Re: PT26 Cornell v DHC-1 Chipmunk
Fri Oct 19, 2012 12:02 pm
Hello,
Thank you to everyone who has taken the time to reply. All the posts make interesting readying. I have a little bit of chipmunk time myself, but I've never flown the cornell... However i am part of a group that is restoring a PT26 here in the UK, hence the question about which aircraft people prefer / a comparison between the two aircraft. It sounds like while the PT has some big advantages, the Chipmunk is the all round nicer aircraft to fly.
I currently fly an Auster so either way, I'm looking forward to learning a new aircraft - one that is very rare here in the UK.
Does anyone know of any PT26's in Florida that I could see? I'm there next march... It would be nice to see what the end product looks like!
Thank you all once again.
Thank you to everyone who has taken the time to reply. All the posts make interesting readying. I have a little bit of chipmunk time myself, but I've never flown the cornell... However i am part of a group that is restoring a PT26 here in the UK, hence the question about which aircraft people prefer / a comparison between the two aircraft. It sounds like while the PT has some big advantages, the Chipmunk is the all round nicer aircraft to fly.
I currently fly an Auster so either way, I'm looking forward to learning a new aircraft - one that is very rare here in the UK.
Does anyone know of any PT26's in Florida that I could see? I'm there next march... It would be nice to see what the end product looks like!
Thank you all once again.
Re: PT26 Cornell v DHC-1 Chipmunk
Fri Oct 19, 2012 4:56 pm
I only have experience on the Canadian style Chipmunk with the extended rudder chord and larger elevators compared to the British model. The Cornell I fly is also a Canadian machine built in Fort Erie with the Ranger 6-440C-5 engine.
The Cornell requires the use of a wobble pump to build fuel pressure for priming but starts easily and runs smoother than the Gypsy Major. I find the Ranger is more predictable and is easier to start in various temperatures and has a carb air temperature gauge which is nice. The Cornell also has an oil cooler door which can be partially opened or closed as needed to effect engine oil temperature. This helps a lot in cold conditions to bring up engine temperatures after start.
The Cornell has a much larger cockpit compared to the Chipmunk with an adjustable seat and rudder pedals. There is plenty of space to move around but if you drop something there's a good chance it will be lost below the false wooden floor.
Taxing is a breeze in the Cornell with a steerable tailwheel and differential toe brakes. You have great visibility over the nose (except the first ~20' in front of you) and therefore requires little S-turning.
The Chipmunks vice on the ground is its braking system. Although the Chipmunk was designed in Canada it had a strong British influence in some aspects. The Chipmunks brakes are operated by a hand brake lever located underneath the throttle on the left side of the cockpit. This lever can be locked in the partially “on” position for differential braking while taxing. The free castoring tailwheel requires differential braking to steer while at taxi speed or with any crosswind which can make taxing in a strong crosswind quite difficult. While your right hand is holding the control stick your left hand is alternating between power and the brake lever for tighter turns.
The Cornell also has a vice when it comes to cockpit ergonomics...
The Cornell has a poorly designed flap lever that isn't reachable without completing bending over to extend/retract the flaps. It requires you to have your head below the canopy inside the fuselage. Not a huge problem while stopped on the ground but not the best place for your head to be during a go-around. The flap lever was modified with an extension to the original lever which does make it a bit easier to reach but only makes pushing the plunger more difficult. When extending flaps you’ll want to make sure that the plunger has engaged before letting go of the flap lever or else air pressure can cause them to quickly retract with a loud bang.
The Cornell becomes comfortably airborne around 70 mph with no flap and is happy climbing out at 80 mph with ~200-300 FPM climb rate. The Chipmunk has a much shorter take-off distance because of its lighter weight and also climbs at a higher rate than the Cornell.
In cruise both aircraft are great to fly although the Cornell is more stable. I was very surprised at how responsive the controls are in the Cornell but the Chipmunk still has an edge when it comes to maneuverability. Once the Cornell is trimmed properly in cruise it won’t wonder too far off.
I've spent a lot of time doing aerobatics in the Chipmunk but unfortunately have no aerobatic time in the Cornell to make a comparison. The Cornell is similar in roll rate but much heavier in pitch compared to the Chipmunk. The Cornell also has a higher wing loading than the Chipmunk and in a 45 degree bank turn requires almost full power to maintain altitude and airspeed. I can imagine it would require a bit more attention to energy management while conducting aerobatics compared to the Chipmunk.
Both aircraft have honest stall characteristics and provide lots of warning to the pilot before the stall is reached. In the landing configuration the Cornell stalls around 60 mph where the chipmunk stalls at 49 mph. I haven’t spun the Cornell so unfortunately I can’t compare its spin characteristics to the Chipmunk. I would guess that its rate of rotation would be less and with the large rudder quicker to recover from the spin compared to the Chipmunk.
The power-off glide in the Cornell is much steeper than the Chipmunk and requires careful approach planning during a forced landing. Dissipating energy isn’t a problem and with power off it will slow down much quicker than the Chipmunk.
The split type flaps on the Cornell create more drag than the fowler flaps on the Chipmunk and cause the already steep glide angle to become even steeper once flaps are extended. With full flap it’s easy to get behind the power curve on a normal approach and end up dragging the Cornell in with lots of power on.
The Cornell and Chipmunk have similar landing characteristics with their wide wheel stance and oleo type gear but I'd have to say the Cornell is a bit nicer. You can wheel land either aircraft onto the ground and be unsure if you've actually touched down or not. Both aircraft 3point nicely but the Cornell is easier to control during the landing roll with its steerable tailwheel.
I find the crosswind capability of the Cornell much better than the Chipmunk. The added weight of the aircraft also makes it a bit more stable on approach in gusty conditions.
The Cornell is known to have a sometimes violent tailwheel shimmy that seems to come and go with time. Unloading the tailwheel doesn't seem to help sometimes and the aircraft must come to a complete stop before it will dissipate.
Overall both aircraft have excellent qualities that make flying them very enjoyable. On a windy day or cross country flight I’d rather be flying the Cornell but for air work or aerobatics the Chipmunk would be my first choice.
I hope that gives you some insight into the Cornell. It's a great airplane you'll definitely enjoy.
Cheers
The Cornell requires the use of a wobble pump to build fuel pressure for priming but starts easily and runs smoother than the Gypsy Major. I find the Ranger is more predictable and is easier to start in various temperatures and has a carb air temperature gauge which is nice. The Cornell also has an oil cooler door which can be partially opened or closed as needed to effect engine oil temperature. This helps a lot in cold conditions to bring up engine temperatures after start.
The Cornell has a much larger cockpit compared to the Chipmunk with an adjustable seat and rudder pedals. There is plenty of space to move around but if you drop something there's a good chance it will be lost below the false wooden floor.
Taxing is a breeze in the Cornell with a steerable tailwheel and differential toe brakes. You have great visibility over the nose (except the first ~20' in front of you) and therefore requires little S-turning.
The Chipmunks vice on the ground is its braking system. Although the Chipmunk was designed in Canada it had a strong British influence in some aspects. The Chipmunks brakes are operated by a hand brake lever located underneath the throttle on the left side of the cockpit. This lever can be locked in the partially “on” position for differential braking while taxing. The free castoring tailwheel requires differential braking to steer while at taxi speed or with any crosswind which can make taxing in a strong crosswind quite difficult. While your right hand is holding the control stick your left hand is alternating between power and the brake lever for tighter turns.
The Cornell also has a vice when it comes to cockpit ergonomics...
The Cornell has a poorly designed flap lever that isn't reachable without completing bending over to extend/retract the flaps. It requires you to have your head below the canopy inside the fuselage. Not a huge problem while stopped on the ground but not the best place for your head to be during a go-around. The flap lever was modified with an extension to the original lever which does make it a bit easier to reach but only makes pushing the plunger more difficult. When extending flaps you’ll want to make sure that the plunger has engaged before letting go of the flap lever or else air pressure can cause them to quickly retract with a loud bang.
The Cornell becomes comfortably airborne around 70 mph with no flap and is happy climbing out at 80 mph with ~200-300 FPM climb rate. The Chipmunk has a much shorter take-off distance because of its lighter weight and also climbs at a higher rate than the Cornell.
In cruise both aircraft are great to fly although the Cornell is more stable. I was very surprised at how responsive the controls are in the Cornell but the Chipmunk still has an edge when it comes to maneuverability. Once the Cornell is trimmed properly in cruise it won’t wonder too far off.
I've spent a lot of time doing aerobatics in the Chipmunk but unfortunately have no aerobatic time in the Cornell to make a comparison. The Cornell is similar in roll rate but much heavier in pitch compared to the Chipmunk. The Cornell also has a higher wing loading than the Chipmunk and in a 45 degree bank turn requires almost full power to maintain altitude and airspeed. I can imagine it would require a bit more attention to energy management while conducting aerobatics compared to the Chipmunk.
Both aircraft have honest stall characteristics and provide lots of warning to the pilot before the stall is reached. In the landing configuration the Cornell stalls around 60 mph where the chipmunk stalls at 49 mph. I haven’t spun the Cornell so unfortunately I can’t compare its spin characteristics to the Chipmunk. I would guess that its rate of rotation would be less and with the large rudder quicker to recover from the spin compared to the Chipmunk.
The power-off glide in the Cornell is much steeper than the Chipmunk and requires careful approach planning during a forced landing. Dissipating energy isn’t a problem and with power off it will slow down much quicker than the Chipmunk.
The split type flaps on the Cornell create more drag than the fowler flaps on the Chipmunk and cause the already steep glide angle to become even steeper once flaps are extended. With full flap it’s easy to get behind the power curve on a normal approach and end up dragging the Cornell in with lots of power on.
The Cornell and Chipmunk have similar landing characteristics with their wide wheel stance and oleo type gear but I'd have to say the Cornell is a bit nicer. You can wheel land either aircraft onto the ground and be unsure if you've actually touched down or not. Both aircraft 3point nicely but the Cornell is easier to control during the landing roll with its steerable tailwheel.
I find the crosswind capability of the Cornell much better than the Chipmunk. The added weight of the aircraft also makes it a bit more stable on approach in gusty conditions.
The Cornell is known to have a sometimes violent tailwheel shimmy that seems to come and go with time. Unloading the tailwheel doesn't seem to help sometimes and the aircraft must come to a complete stop before it will dissipate.
Overall both aircraft have excellent qualities that make flying them very enjoyable. On a windy day or cross country flight I’d rather be flying the Cornell but for air work or aerobatics the Chipmunk would be my first choice.
I hope that gives you some insight into the Cornell. It's a great airplane you'll definitely enjoy.
Cheers
Re: PT26 Cornell v DHC-1 Chipmunk
Mon Nov 12, 2012 8:00 am
Auster Man wrote:
Does anyone know of any PT26's in Florida that I could see? I'm there next march... It would be nice to see what the end product looks like!
Assuming it hasn't been sold yet, and I don't believe that it was up for sale, you might be able to see an Oshkosh winner in Sebring, Florida. The Tullius Cornell owned by Bob Tullius and restored by the Denest's. I believe it is a Fairchild model so PT-26 might be more accurate but it has Canadian colours.
Mr. Tullius, an accomplished race car driver has a collection of aircraft, many of them historic at his hangar in Sebring. When I went, the doors were open and the people welcoming along with a friendly cat. It is worth visiting even without the Cornell there. Then you can do all the other cool aviation stuff in the general area.
Re: PT26 Cornell v DHC-1 Chipmunk
Mon Nov 12, 2012 7:31 pm
Here is the Bob's plane when we finished it in 2003. Sorry for the crappy photos, the two portraits are digitized slides.
Mark D
Oshkosh judging
Mark D
Oshkosh judging