Warbird Information Exchange

Hello,

I'm new to the forum, but wondered if anyone can help me.

I'm curious to know what are the main flying / handling differences between and Chipmunk and Cornell?

The Cornell has a bigger engine, but it's also a bigger aircraft, where as the chipmunk has been described as having 'perfectly harmonised' controls... Is there anyone on here with experience in both aircraft. What are you thoughts on the two, and which do you prefer to fly?

I've flown the Chipmunk, but I have no experience with Cornell.

I'd welcome your thoughts on this.

Kind regards

Mark

A friend who has flown both described the Fairchild as flying "like a Chipmunk with a 1,000 lb bomb strapped underneath"!

There have been a number of Chipmunk display pilots doing pretty serious aerobatics, Art Scholl among the most notable. The PT-26 is a pretty lazy primary trainer like a Stearman.

Art Scholl's Super Chipmunk had twice the horsepower, 3 feet clipped off the wings and increased control deflection.
A 400+hp PT-26 might be, like a 450 Stearman, a different ball of wax.

_________________
Lest Hero-worship raise it's head and cloud our vision, remember that World War II was fought and won by the same sort of twenty-something punks we wouldn't let our daughters date.

... Or it might be a ball of broken wood and twisted metal!

August

Actually, Art Scholl did start with a Chipmunk. The "Super Chipmunk" came later.

A 450 HP Stearman is still a slow and lazy aircraft, just one that climbs better. In fact, the 450 Stearman isn't much faster than a stocker.

And here is Scholl's Chipmunk with the Gypsy (correction- Ranger):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VQKfvwoKc6w

Auster,

I don't have any experience in a Chipmunk, but I think they're pretty neat birds, would love to get my hands on one. However, I own a stock Stearman, have a decent amount of time in a 450 Stearman, and have a few hours in a Ranger powered PT-19 and an R-670 powered PT-23.
A 450 Stearman doesn't really do aerobatics any better, you just don't have to dive straight down to do them.

Personally, I think a Stearman, for a 2,700lb+ biplane is a half way snappy aerobat if you don't use your purse hand to roll it. I never did any acro in the PT-19, but after several attempts I was only able to coax the sloppiest roll out of the PT-23, never got to anything vertical (ish). My guess is that with so much dihedral in the Fairchild models, the PT-19/23/26 line would pale in comparison to the Chipmunk.

I will say landing the 19 or 23 was a non-event compared to a Stearman under comparable conditions.

That said, if I could find another nice one, I'd add a PT-26 to the line in a heart beat, in the PNW, the Stearman gets tucked away in October and hibernates until about May.

That was a total thread stray...sorry. I'd buy a Chipmunk for acro, but a Fairchild for nostalgia.

Mike-

_________________
[b][color=#0000BF]Silver Wings Flying Company,
Stewart Airport, NY (KSWF)

I flew about 20 hours in a PT-26 last year. I also own a Fairchild 24W -- very similar, in many ways. And I've flown a Chipmunk, but that was merely 2 sessions of circuits, about an hour long each.

The PT-26 is very nice in many respects. Its ailerons are sweet, and general handling smooth and pleasant. The Ranger starts extremely easily and reliably -- on par with a Lycoming 0-320, and parts aren't too hard to find. It's one of the easiest taildraggers to land I've ever flown, even on pavement. The brakes are hydraulic bladder-brakes, and parts are getting rare so they should be used sparingly, but they work just fine and in a completely normal way. The cockpits are roomy and comfortable. The tanks give you a 4-hour range, and there is room for a moderate amount of baggage.

However the PT-26 is nearly always too heavy. It does everything well except climb. I'm not kidding -- you can fly at its best-rate speed all you want, it just doesn't go up very fast, even if you're by yourself. In fact this is one airplane where you never fill the tanks unless you're quite sure the next flight will have an empty back seat.

If I was restoring a PT19/26, I'd be a fanatic about weight. I would choose woods that were as light as possible, coverings as light as possible, and make the cockpits ALAP too. This is one place where authenticity sucks. The airplane would be fine if it was 250 lbs lighter. And it absolutely MUST be stored inside -- that is not a wing for leaving out in the rain.

To register one in Canada a wing-strengthening mod must be accomplished, which is basically laminating a board across the underside center section.

As for the Chipmunk, obviously 2 sessions of circuits don't deliver anything but general impressions. I didn't find its handling all that much better to tell you the truth, but at least it goes up at 6-700 ft/minute. But I didn't like the cramped cockpit (I'm 6'1" and 190 lbs), Also the short range, and no baggage space -- not required in the original mission -- are awkward when touring. My wife was a fan of buying one until she tried to get in it one day at a fly-in. That was the end of that.

The Gipsy Major and Fairey-Reed prop combination are getting rare. Parts for a Gipsy are hard to find (try to get an old crankcase certified, I dare you). The Gipsy does NOT start as well as the Ranger, I can confirm that over several hundred hours of ride-giving flights in Moths.

The Chipmunk brakes are English, using a racheted hand-lever. That's not so good in crosswinds on pavement -- you need a third hand. But once you get to know your particular aeroplane, and its brakes, you can land with a couple of notches of brakes set so that when you apply rudder to stop it weathercocking, you get a bit of brake too.

It's hot in the summer. It's a single bubble canopy, so the back-seater cannot slide his back to get cool. The PT-26 is much more comfortable that way -- you fly open-cockpit all summer. (The RAF ones had faceted canopies -- maybe they opened up, I don't know.)

They both leak oil after a couple of hundred hours since both engines are upside down.

My 2 cents worth...

Dave

Thanks Stearmann for your review of rolling a Cornell.

My first two attempts at rolling my PT-26 both turned into a Split-S.
These were attempted with PLENTY of altitude but it is always interesting when one expects to see the horizon rotating around and there is nothing but dirt filling ones world view.

I have followed the suggestion from my Fairchild mentor to save the acro for more modern machinery. The Chipmunk would certainly qualify as more modern.

And Dave is correct. The Cornell climbs like a homesick brick. The only time I have seen anywhere near 500-600 per minute on the VSI is when was I was flying into a 40 mph head-wind.

That being said- it is a smooth flying, easy landing, FUN airplane to fly.

My only experience with a Chipmunk is to unload one from a trailer. But I hope to remedy that at some point on my flying adventures.

SPANNER

_________________
Support Your Local Warbirds! KBO!
The only reasons the airplanes matter is what the veterans did with them... and why.

I hate to take this thread on a tangent, but I've got a question that hopefully someone can answer for me.

I watched the Art Scholl video with his Gypsy powered Chipmunk, and saw he soloed it from the rear seat, but seeing other un-modified Chipmunks in operation, they all seem to be front seat soloed.

Was this for better CofG for aerobatics? Or perhaps the additional weight of all the inverted fuel/oil systems (assuming they were installed)?

Going back to the original thread topic, I've flown neither, but I will one day. As for now, I can't offer any opinions.

Peace,

David M

They don't. The Canadian bubble canopy is nice, and very obviously a one piece. The British ( - and everyone else's, to be fair) canopy is a framed one, but the whole thing still slides aft just like the Canadian. The framed canopy has bulged sides for the rear seat occupant's use, but I don't think there's any openable panel in the glazing.

Of course who'd want to fly open cockpit in a British summer? You just let the rain in!

Regards,

PS: Nice cutaway with the British canopy: http://www.chipmunkflyer.co.uk/images/cutaway_large.jpg

_________________
James K

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

www.VintageAeroWriter.com

Probably for better CofG all around. I had never thought of things like smoke tanks but IIRC his Super Chipmunk had a constant speed prop on it and I'm sure at some point I counted six exhaust pipes so I'm thinking it was treated to a Ranger for more power.

-Tim

_________________
Keep 'em Flying.

Yes, it's a Ranger engine, not a Gipsy. The air intake is on the starboard side in that video.

Which would explain the rear seat solo position.

Dave

For ground ops, the Cornell beats the Chipmunk easily. Toe brakes vs. hand brake, steerable tailwheel vs. free castoring tailwheel, easy to taxi vs. sometimes challenging to taxi, handles strong winds while taxiing very well vs. strong winds create difficulties, great vis over the nose vs O.K. vis over the nose, relatively high crosswind limits vs lesser crosswind limits, incredibly easy engine starting vs. Gipsy Major engine starting. Easy CG planning vs not as easy CG planning. Good payload capability(for a lightweight machine) vs restricted fuel loads for passenger flying. Reasonably large baggage compartment vs. absolutely no baggage area except your pockets. However, the Cornell can be a dog for takeoffs at max weights so be cautious.

In the air, the Cornell is a nice handling aircraft, reasonable response, nice and stable. However, the Chipmunk is incredible. One of the nicest flying aircraft you will ever fly where you just think of being in a certain attitude(within reason) and you are almost there magically. What a beautiful fun machine.

The Chipmunk fits like a glove while the Cornell has loads of room for the larger folk. The Cornell can also have serious wood issues requiring careful consideration when purchasing one while the Chipmunk is a mostly metal machine.The bubble canopy on the Chipmunk is nice but the Cornell canopy is easier to open in flight. Chipmunk flaps sometime appear to not do much for you except being easily oversped(overspeeded?) while the Cornell flaps can be extremely difficult to operate and at full down create so much drag that sometimes more problems are created than solved. The Cornell is just about the easiest plane in the world to land while the Chipmunk is really not that far behind except for more crosswind consideration.

I would expect about 10 extra miles per hour out of the Chipmunk for at least 2 gph less fuel burn. Both have been known to burn up oil at times.

I think the Chipmunk is a more local fun machine and is easier to fall in love with.

I'm a bit biased...but I love the Chipmunk. I've flown both the British and Canadian and can say without a doubt if you're going to enter a "soft landing" contest take a Chipmunk (preferable a Brit). As far as traveling in one there is a small baggage compartment in the British model (behind the rear seat).

I've flown all over the US and Canada in both types and the best baggage compartment is your seat. We have modified seat cushions that serve as a travel bags. Regarding the Gypsy engine...I've never had any trouble starting them. Someone mentioned the canopy only sliding from the front was not optimal. I've seen several British models with sliding rear windows. I doubt this standard, but it's a nice work around.

All in all the Chipmunk and the PT-26 are both great airplanes. If asked to only fly one airplane the rest of my life...I'd take the Chip.

Matt

_________________
Listen Live!
www.warbirdradio.com