 below...

2) the original Fairey Reed propellor performs nicely especially at cruise. We were told there are no more spares available.
They do come up for sale occasionally, and there are cruise and climb versions. I've flown behind a wooden prop and Hoffman does make a replacement for the original should you need a replacement and can't locate one.

3) Depending on your perspective, the airplane either needs another 30 hp. or could stand to be a couple hundred pounds lighter.
LOM makes a great replacement engine - the M337K at ~230hp. It's an inline 6 that has modern fuel injection and looks, sounds like and has about the same weight and length as the original Gipsy. There are a few conversions flying around the US, Canada and Australia. I'm tempted to go this way because it doesn't change the CG (you can still fly from the front, unlike a Ranger) and it doesn't radically change the looks of the airplane. One of the conversions lives in Colorado, and I may be going out there to visit relatives in November. I just might have to check it out! Another plus for me is that there is a guy who does the conversions up on Vancouver Island (I live in Seattle)

4) "Dripsy Major" love the sound of the inline. It sounds like a vintage british sports car. It sounds like the prop is ripping through the air. Putting a modern engine on the front would be a huge subtracton in flying enjoyment.
See #3 above.

5) My friends used to freak out if I taxied and didn't have the stick all the way back in my lap. They had ground looped it a couple of times. The tailwheel is fully swiveling and mimics heavier taildraggers. Just like the SNJ with non steerable tailwheel or the P-51 with the stick forward to disengage the tailwheel, once you tap a brake and start a turn the aircraft will continue in motion until you give it opposite brake. It won't stop with a touch of opposite rudder, as will a modern taildragger with a Scott tailwheel.
Well, any tailwheel airplane is like that, you should usually have the stick fully back (except some where you momentarily need to move it forward to lock/unlock a tailwheel, etc.) and of course watch the wind direction and move the ailerons accordingly. I'm sorry they have ground looped it a couple of times. Sounds like a bit of bad luck?
You forgot to tell everyone that "tapping a brake" involves no feet at all. There are no rudder pedal based brake actuators (top of pedal). It's all done with differential braking from a "Johnson bar" type of handle. Pull it fully back with neutral rudder and you stop in a straight line. Rudder to either side and you'll start/stop a turn. I love the system and when I go back to a plane with brakes on the rudder pedals it seems so "unnatural".


6) Ours had a red handled air vent knob, canopy jettison knob, and also a cartridge start knob all painted red in the front right part of the instrument panel. The new owner was taking his bird home and somewhere over New Mexico he got hot, pulled a red knob and jettisoned the canopy!
Hmmm. I follow the air vent (mine is black and located in the upper right quadrant of the instrument panel), start knob (indexes a cartridge - mine was removed along with the system and electric start incorporated) but the canopy jettison has me perplexed. Do you mean the knob that opens the canopy flap located on the top of the canopy? That was designed to provide some aerodynamic force to help move the canopy to its rearmost stop so that under certain circumstances (like if you were in an unrecoverable spin) you could open the canopy and bail out. Mine's painted yellow. He shouldn't have lost his canopy unless there was something else wrong with the system. A Chippie doesn't have a way to normally jettison the canopy, just get it back and out of the way.

7) On the way to Oshkosh, I had to stop about every hour and fifteen minutes to put oil in the Dripsy Major. I was told to use the Aeroshell 40weight non detergent. I soon as I landed at Oshkosh I sought out a couple of Chipmunk owners and asked them about the oil consumption. My friend and his corporate pilot had been putting too light a weight of oil in it for about 6 years! It needs the heavier stuff like they put in radial engines. the oil burn decreased by 50% after that.
Cool The original brakes on ours were weak and would barely hold. If you had Clevelands on it you could get Supercub style short landings. Unfortunately it takes about 50% more takeoff roll than landing roll with the original brakes so , no need for better brakes.
Yeah, that oil usage is off. I've always used the Aeroshell W100 plus ashless dispersant and we were up to a quart/hr before my top OH back in 2003. Now we regularly see 1/2 qt/hr (allowable is 2.5 qts/hr!). We have the oil control rings but have never had the 6-7 hours/qt that some have reported. It doesn't burn it, just blows it out of the engine. A trick I learned (and verified by other Chippie drivers) is to never fill the oil tank all the way full unless you are off on a long XC. For whatever reason the engine will blow MORE oil out under these circumstances! So for local tooling around 1/2 tank is fine.
Brakes. The original Dunlops are, well...Dunlops. The upgrade to Clevelands is soooooo much nicer. No leakage, no parts issues and you can actually stop or hold yourself during a runup. It IS the way to go on the Chippie.

Like you said, the Chippie is a fun airplane, and one that should be on everyones "must fly" list.

_________________
ChipmunkBob
DHC-1 T.10 WK639
RAF '52-'95

Bob - in cases of high oil consumption it can be the vacuum pump is worn and sucking oil overboard through the breather.

I didn't get a good check out because my friends were Citabria pilots and never bothered to learn the finer points of the aircraft design. I learned more by talking to owners at airshows and by paying attention to the aircraft than by the actual checkout.
The new engine, the LOM M337 would be great. I remember seeing some polished metal RCAF Chippies and that would be a great way to save weight. THe instruments, like the compass and altimeter in milobars seemed especially heavy.
If originality wasn't important, then maybe the ultimate Chippie would be a Canadien version with the bubble canopy, polished metal/silver, the LOM engine. Cleveland brakes, and GPS mounted in the panel with light weight instruments. What about fuel? Any way to increase range?

Standard fuel tanks are 9 gallons a side - you can mod them however to take 12 gallon tanks.