What's new
Van's Air Force

Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.

RV8 vs DHC-1

Pilot135pd

Well Known Member
I sold my RV8 a couple of years ago due to a back injury and now I'm looking for something similar but not as tight (my back is better but not 100%). I saw online a DeHavilland DHC-1-B2-5s SUPER CHIPMUNK and it looks like an RV8 but being a military trainer it's built a little stronger. For example you can grab onto the windshield to get in and out without destroying it and you can even fly it with the canopy open.

Does anyone here have experience in both the RV8 and the Chipmunk that can chime in with their experiences regarding getting in and out and flying the Chipmunk?
 
Sorry haven’t flown an 8 but I own a 6 so other than the fact that the 8 is tandem I’m sure there are some similarities.
The Chipmunk is a very pretty airplane, it’s bigger than an 8. I have flown the Chipmunk quite a bit but it was stock, not a Super modified one. The stock one has a Gypsy Major engine mounted inverted. As I recall around 145 hp. Very light on the controls but not as light as my 6. It does all your basic aerobatics very nicely. The original engine runs backwards compared to American engines so controls operate differently, left rudder on takeoff for example. Brakes are quite a bit different but I imagine the super your looking at won’t have either of these differences. The 8 is a handsome aircraft and so is the Chipmunk…personal preference…my choice..close but probably the Chipmunk. The Chipmunk was the basic trainer for many British Commonwealth Countries and military basic trainers are **** bent for stout so yes, it’s a beefy aircraft. Very nice manners on the ground as well as the air. Good luck in your search.:)
 
Didn’t answer your question on egress….very easy tandem trainer to get in and out of and yes wrapping your arms around the windscreen pulling yourself in and out is normal procedure.
 
Didn’t answer your question on egress….very easy tandem trainer to get in and out of and yes wrapping your arms around the windscreen pulling yourself in and out is normal procedure.

Thank you. Yes there are a couple for sale and one has a Conti IO-360 and the other one a Lyco IO-540.
 
As my Father used to say..

"You can't polish a turd, but you can roll it in glitter"

If you are contemplating a modified Chipmunk, see if the engine is correct for the install - it should be a right turning version. Continental and Lycoming make them, but most conversion people didn't even think of the option. The Chipmunk has offset on the empennage to help with the torque of the right turning Gypsy engine. Put a standard engine in and you end up with issues.

Anyhow, if you do buy the Chipmunk, you should be ceremonially drummed out of this forum and banned forever :D:D:D

Oh - and don't get me started on Tiger Moths....... Even worse !
 
good remark by mike re the offset. Though I would hope "they" thought about it when going Super.

I have little experience in both, a standard DHC-1, and the -8.
To get in/out you can grab the windshield frame, or bar, on both. I would rate ease of entry being very similar on both, with a slight advantage to the Chipmunk.

Visibility is generally better on the -8 since it hasn't got the "bird cage".

Regarding handling, the standard DHC-1 is, on par with the Falco F8L, the winner hands down period. I'm talking stick gradient, forces, and control harmony.
One quirk affects the DHC-1 though, spin recovery. Despite having been equipped with tail strakes, recovery can take a looong time. My instructor insisted on spin training before letting me loose on one, and this comprised repetitive climbs to altitude followed by 10 (yes, ten) turn spins. Past turn 3-5 the Chipmunk went into a very flat attitude which took 3 turns to recover with a stick pushed fully forward (CAUTION, this applied to the very one I flew at the time).

Performance wise, not sure. The -8, even equipped with a standard O-360, is a good performer. The standard DHC-1 has, IIRC, 120 ponies at front, so sure is no racer. But the Super with 180+ HP might be in the same, or even better league, assuming it it equipped with proper wheel pants.
 
...

Visibility is generally better on the -8 since it hasn't got the "bird cage".

...

Unless you get one of the RCAF models from the 50's and 60's:

de_Havilland_Canada_Chipmunk_53.jpg
 
I currently fly both a stock UK built DHC-1 and my own RV-8. Other than both being tandem and tailwheel aircraft, there is no real comparison.
The DHC-1 is a very tight cockpit, front and rear, with very little space for baggage other than a small compartment behind the back seat. The DHC-1 has a cruise speed of about 100 to 108 knots at 7-8 gallons per hour with the stock Gypsy Major engine. The biggest issue with the DHC-1 is it only has 18 Imperial gallons of fuel capacity (21.1 US gallons). The brake system is a hand brake on the LH side of the cockpit and you get differential braking by using left or right rudder pedal. Also, most stock DHC-1s will have a 28 VC electrical system with ancient avionics. I have recently updated our DHC-1 with ADSB out and a B&C alternator, both of which work great. There is very little space to mount avionics except in front of the pilot between the pilots legs. The DHC-1 has a full swivel tail wheel, but ground handling is easy once you master the hand brake, throttle and rudder bar arrangement. The rudder is very effective during taxi. Getting British Aerospace hardware can be an adventure, as well as engine or airframe parts. Additionally, many DHC-1 are in the experimental exhibition SAC. If you buy a DHC-1 that has been converted to a Lyc 360, make sure all the modification paperwork is correct and the required structural enhancements have been done. Overall the DHC-1 is a great little aircraft, full of history and nostalgia. I enjoy fly it locally, but fly my RV-8 for any flight over 50 miles.
 
I currently fly both a stock UK built DHC-1 and my own RV-8. Other than both being tandem and tailwheel aircraft, there is no real comparison.
The DHC-1 is a very tight cockpit, front and rear, with very little space for baggage other than a small compartment behind the back seat. The DHC-1 has a cruise speed of about 100 to 108 knots at 7-8 gallons per hour with the stock Gypsy Major engine. The biggest issue with the DHC-1 is it only has 18 Imperial gallons of fuel capacity (21.1 US gallons). The brake system is a hand brake on the LH side of the cockpit and you get differential braking by using left or right rudder pedal. Also, most stock DHC-1s will have a 28 VC electrical system with ancient avionics. I have recently updated our DHC-1 with ADSB out and a B&C alternator, both of which work great. There is very little space to mount avionics except in front of the pilot between the pilots legs. The DHC-1 has a full swivel tail wheel, but ground handling is easy once you master the hand brake, throttle and rudder bar arrangement. The rudder is very effective during taxi. Getting British Aerospace hardware can be an adventure, as well as engine or airframe parts. Additionally, many DHC-1 are in the experimental exhibition SAC. If you buy a DHC-1 that has been converted to a Lyc 360, make sure all the modification paperwork is correct and the required structural enhancements have been done. Overall the DHC-1 is a great little aircraft, full of history and nostalgia. I enjoy fly it locally, but fly my RV-8 for any flight over 50 miles.

I understand all the other differences, specially regarding speed as I owned a RV8. My main concern in getting in and out of the front seat because the RV8 is also very tight plus you can't grab onto the front canopy like you can with other ex-military planes I've owned or flown in (P3, CJ, Yak, etc).

The one I'm looking at has already taken care of everything else you mentioned. Cruises around 130mph (I want it for putt putting locally so that's faster than needed), Continental IO-360 installed many years and almost 500 hours ago, current modern "GRT" avionics, etc....and yes it's Experimental Exhibition, which in today's world isn't what it used to be, so no issues with that.
 
I've got some flight experience in a DHC-1 and am currently flying the RV-8 I built. Although I'm no expert, I'd say that the stock Chipmunk has wonderful flying characteristics but doesn't have anywhere near the performance range of an RV-8 with 180 hp and a constant speed prop. I remember during Chipmunk training being admonished to conserve energy on climb out; don't waste it on steep banks, etc. The Super Chipmunk may have the same power/weight characteristics of an RV-8; if so, that's a good thing. Oh... and the Super Chipmunk better have conventional toe brakes rather than the three-hand-nighmare of the Johnson bar in the stock models.
 
I've got some flight experience in a DHC-1 and am currently flying the RV-8 I built. Although I'm no expert, I'd say that the stock Chipmunk has wonderful flying characteristics but doesn't have anywhere near the performance range of an RV-8 with 180 hp and a constant speed prop. I remember during Chipmunk training being admonished to conserve energy on climb out; don't waste it on steep banks, etc. The Super Chipmunk may have the same power/weight characteristics of an RV-8; if so, that's a good thing. Oh... and the Super Chipmunk better have conventional toe brakes rather than the three-hand-nighmare of the Johnson bar in the stock models.

Thanks. The one I'm looking at has 210hp via an installed IO-360C and a Hartzell constant speed prop.
 
With your Nanchang and Yak experience you probably don't mind a rudder bar and differential braking valve. It becomes second nature. In fact it's great to be able to taxi straight in a cross wind with full rudder deflection without affecting steering.
 
I understand all the other differences, specially regarding speed as I owned a RV8. My main concern in getting in and out of the front seat because the RV8 is also very tight plus you can't grab onto the front canopy like you can with other ex-military planes I've owned or flown in (P3, CJ, Yak, etc).

The one I'm looking at has already taken care of everything else you mentioned. Cruises around 130mph (I want it for putt putting locally so that's faster than needed), Continental IO-360 installed many years and almost 500 hours ago, current modern "GRT" avionics, etc....and yes it's Experimental Exhibition, which in today's world isn't what it used to be, so no issues with that.


A RV4 with a tipover canopy or a Harmon/F1 Rocket with a tipover are much easier to enter and exit. You also get glider like visibility.
 
A friend had both

A good friend had both, though he had a highly modified "Super Chipmunk" It had an IO540, 6 pipe exhaust with 6 smoke nozzles and low profile tipover canopy like an RV-4. It was a beast, but thirsty and larger to move around. He sold it and bought an RV-8 which he liked better for nimbleness and cost to operate. The Monk, AKA Chippy was easy to get in and out of because of the tip-over conversion. I believe a tip over can be fitted to an RV-8 as well with the fastback mod. Picture attached of his old Monk.
 

Attachments

  • Super chipmunk.jpg
    Super chipmunk.jpg
    118.5 KB · Views: 173
Thanks. I'm clear that the chipmunk will not have the performance of the RV8 and I accept that. I'm just looking for something that I can get into and out of easier than the RV8, doesn't have radial engine, metal (even with fabric control surfaces), and tandem seats, so my options are limited.

I'm down to a Pilatus P3 I've owned previously (con: has a GO-435 orphaned engine which is very costly to get engine parts and overhaul),

L19 (con: apparently hard to land during crosswinds with 5 groundloop crashes just this year by experienced owners totaling most of those aircraft),

Chipmunk (con: it's not an RV8)
 
...I'm down to a Pilatus P3 I've owned previously (con: has a GO-435 orphaned engine which is very costly to get engine parts and overhaul), ...
Convert one to the IO-540 (or find one already converted) and you've got your perfect solution.

A friend just completed a very extensive refit of a P3 (still has the GO-435).

P3.jpg
 
Convert one to the IO-540 (or find one already converted) and you've got your perfect solution.

A friend just completed a very extensive refit of a P3 (still has the GO-435).

View attachment 32433

I haven't seen any IO-540 conversions yet. I've seen the IGO-540 conversion which still leaves you with a geared engine, and the TIO-540 conversion which is not good unless you only fly in the north or at high altitude temps (horrible for a Texas based plane) because you can't lean while low so you waste tons of fuel just to cool the turbos.

If you know of any with the IO-540 for sale, let me know! I don't have the expertise or knowledge to even engineer an engine mount to convert one to IO-540.
 
Just A Little Input

I've never flow a Chippie, but I've sat in both chairs of one. Everybody tells me they're a delight to fly. I wouldn't have one, but I think I'd love to fly someone else's. I've never gotten in or out of an RV-8. I hung out with the late main seller of DeHavilland parts in North America and a little of his inventory is still in his hangar, including some DHC-1 bits. But beware, there are some parts for the Chipmunk that are unavailable and very difficult to reproduce. If, for example, you bust the hardware that attaches the main gear to the wing, you're really stuck. And so on. If you can live with the Gipsy Major, parts are not too hard to get. After Dave Watson's death last year, Splitpin Engineering's inventory went to the Delaware Aviation Museum and they plan to take over Splitpin's support in N.A. No timetable for that, but there's still Light Aircraft Spares in England. An RV-8 is SO MUCH easier to support. Maybe you could add a grab handle someplace helpful?
 
... But beware, there are some parts for the Chipmunk that are unavailable and very difficult to reproduce. If, for example, you bust the hardware that attaches the main gear to the wing, you're really stuck...

That's the curse of keeping older airframes in the air but it's also registered experimental so there might be someone out there that could make a part not available. If not then more parts for the flying ones left when it gets scrapped for parts when the insurance company takes it away.

Of course modern Van's aircraft have a steady supply of parts available but they're also built a lot lighter than the average military trainer, so I guess if I did bust a major landing gear part like that in either plane, then it was a **** of a hard landing and most likely it would have other major damage (wing spar, prop strike, etc) so it would be for the insurance company to deal with it because a repair on either one wouldn't be cost effective.

But I understand your point, thanks.
 
The DHC1 is probably the nicest general flying and gentleman aerobatics aircraft I know. Very precise, very responsive. It's also a comfortable cockpit, with good access, although it does have those British human factors quirks others have mentioned. It's a bit under-powered with the original engine and prop, but the handling qualities at lower altitudes make up for that.

Spinning is its only real flying qualities deficiency. Long ago, my DHC1 instructor told me to never start an intentional spin below 5kft AGL. Once fully established in the spin it requires precise control inputs to be made and held for typically three or more turns to recover. I've tried them with and without strakes, one-up and two-up, and was unable to detect a difference in the recovery. Fortunately, you have to really screw things up to make it depart accidentally.

The original fuel tanks are too small for anything except short training sorties, but later models had larger wing tanks, and some were also plumbed for an under-belly removable tank.

Depending on how your intended purchase has been used, it may have some significant fatigue issues. The type certificate holder used to keep track of these on an aircraft tail number basis, although if you're looking at an experimental category aircraft that information might be harder to come by.

Hope this helps your decision making.
 
Chipmunk requires someone who is a devotee, as getting parts is becoming harder and harder.
An RV-8 is much more practical, for parts support.
 
Chipmunk

I currently own and fly an RV8. I have previously owned a Chipmunk with the original 145 hp Gipsy engine. If/when I sell the RV, I would seriously look for a Chipmunk with a Lycoming engine, but with a IO 360 definitely not a 540. There is probably nothing much wrong with the 540 installation, but I imagine that it changes the character. Regardless of the pros and cons, I have flown a Chipmunk with a Lycoming O-360 and thought that it was even better than the original, and mentioned, owned the Gipsy powered original. There is no doubt in my mind that I would be looking for a Chipmunk with the 180 powered Lycoming modification. There is what seems to be a very nice example on Barnstormers at the moment, but more than I would want to pay for one. To compare the two is something that I would like to do with two successive flights, they are both excellent.

As a side issue, I am not at all sure that there is a fin offset, in any event, prop rotation right or left, clockwise or counter means nothing. Whichever way the nose moves, I am not smart enough to think about it during take off, so just boot the other rudder!

Regards, Brent
 
....As a side issue, I am not at all sure that there is a fin offset, in any event, prop rotation right or left, clockwise or counter means nothing. Whichever way the nose moves, I am not smart enough to think about it during take off, so just boot the other rudder!

Regards, Brent

When I had to go do my 6 month recurrent in the helicopter overseas, there was always some examiner that would ask questions like, "when descending, which pedal do you push?" Well at the time I was flying both the Bell 412 and the AW139 and they each have their rotors turning in the opposite of the other one, so I would always reply "if I have to think about which pedal to push, I'm already behind the aircraft" . It's really muscle memory at that point.
 
Chipmunk requires someone who is a devotee, as getting parts is becoming harder and harder.
An RV-8 is much more practical, for parts support.

Although I agree with the thought about parts, imagine if everyone only bought current aircraft, how many old awesome military and civilian aircraft we wouldn't get to see anymore.
 
Although I agree with the thought about parts, imagine if everyone only bought current aircraft, how many old awesome military and civilian aircraft we wouldn't get to see anymore.

Agree wholeheartedly. That is why I owned a Chipmunk, and a Stampe before the current RV-12.
Chipmunk is an iconic aircraft in the British Commonwealth, and much loved.
Spinning it is something to get a good handle on so you don't fall into it's trap of thinking the prescribed recovery technique isn't working, and fail to keep the proper full recovery control position until it recovers.
It will recover but takes a lot of turns to do so. There have been a number of cases where pilot thought the proper recovery technique wasn't working and tried something else in desperation and of course it just kept spinning.
 
Rudder ?

That was a great response, I wish I had thought of it, I would never be able to remember which rudder to push!
 
I was part owner of a Chipmunk for over 20 years, handling with the original engine is lovely, not as rapid as an 8 but well harmonised, the seat is very upright in best late 40's military style, so if you have a bad back its worth thinking about. Spares are getting harder to get, there are various fatigue issues ( although I think under FAA Experimental you dont have to carry the checks out? ) There's an active Facebook forum ( Chipmunk appreciation society ) with lots of knowledge.
 
Thank you. Looks like the Chipmunk is going into 2nd place because they sold the one with the IO360 engine and all I can find out there have the Gypsy 8 engine.

Now I'm looking at a Wilga with a 300hp IO540 engine. Really big doors on both sides to get into it so it's my favorite up to now. I'm currently driving up to Ohio to fly this one with a 260hp radial engine tomorrow.
 

Attachments

  • a759559f21059eed5c1aa550b81c016817b87fa7-1.jpg
    a759559f21059eed5c1aa550b81c016817b87fa7-1.jpg
    153 KB · Views: 68
  • 001d286d30b38f6599ac8bc0125916b89d5f8ae9-3.jpg
    001d286d30b38f6599ac8bc0125916b89d5f8ae9-3.jpg
    140.4 KB · Views: 68
L19 (con: apparently hard to land during crosswinds with 5 groundloop crashes just this year by experienced owners totaling most of those aircraft)
Not sure I agree with that. I got my pilot's license in Cessna 150's, checked out in a Cessna 140, and flew my local club's Duine Turbi (also tailwheel) for about a year. With about 100 hours total time I checked out in the local gliding club's L-19 and started to tow gliders. The L-19 is a blast to fly. Never had even a suggestion of an issue handling it. If you can fly an RV-8 you certainly won't have trouble with it.
 
If you can fly an RV-8 you certainly won't have trouble with it.

After flying the L19 I think I agree but since I first posted this, the landing accident information I had has been updated. The correct number of landing accidents this year alone has been 11 accidents !! Insurance is going to be through the roof soon, I saw that happen to the gyroplanes and helicopters.

I was able to fly the Wilga a couple of days ago. The drive took me a little over 15 hours each way. The Wilga flies incredible. It's like a helicopter, but without the maintenance or expensive insurance. �� Slow flight is cool putt-putting around at 60 Kt and cruising at 95KT. We were doing takeoffs and landings in about 300 feet and this guy only has like 6 hours in the plane, so when I install the OnSpeed AOA system, it'll be even more fun. I definitely prefer the Lycoming IO-540 engine because even though the radial engine sounds awesome, it vibrates a lot. If for some reason I don't end up buying the one with the Lycoming engine, then I'll buy one with a radial engine because the plane is too much fun to fly.

Of course it doesn't compare with what the RV15 is spec'd to fly, land slow and cruise fast, but for the type of flying I want to do right now, the Wilga seems to be the best choice.

Ok now for the Chipmunk fans, and I'm definitely one of them, here's how strong they are. Look at how the wing was almost pulled off the fuselage and it still landed fine. Thanks to Lenny for the link:

https://youtu.be/g0KJUDlQ3Eg

Impressive.
 
Last edited:
Always wanted a Wilga as well... long before Draco came along. Hope to follow your exploits, as well as the development of Draco II.
 
Always wanted a Wilga as well... long before Draco came along. Hope to follow your exploits, as well as the development of Draco II.

:D Draco II ? That was funny, no way I spend that much money. I'll make it my own with some improvements but no way at that level.
 
:D Draco II ? That was funny, no way I spend that much money. I'll make it my own with some improvements but no way at that level.

I didn't phrase it very clearly, did I? Sorry about that... I was actually referring to Mike Patey; he's mentioned his plans for a Draco resurrection and has already bought the replacement airframe. I wouldn't expect that level of customization (or expenditure) from anyone but Mike. I'd still love to hear about your acquisition and experience, if the moderators will allow the non-RV drift. ;)
 
Fin offset

Just a quick correction for the sake of accuracy. The Chipmunk does NOT have an offset fin.

Regards, Brent
 
Back
Top