Talk:De Havilland Canada DHC-1 Chipmunk

Comments
I found several sources for Chipmunk details, which don't agree, especially on weights. However I've been unable to work out if they were referring to different versions or if not which are correct. Please feel free to investigate further. DJ Clayworth 15:32, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC) ---

This page needs to be moved to keep it in line with De havilland Canada's other planes.eg De Havilland Canada DHC-6 Twin OtterTrevor macinnis 01:51, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

AEF replacement
Can anyone confirm that the Bulldog did in fact replace the Chipmunk with the AEFs in 96? I believe the AEFs came under the control of the UASs at this time, and they both received from Tutor from 99? Sc147 16:25, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The 'dog did in fact replace the Chippie at the AEFs from '96. The Tutor replaced the 'dog from '99 since the dog had reached its life expectancy and the RAF did not want to pay the exhorbitant price that BAe was going to charge for a fix.

It was cheaper to go with a civilian contractor who brought on the Grobs.

ChipmunkBob, Seattle, WA, USA.

A small point. It should be Hants (not Harts) and Sussex Aviation in the text relating to installation of a Rover gas turbine94.172.198.28 (talk) 17:40, 13 July 2010 (UTC)Chris Royle


 * Thanks for the typo - corrected. MilborneOne (talk) 17:56, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

-

Air Training Corps (ATC) use
Recently reverted: "Many damaged or withdrawn from use Chipmunk cockpits were passed to ATC Squadrons for instructional and educational use. The colloquial or slang name for such a Chipmunk cockpit is often referred to in enthusiast and preservation groups as a "Chippax", an amalagamation of the word Chipmunk and "Pax" which in itself an industry slang term meaning passenger. Most examples have long since left ATC squadrons finding their way into rebuilds of either whole static airframes, or for restoration by groups, museums and individuals. Some continue to serve as simulators both privately and with some ATC units. Most consist of the main cockpit section from engine bulkhead to rear fuselage attachment point (9 ft in length) but some consist of front cockpit only while others may have approx 4 ft of rear fuselage still attached to aid opening the canopy. Chipmunk's that are the full length (18 ft) from engine bulkhead to tail bulkhead are not referred to as a "Chippax" but a "Chipmunk fuselage." Examples:
 * Sywell Museum Chippax WG419 []
 * Thameside Aviation Museum Chippax WD471[]"

A, with all due respect, this appears to be more than trivia as it represents a genuine "after use" of the Chipmunk. What do others think? FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:35, 21 July 2011 (UTC).
 * Bill: if you think it is worth retaining then please do put it back in, although it should be shortened into a couple of sentences and properly referenced. - Ahunt (talk) 14:38, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Revision "Chippax" Many damaged or withdrawn from use Chipmunk cockpits passed to ATC Squadrons for instructional and educational use, ended up as rebuilds of either whole static airframes, or for restoration by groups, museums and individuals. '''Note: "Chippax" was an amalagamation of the word Chipmunk and "Pax", itself an industry slang term meaning passenger. End Note.''' Some cockpits continue to serve as simulators both privately and with some ATC units; most consist of the main cockpit section from engine bulkhead to rear fuselage attachment point (9 ft in length) but some have approx 4 ft of rear fuselage still attached to aid opening the canopy. A full length (18 ft) section from engine bulkhead to tail bulkhead are not "Chippax" but a "Chipmunk fuselages." Examples:
 * Sywell Museum Chippax WG419
 * Thameside Aviation Museum Chippax WD471 FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:47, 21 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Not sure they are really notable enough for more than a one liner, with loads of complete flyable chipmunks around and in museums we dont really need to list bits of aircraft. Other aircraft have also been used as simulators and training aids but none are really notable unless the big bit is the only surviving example of the type. MilborneOne (talk) 15:00, 21 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I tend to agree, as we have a number of CT-114 Tutor cockpits all over Canada, but they don't get mentioned, nor should they probably. Bill and I have massaged it down to a couple of sentences in the article - see if you think it is worth keeping or not. - Ahunt (talk) 15:14, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * After trying to squeeze the section down, it still doesn't amount to much other than a passing aside, mostly of interest to British enthusiasts. FWiW, I won't mind in the least if the section goes... Bzuk (talk) 15:53, 21 July 2011 (UTC).
 * I think I agree it is not really notable or unusual, perhaps better to remove. MilborneOne (talk) 16:23, 21 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I support removing it as non-notable. - Ahunt (talk) 16:53, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Supermunk
Jane's All The World's Aircraft 1982–83 has an entry on the "BGA Supermunk" under the British Gliding Association entry (p. 260), stating that "First flown on 20 August 1979, the original Supermunk (G-BBNA) is a conversion of a British-built de Havilland Chipmunk 22...The conversion was started in April 1979 by officers of the BGA".Nigel Ish (talk) 18:37, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Feel free to add the ref! - Ahunt (talk) 18:44, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Its already there - just tagged dubious.Nigel Ish (talk) 19:10, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * That was me I still had some doubt as the conversion was not the first Lycoming engined conversion, AAN#16885 for G-BBNA was actually raised by the Coventry Gliding Club and not the BGA, the older AAN#13954 was by the Royal Air Force GLiding & Soaring Association from 1975. Perhaps only G-BBNA is actually a Supermonk all the rest are just Lycoming conversions! MilborneOne (talk) 19:17, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It's quite possible that different conversions are being called Supermunk. Jane's 82-83 refers to fuller details of the Supermunk being given in the 81-82 edition - perhaps that might answer the question.Nigel Ish (talk) 19:28, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * In Shields at al. 2009, p. 319, there is a description of a "Super Munk" rebuilt from G-BBMS in May 1978, fitted with a Lycoming 0-540 G1A5 from a Pawnee 260 and a Hoffman HO-V 123K2 V/200 propeller. The other modifications included an enlarged rudder, shorter wingspan and a single-seat configuration. The aircraft was subsequently given a new identity of HA/MM/4-81 and a new name, "DHC-1 Chipmunk 22 Mighty Munk." FWiW Bzuk (talk) 19:51, 7 August 2011 (UTC).


 * Lots of confusion obviously! I have flown all of the Lycoming powered Chipmunks belonging to the RAFGSA, one at least is designated DHC-1 CHIPMUNK 22 (LYCOMING) by the CAA, I expect the others are the same. In the mid-1980s they were occasionally referred to as 'Supermunks' but I think that name belongs to the O-540 powered specials that Bill refers to above, pilots of the O-360-powered aircraft have always just called them 'Chipmunks', certainly in recent years (1995 on).


 * RAFGSA/Coventry GC vs BGA is probably just down to who made the applications for the AAN (Airworthiness Approval Notice). They would have most certainly have been applied for by Richard 'Dick' Stratton, Chief Technical Officer of the BGA. He definitely needs a WP article, flight engineer on the SARO Princess and chief designer of the SR.53. I believe that there are currently six O-360 powered Chipmunks in the RAFGSA fleet, there were two others both lost to accidents. 'G-INFO' can be used as a source for the designation of the British O-360 conversions. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)    21:01, 7 August 2011 (UTC)


 * There was also an experimental Rover-engined turboprop version sometime back in the 1950s. My mistake - it's already on the page and it was the 1960s. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.4.57.101 (talk)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on De Havilland Canada DHC-1 Chipmunk. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20031208030152/http://www.rafmuseum.org.uk/de-havilland-chipmunk.htm to http://www.rafmuseum.org.uk/de-havilland-chipmunk.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:46, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Proving a negative
The article currently states that the RAF's Chipmunks had a variable-pitch propeller, based on this source. However according to Jane's All the World's Aircraft 1951–52 p. 49c, the RAF's aircraft had "a fixed-pitch metal Fairey-Reed propeller", while other sources (i.e. Jackson's de Havilland Aircraft, do not mention variable pitch propellers.Nigel Ish (talk) 14:59, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
 * It is always an interesting conundrum when sources disagree like that. Is it possible that Chipmunks were delivered in each configuration? We can of course indicate that "sources disagree" unless we can find a tie-breaker. Is there a museum in the UK that has one with a good description page, perhaps? - Ahunt (talk) 15:15, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
 * It appears the standard propeller in service was a Fairey Reed A66753/X1 fixed pitch propeller, a list of approved propellers for ex Military British Civil aircraft is listed in CAP562. MilborneOne (talk) 16:05, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
 * this page from the Pilot's Notes for the Chipmunk T.10 (for which Crown Copyright will have expired) indicates a fixed-pitch propeller.Nigel Ish (talk) 16:17, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The preponderance of the evidence seem to indicate that "Fredriksen 2001, p. 92" is not correct. It is possible that Fredriksen is reporting what the original evaluation of the Chipmunk recommended, not what was finally funded and built. - Ahunt (talk) 16:36, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The question is what the dedicated sources about the Chipmunk say about the differences between the early Canadian and the British aircraft - we have sufficient sources dedicated to the aircraft (or to de Havilland Canada) that we should be able to use them rather than what appears to be a not terribly good non-specialist reference from what I can see in preview of Fredrikson.Nigel Ish (talk) 14:24, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with that assessment. Let's go with that and disregard Fredrikson. - Ahunt (talk) 14:37, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Very well caught, when RSs contradict over something that ought to be clear cut! Kyteto (talk) 10:15, 27 December 2019 (UTC)


 * UK-built aircraft were re-stressed for full-aerobatic use (minus an inverted fuel system) unlike the original Canadian-built design. This was a requirement of the RAF and UK ARB - the forerunner to the UK CAA. I believe the Portuguese-built aircraft also used the "beefed-up" structure of the UK ones. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.8.126.91 (talk) 22:03, 16 November 2023 (UTC)