Aerospool WT-9 Dynamic

AN AIRCRAFT DESIGNERS INSIGHT: IN THE WORDS OF AN ENGINEER (TRANSLATED FROM SLOVAKIAN ENGLISH)

The Dynamic WT9 is the work of Tadeas Wala. As the Dynamic WT9 Model Number suggests, it is his ninth project.

The Dynamic WT9 is one of the best light aircraft around, but there are still things we can do to improve it. To improve the flying qualities we have developed a new wing with a winglet. This new model was unveiled at the AERO exhibition in Freidrichshafen earlier this year. Secondarily, not only does the new winglet look good but primarily, it increases the capabilities of the aircraft throughout the entire LSA envelope.

As well as making the Dynamic more stable tests have shown that the winglets increase the force reduction in aileron control and faster directional responses about the roll axis. The stall characteristics of the Dynamic have also been improved by the new winglet design. Both the maximum and cruising speeds have been unaltered with the addition of the winglet. The new winglet was put through flight and strength tests passing both. The Slovak Civil Aviation Authority, CAA, has approved the new wing and winglet design with German LBA and Czech authorities likely to follow suit in the near future.

Development and production of the all composite WT9 Dynamic airplane is by far the biggest project Aerospool has undertaken to date. Although the Dynamic WT9 with its current weight, still belongs to the Ultralight category (in Europe), it by far exceeds this category with its qualities. First of all it is due to its advanced structure, in which the most modern aircraft materials are used, such as carbon and polyurethane sandwiches. It is also due to the experience the company gained from many years of production of subassemblies for top quality gliders. This all guarantees top quality of production, low weight, and excellent flight characteristics. The Dynamic is offered to customers in both fixed and retractable gear, as one of the very few airplanes that do, in the UL category. And even for the base price, each customer will get a ready-to-fly aircraft equipped with a Rotax 912UL 80 H.P. power plant. The long list of options and accessories enables everybody to create an airplane according to his/her needs and desires. The empty weight of the airplane is dependent of the equipment added; it starts as low as 265kg or 583 lbs. And for those who prefer to build their own airplane themselves, Aerospool offers an aircraft kit.

Thanks to the aerodynamic characteristics and powerful engine, the Dynamic proved itself also as a useful tow airplane with an excellent climb rate. Tests confirmed that the Dynamic enables towing even the heaviest two seat gliders such as ASH-25 or Duo Discus , while maintaining a high level of performance. The quality of the airplane and its attractive look is proved not only by interest of customers all around the world but also by the price.

The foundation of each company dealing with aviation production is to prove their organizational and quality-control system. The proofs of these labors are found in the certificates and approvals for production and aircraft repairs from civil aviation authorities. Aerospool has several of such documents. These are from the CAA of the Slovak Republic: Approval certificate for production No. SK.21G.0002, (addition to the approval certificate) and Approval certificate for maintenance No. SK.MF.001 (addition to the approval certificate). CAA of Czech Republic issued the Approved aircraft repair station acceptance certificate No. 181-01/2 and German Luftfahrt Bundesamt Braunschveig awarded Aerospool with the Genehmigung als Luftfahrhrttechnischer Betrieb Nr. II-A197 l...). It was necessary not only to receive these certificates but also to prove them. Therefore there are annual audits on-site at the Aerospool factory performed by officers of the aviation authorities that issued the certificates necessary for the aviation production and repairmen facility status. This is our warranty that the pilots who operate our aircraft will have the best quality product from Aerospool. We are not only engineers but pilots too.

BACKGROUND:
The roots of Aerospool company reach to the break years 1990-91, when a team of Prievidza air club pilots started to work on the WT3 glider prototype. On the basis of their gained skills they decided to form a company where their dreams about airplane production would come true. The journey to do this was not simple. By all means, the first product that rolled out from Aerospool hall was intended for pilots. It was a fiberglass transport trailer, the TV-1, a 15 meter span glider transport, and it was Aerospool who created the molds and forms also. Later the TV-2 trailer was added, which was/ and still is intended for two seat gliders. Until now, more than 100 trailers of both types have been delivered to customers all around the world. Besides that Aerospool was also involved in model and prototype production for other "non-aeronautical" fiberglass products. For example bodywork parts for tractors, personal or transport vehicles, horse transport trailers and industrial fluid tanks, etc. Introduction in Aerospool began by simple repairs of composite gliders. Production of parts for the following project with Schempp-Hirth Flugzeugbau company. Thanks to that, Aerospool obtained the knowledge and know-how for general overhauls of composite glider surfaces and various other damages, whose services have been utilized by more than 200 glider owners up to and including the present. Gradually over time Aerospool began producing stabilizers, elevators and winglets for Ventus-2c gliders, as well as the pre-assembly, painting and final assembly of these gliders. More to follow. Please stay tuned as we provide more information to you about this exciting new LSA composite airplane from Aerospool Spol SRO.

Min speed: 35 kt 40 mph 64 kmh
Cruise speed: 81 kt 93 mph 150 kmh
Vne: 97 kt 112 mph 180 kmh


Take off distance over 50ft (15m) obstacle: 460 ft | 140 m
Landing distance over 50ft (15m) obstacle: 660 ft | 200 m

Max. take off weight: 450 kg | 992 lbs
Empty weight: 274 kg | 604 lbs

Engine: Rotax 582, 912, Jabiru 2200

Other aircraft information:
Photo from: www.ul-bolaget.se

Text from: http://www.halley.hu/

The Apollo Fox is built according to the "BCAR? Section S constuction norm.

The aircraft has welded steel alloy tube fuselage covered with ?ceconite? fabric. The wing are made of aluminium alloy both spars and ribs and then covered with ceconite.

Wing can be folded backwards. One pilote can do it within 10 minits. The landing gears are aluminium plate sheet as year suspension. Wheels are equipped with hidraulic disc or mechanical drum brakes. Apollo Fox has very good rudder harmony and very easy to fly and land.

Available tail or nose wheel configurations.

Engine: Rotax 582 UL Mod 99 (65Hp), 912UL (80 Hp), 912 ULS (100 Hp), Jabiru 2200 (80Hp), Subaru EA 81 (100 Hp).


Halley Apollo Fox

High wing single piston ultralight.

This page lists the major suppliers to the Halley Apollo Fox aircraft program.


Manufacturer
Halley Kft

Power Systems / Engines
BRP-Rotax GmbH & Co. KG Piston Engines: 582, 912 or 912S engines
Halley Kft Piston Engines: Converted Subaru car engine
HKS Aviation Co. Ltd. Piston Engines: HKS 700 engine
Jabiru Aircraft Pty Ltd. Piston Engines: 2200 engine
ULPower Piston Engines: UL260i engine

Curtiss P-40 Warhawk

History: The P-40 fighter/bomber was the last of the famous "Hawk" line produced by Curtiss Aircraft in the 1930s and 1940s, and it shared certain design elements with its predecessors, the Hawk and Sparrowhawk. It was the third-most numerous US fighter of World War II. An early prototype version of the P-40 was the first American fighter capable of speeds greater than 300 mph. Design work on the aircraft began in 1937, but numerous experimental versions were tested and refined before the first production version of the P-40, the Model 81, appeared in May 1940. By September of that year, over 200 had been delivered to the Army Air Corps. 185 more were delivered to the United Kingdom in the fall of 1940, where they were designated the Tomahawk Mk I.

Early combat operations pointed to the need for more armor and self-sealing fuel tanks, which were included in the P-40B (called the Tomahawk Mk IIA in the UK). These improvements came at price: a significant loss of performance due to the extra weight. Further armor additions and fuel tank improvements added even more weight in the P-40C (Tomahawk Mk IIB). Curtiss addressed the airplane's mounting performance problems with the introduction of the P-40D (Kittyhawk Mk I), which was powered by a more powerful version of the Allison V-1710 engine, and had two additional wing-mounted guns. The engine change resulted in a slightly different external appearance, which was the reason the RAF renamed it from the Tomahawk to the Kittyhawk. Later, two more guns were added in the P-40E (Kittyhawk Mk IA), and this version was used with great success (along with their mainstays, the earlier B-models) by General Claire Chenault's American Volunteer Group (The Flying Tigers) in China.

Some additional models, each with slight improvements in engine power and armament, were the P-40F (with a 1300 hp Rolls-Royce Merlin engine), the P-40G, P-40K (Kittyhawk Mk III), P-40L, P-40M and finally, the P-40N, of which 5200 were built (more than any other version.) While it was put to good use and was certainly numerous in most theaters of action in WWII, the P-40's performance was quickly eclipsed by the newer aircraft of the time, and it was not considered one of the "great fighters" of the war.

Nicknames: Gipsy Rose Lee (UK nickname for the P-40L)

Specifications: (P-40N):
Engine: 1360hp Allison V-1710-81 inline piston engine
Weight: Empty 6,000 lbs., Max Takeoff 11,400 lbs
Wing Span: 37ft. 4in.
Length: 33ft. 4in.
Height: 12ft. 4in.
Performance:
Maximum Speed at 10,000ft: 378mph
Ceiling: 38,000ft
Range: 840 miles (with no external tanks)
Armament:
Six 12.7mm (0.5-inch) wing-mounted machine guns
Up to 1,500lbs of bombs on three wing hard-points

Number Built: Approximately 15,000

Number Still Airworthy: 29

The Curtiss P-40 Warhawk is one of the best-liked airplanes of World War II, even though its performance was never quite up to that of its opponents. The most important thing about the P-40 to the United States was that it was available in ever-growing quantity to fight a war when no other fighters were.

Flight Image Gallery

The Curtiss P-40 Warhawk was a plane that refused to die. After 1943 it was superseded by more advanced fighters, yet it remained in production until the end of 1944. See more flight pictures.

The Curtiss P-40 Warhawk was derived from the Curtiss P-36 that the veteran designer, Don Berlin, had conceived in 1934 as the means by which Curtiss Corporation would regain its position as the premier manufacturer of fighter aircraft in the United States. The P-36 got off to a rocky start, being bested in competition by the Seversky P-35, but it was ordered in quantity by the Air Corps and by foreign ­buyers.

The Curtiss P-40 Warhawk was tough and virtually trouble-free. It was the most important American fighter plane of 1942-1943. It saw continual improvements to arms and armor. Engines, too, were regularly uprated.

When the Allison V-1710 liquid-cooled V-12 engine became available, Don Berlin modified the tenth P-36A to accept it, and the XP-40 was born. It received the largest order yet placed for an American fighter: 524 P-40s at a total price of $13 million. The P-40 went through 19 different model designations, and stayed in production through 1944. A total of 16,802 was built.

The Curtiss P-40 Warhawk achieved its greatest fame while flying with Claire Chennault's American Volunteer Group (AVG) in China, the Flying Tigers. Under Chennault's stern tutelage, the AVG used dive and zoom tactics to defeat the Japanese, who were flying Nakajima Oscars for the most part.

The first Curtiss P-40 Warhawk was a P-36 running with a supercharged Allison engine. The blend was successful, and a great plane was born.

The Curtiss P-40 Warhawk performed well in the Pacific, Alaska, Africa, and Russia. Its strong construction, heavy firepower, and ability to dive enabled it to compete with enemy fighters. It was a formidable ground-attack aircraft, as well.

Don Berlin had indeed revived his company's fortunes with the Curtiss P-40 Warhawk, but the firm seemed jinxed: The Warhawk was the last Curtiss fighter to reach production status, an ironic end for what had been a great company.
Curtiss P-40 Warhawk Specifications Wingspan: 37 ft. 4 in.
Length: 33 ft. 4 in.
Height: 12 ft. 4 in.
Empty Weight: 6,000 lbs
Gross Weight: 8,850 lbs
Top Speed: 378 mph
Service Ceiling: 38,000 ft.
Range: 240 miles
Engine/Horsepower: One Allison V-1710/1360
Crew: 1
Armament: Six .50-inch Browning machine guns; one 500-lb bomb

L-1011 Tristar

Development of the Lockheed L-1011 Tristar began in 1966 when American Airlines announced a need for a short to medium-range, large-capacity transport. In March of 1968, production began when Lockheed received orders for their design from TWA and Eastern Airlines. Although Production was slowed when Rolls- Royce, the developer of the L1011's engines, was forced to declare bankruptcy, Lockheed managed to deliver the Tristar for operation with Eastern and TWA in 1972. The longer-range L1011-200 came in 1977 and the L1011-250, which featured larger fuel-capacity, started operations with Delta Airlines in 1986. The original version of inter-continental L1011-500 was delivered to British Airways in 1979 and the next year Pan Am put the extended wing version into service.

The L-1011 did not succeed in the market. Though the program went through development and production, Lockheed constructed only 252 of these airliners, rolling out the last in 1983. The program did not earn back its development costs; in fact, this firm sold few if any at a profit, for this company faced strong competition first from the DC-10 and later from the Boeing 767 and Airbus A-300. Hence to win further sales, Lockheed had to offer prices that were very low. The program had received over $1.7 billion at the time of the near-collapse of Rolls; the final losses, at the time of program cancellation, came to $2.5 billion. With this, Lockheed retired from the ranks of the commercial planebuilders and proceeded to make its living entirely as a military contractor.

The Lockheed L-1011 and the McDonnell Douglas DC-10 are wide-body transports in a weight class between that of the 707 and the very heavy 747. Both aircraft are powered by three high-bypass-ratio turbofan engines located in a new configuration arrangement; one engine is mounted under each wing, and the third engine is mounted at the rear of the aircraft. The L-1011 and the DC-10 were initially designed to an airline requirement for a high-capacity transport with transcontinental range, but growth versions of each are presently available with intercontinental capability. Initial flights of' both aircraft occurred in 1970. An early version of the DC-10 entered airline operation in 1971, and the L-1011 began service in 1972. Both aircraft are in wide Use throughout the world.

The L-1011 features two engines in underwing nacelles and one engine mounted on top of the fuselage forward of the swept fin, with the jet efflux below the rudder through the tail cone. The circular wide-body fuselage has low-set wings at the midway point. The swept tailplane is low set on either side of the rear fuselage below the fin. Refuelling pods are under the wings.

The three-engine configuration employed on the aircraft, in which two of the engines are located near the aircraft center of gravity, offers ail advantage in aircraft balance over an arrangement in which all three engines are mounted at the rear of the fuselage (Boeing 727, for example). Placement of two of the engines under the wing also allows the horizontal tall to be mounted in the highly desirable low position, as contrasted with the T-tall arrangement. The large lateral distance between the wing-mounted engines, however, causes larger yawing moments following loss of' power of one of these engines as compared with a similar power loss in the rear-mounted engine arrangement.

The method of mounting the rear engine is seen to be quite different on the L- 1011 and the DC-10. The L-1011 utilizes a mounting arrangement similar to that of the Boeing 727. The center engine is mounted in the aft end of the fuselage and is connected through an S-shaped duct to the large inlet mounted on top of the fuselage. In contrast, the center engine of the DC-10, including inlet and exhaust nozzle, is integrated with the fin above the fuselage. The engine efficiency resulting from this straight inlet-engine-nozzle configuration, as compared with the S-shaped duct arrangement, was thought to more than offset the structural complexity (and probable weight increase) of integrating the engine with the fin. The high performance of both aircraft, however, suggests that either method of engine installation can be made to operate successfully.

The Lockheed L-1011-200 is powered with three Rolls-Royce RB.211-524 engines of 48 000 pounds thrust each. The McDonnell Douglas DC-10-30 is powered by three General Electric CF6-50CI engines of 52 500 pounds thrust each but is also available with a version of the Pratt & Whitney JT9D engines.

The main landing gear of the L-1011 has two struts to which are attached four-wheel bogies. The aerodynamic design of the jet transport is conventional. The wings have about 35° of sweepback with aspect ratios in the range of 7.0 to 7.5 and feature transonic airfoils of advanced design. The wings have double-slotted trailing edge flaps and leading-edge slats. Lateral control is provided by a combination of ailerons and spoilers. The spoilers are also used to control lift and drag when deployed symmetrically. Longitudinal control of the L-1011 is provided by a variable incidence stabilizer to which the elevator is mechanically linked. The maximum lift-drag ratio of the aircraft is estimated to lie in the range between 17.0 and 17.5.

The original Tristar , with a fuselage length of 54.17m (177ft 8.5in) and up to 400 seats, was the L1011-1, with a gross weight of 195,045kg (430,000lb). This was followed in 1974 by the L1011-200 with RB.211-524 engines rated at 213.6kN-222.4kN (48,000-50,000lb) and maximum take-off weight of up to 216,363kb (477,000lb) depending on fuel capacity. With the same higher operating weights and increased fuel capacities but the lower-rated 22B engines the aircraft was designated L1011-100. The first flight of a Tristar with 524 engines was made on 12 August 1976. In 1976 Lockheed launched the L1011-500, which combined higher weights and enlarged fuel capacity with a shorter fuselage to achieve very long ranges. Advanced aerodynamic features were also introduced in the L1011-500, including active controls, resulting in a 2.74m (9ft) increase in wing span and a reduction in tail plane area.. The first L1011-500 flew in October 1978, with 222.4kN (50,000lb) 524B engines but without the extended wingtips, which were first flown in November 1979. The designation L1011-250 applies to conversions of the L1011-1 to have the same 524B4 engines as used in the L1011-500, allowing maximum take-off weight to be increased to 224,985kg (496,000lb). Fuel capacity is also increased. Conversion of six L1011-1s to 250 standard for Delta Airlines began in 1986. Other L1011-1 conversions included the L1011-50, increasing maximum weight from 195,047kg (430,000lb) to 204,119kg (450,000lb), and the L1011-150, with a 10% increase in range.

At a gross weight of 468,000 pounds and with a maximum payload of 74,200 pounds, the L-1011-200 is capable of flying for a distance of 4,884 miles. With a maximum fuel load and a reduced payload of 42,827 pounds, the range is 6,204 miles. The aircraft is capable of carrying 400 economy-class passengers in a 10-abreast double-aisle configuration. An interesting feature of the interior design of the L-1011 is the location of the galleys below the passenger deck; food service is provided to the passenger cabin by means of elevators.

The economical cruising speed of the L-1011 is 567 miles per hour at 31 000 feet, which corresponds to a Mach number of 0.84. The takeoff field length of 8070 feet is relatively short compared with 10,370 feet for the DC-10-30 and 10 450 feet for the 747. The values of gross weight, payload weight, and range of the DC-10-30 are significantly larger than the corresponding values for the L-1011-200. A comparison of the values of the wing loading and thrust loading of the two aircraft clearly shows why the takeoff distance of the DC-10-30 is greater than that of the L-1011 - 200. The cost-economical cruising speeds of the two aircraft are comparable.

Pegasus is a winged small launcher, airdropped from a modified Orbital Sciences Corporation L-1011 Tristar aircraft. It can carry payloads weighing 850-1,050 lbs to LEO of 100 nautical miles. Pegasus, available in two models, has flown eight missions since 1990, with two failures of its XL version.

The RAF operates a number of Tristar aircraft in the transport role. The Tristar C2s are dedicated transport aircraft and can carry 265 passengers and 16 tonnes (35,000 lbs) of freight over ranges in excess of 4,000 miles. The other two variants, the K1 and the KC1, are dual role and capable of providing air-to-air refuelling from a pair of centerline fuselage hoses. The K1 can carry 204 passengers; however, the KC1 has a large freight door and can carry 20 cargo pallets, 196 passengers or a combination of mixed freight and passengers. The VC10 and Tristar fleets are based at RAF Brize Norton in Oxfordshire.

The Cessna 560 Citation V, Ultra & Ultra Encore

Type

Small to midsize corporate jet

History

The Citation V, Citation Ultra and Ultra Encore are the largest straight wing members of Cessna's highly successful Citation family.

Cessna publicly announced it was developing a stretched development of the Citation II at the annual NBAA convention in New Orleans in 1987. Earlier in August that year the first engineering prototype Model 560 Citation V had successfully completed the type's maiden flight. A preproduction prototype flew in early 1986, while US certification was granted on December 9 1988. Deliveries began the following April.

The Citation V was based on the Citation II/SP, but differences over the smaller jet include more powerful Pratt & Whitney Canada JT15D5A turbofans and a slight fuselage stretch, allowing seating in a standard configuration for eight passengers. The Citation V proved quite popular, with 262 built through to mid 1994 before production switched to the modernised Ultra.

Cessna announced development of the upgraded Citation V Ultra in September 1993. FAA certification was granted in June 1994, allowing for deliveries of production aircraft to commence soon after. Compared with the Citation V, the Ultra features more powerful 13.6kN (3045lb) Pratt & Whitney Canada JT15D5D engines and Honeywell Primus 1000 EFIS avionics with three CRT displays (two primary flight displays and one multifunction display).

The Citation Ultra Encore is a new development announced at the 1998 NBAA convention. Compared with the Ultra the Encore introduces new Pratt & Whitney Canada PW535 engines, plus trailing link main undercarriage, more fuel payload, updated interior and improved systems. The Ultra's Honeywell Primus 1000 EFIS avionics suite is retained.

International Directory of Civil Aircraft

Country of origin

United States of America

Photos

Click for large version.
Photo © Peter Vercruijsse
More photos of Cessna 560 Citation V, Ultra & Ultra Encore

Powerplants

V - Two 12.9kN (2900lb) Pratt & Whitney Canada JT15D5A turbofans. Ultra - Two 13.6kN (3045lb) JT15D5Ds. Ultra Encore - Two 14.9kN (3360lb) P&WC PW535As.

Performance

V - Cruising speed 790km/h (427kt). Initial rate of climb 3650ft/min. Range with six passengers, two crew and reserves 3558km (1920nm). Ultra - Max cruising speed 796km/h (430kt). Initial rate of climb 4100ft/min. Certificated ceiling 45,000ft. Range with five passengers 3630km (1960nm). Ultra Encore - Max cruising speed at mid cruise weight 798km/h (431kt). Certificated ceiling 45,000ft. Max range with IFR reserves 3150km (1700nm).

Weights

V - Empty equipped 4004kg (8828lb), max takeoff 7212kg (15,900lb). Ultra - Empty 4196kg (9250lb), operating empty 4377kg (9650lb), max takeoff 7393kg (16,300lb). Ultra Encore - Empty approx 4526kg (9977lb), max takeoff 7544kg (16,630lb).

Dimensions

V & Ultra - Wing span 15.91m (52ft 3in), length 14.90m (48ft 11in), height 4.57m (15ft 0in). Wing area 31.8m2 (342.6sq ft). Ultra Encore - Same except height 4.63m (15ft 1in). Wing Span 16.49m (54 ft 1in), Wing Area 322 sq ft.

Capacity

V - Typical seating for eight passengers. Ultra/Ultra Encore - Standard seating arrangements for seven or eight passengers.

Production

262 Citation Vs built through to mid 1994. Approx 340 Ultras built. Ultra Encore deliveries due to begin second quarter 2000.

The Bombardier Learjet 55 & 60

Type Mid size corporate jets History The Learjet 55 and its followon successor, the Learjet 60, are the largest members of the Learjet family, and date back to development work undertaken in the late 1970s. In designing the 55, Learjet (or Gates Learjet as the company was then known as) took the wing of the earlier Longhorn 28/29 series and married it to an all new larger 10 seat fuselage. The original Model 55 Longhorn prototype first flew on November 15 1979. The first production aircraft meanwhile flew on August 11 1980, with the first delivered in late April 1981 (after FAA certification was granted in March that year). Development of the 55 led to a number of sub variants, including the 55B which introduced a digital flightdeck, modified wings, improved interior, and most importantly, the previous optional higher takeoff weights becoming standard. The 55C introduced `Delta Fins' which gave a number of performance and handling advantages, the 55C/ER is an extended range version with additional fuel in the tail cone (the additional tank can be retrofitted to earlier aircraft), while the 55C/LR introduced more fuel capacity. The improved Learjet 60 first flew in its basic definitive form in June 1991 (the modified Learjet 55 prototype earlier served as a proof of concept aircraft for the 60 with Garrett engines). It differs from the 55 in having a 1.09m (43in) fuselage stretch and new Pratt & Whitney Canada PW305 turbofans. Certification of the 60 was awarded in January 1993, with first deliveries following shortly afterwards. International Directory of Civil Aircraft Country of origin United States of America Photos Photos Click for large version. Photo © Paulo Carvalho More photos of Bombardier Learjet 55 & 60 Click for large version. Photo © Marlo Plate More passenger cabin photos... Click for large version. Photo © Marlo Plate More cockpit photos... Powerplants 55 - Two 16.5kN (3700lb) Garrett TFE7313A2B turbofans. 60 - Two 20.5kN (4600lb) Pratt & Whitney Canada PW305A turbofans. Performance 55C - Max speed 884km/h (477kt), max cruising speed 843km/h (455kt), economical cruising speed 778km/h (420kt). Service ceiling 51,000ft. Range with two crew, four passengers and reserves 4442km (2397nm) for 55C/LR. 60 - High cruising speed 839km/h (453kt), normal cruising speed 828km/h (447kt), long range cruising speed 778km/h (420kt). Max certificated altitude 51,000ft. Range with two crew, four passengers and IFR reserves 4461km (2409nm). Weights 55C - Empty 5832kg (12,858lb), operating empty 6013kg (13,258lb), max takeoff 9525-9752kg (21,000-21,500lb). 60 - Empty 6282kg (13,850lb), basic operating empty 6641kg (14,640lb), max takeoff 10,659kg (23,500lb). Dimensions 55 & 60 - Wing span 13.34m (43ft 9in), length 16.79m (55ft 1in), height 4.47m (14ft 8in). Wing area 24.6m2 (264.5sq ft). Capacity 55 - Flightcrew of two. Six different main cabin arrangements offered with seating ranging from four to eight. 60 - Flightcrew of two. Optional seating arrangements for six to nine passengers. Production Production of the Model 55 ceased in 1990 after 147 had been built. 141 55s in service at late 1998. Deliveries of Model 60 began in January 1993, with more than 130 delivered by late 1998.

Falcon 7x

This year’s Paris Air Show at Le Bourget provided an opportunity for me to see Dassault’s new Falcon 7X up close before I got my chance at the left seat, alongside Dassault 26-year veteran senior test pilot Yves (Bill) Kerherve, who has since retired from the company. A former French Navy fighter pilot, Kerherve flew the ultra-quiet 7X through a series of maneuvers for the crowd on the opening day of the show. Although the 7X is a large-cabin business aircraft, its maneuverability made it clear that Dassault designers had not forgotten the Mirage and Rafale fighters that came before.

While the flight demonstration itself would probably not convince anyone to write a check on the spot for a 7X, my guess is that after watching those 86-foot-span wings carry the 7X through some incredibly tight turns with ease, people would take a closer look. Dassault currently has orders for more than 165 copies of the recently certified, $40.6 million aircraft. The company is currently building three a month, and the next delivery slot is late 2011 or early 2012.

Kerherve said most of the initial orders for the 7X are from current Falcon customers, with just a few from Gulfstream and Challenger owners.

Pilots new to the 7X complete a 26-day course before being awarded a type rating. I did not have the luxury of those weeks of book and simulator time before the flight, which had been arranged just a few days before my arrival in Paris. Nonetheless, I jumped at the chance to fly the airplane the 387 nm from Le Bourget to the flight-test facility at Marseilles on the opening afternoon of the show, especially since there was the possibility of some en route airwork.

I flew airframe number 1, registered as F-WFBW, which was not a production airplane. The cabin was unfinished and cluttered with a variety of test equipment and ballast tanks that would prevent a true check of cabin noise level at altitude. From an avionics and flying standpoint, however, airframe number 1 was as representative of the 7X as S/N 4, the aircraft that sat on the static line at Le Bourget awaiting delivery to Dassault chairman emeritus Serge Dassault.

I approached the flight with some personal perspectives that bear mentioning as well. I have not flown competing aircraft such as the $29.85 million G350, which offers approximately the same payload, or the $37 million Global 5000. Before the June 18 flight in the 7X, I had never flown an aircraft with a sidestick or fly-by-wire controls. I also had no experience with the Primus Epic EASy flight deck, which, as it turned out, was actually an advantage since there was relatively little to unlearn.

From a technical aspect, I was curious about flying an airplane that had no pilot-controlled trim option–no wheel, no switch. All trim is handled by the computers, which means the stick would essentially not show or feed back any movement to the pilot during flight.

Dimensionally, the 7X resembles the Gulfstream G350 and Global 5000. Gulfstream says the G350’s maximum payload is 6,300 pounds, and Bombardier publishes 5,170 pounds for the Global 5000. Dassault pegs the 7X’s max payload at 6,000 pounds. The interior of the 7X cabin is 39 feet long, compared with the Global 5000’s 42.5 feet and the G350’s 45 feet.

Certainly any aircraft is a blend of capabilities, but range is one area where the 7X surpasses its competitors; the French airplane can fly a shade under 6,000 nm with eight people in the back. You’d need a G550 (which costs $47.59 million) to fly a similar distance nonstop. The G350’s range is 3,800 nm with a similar load. The Global XRS has roughly the same range as a 7X and a larger cabin but retails for about the same price as the G550.

The issue really becomes how far do you need to carry how many people? And how much are you willing to pay for speed? The 7X is fast. Dassault calls it a Mach 0.90 aircraft, which means the airplane offers performance similar to that of the Citation X but with a much larger cabin and far greater range. But the Globals and the Gulfstreams are no slowpokes either. The Global 5000 and the G550 offer a top speed of Mach 0.89, while the Gulfstream G350 can fly at Mach 0.88.

Simplifying the Walkaround
Approaching the 7X at Le Bourget, I conducted a preflight with Dassault pilot and senior examiner David Bronn. He mentioned that 7X pilots need be concerned about only a few items during the walkaround, which can easily be accomplished in less than 10 minutes.

Bronn explained there is no tolerance for any sort of hydraulic fluid leaks–no matter how tiny–during the preflight, just as there is zero tolerance for any tire wear that appears somewhat uneven. The 7X is also the first Falcon to have gear pins, three of them, that must be removed before flight.

Another distinction relates to the airplane’s fly-by-wire controls. There is no need to flop the control surfaces during the preflight. Dassault recommends that pilots inspect them and not move them at all during the walkaround. Static wicks are always an issue on high-altitude airplanes, and the 7X is no different in that respect. No more than two can be missing around the entire airplane and no more than one on any control surface.

A quick look in the hellhole shows pilots the steam-gauge redundancies of everything they see in the cockpit once on board. The only reason anyone might stand up in there is to disconnect the battery when the aircraft is parked, something Dassault highly recommends. The pilot will quickly find himself staring at something that appears to have been left over from the dark ages, the door to a ram-air turbine (RAT). If all three alternators on the 7X should fail, the RAT door opens to spin up enough juice to run many of the onboard systems. The APU alternator is not available in flight. The 7X also employs two separate independent power sources to supply the fly-by-wire system in an emergency.

Smart Avionics
The APU was already running as the ground crew prepared for our afternoon departure from the Dassault Falcon Service ramp at Le Bourget. Dominique Chenevier, another senior Dassault pilot, was in the jumpseat. The avionics were already on as Kerherve offered me the left seat and explained the Epic EASy trackball system and the 7X’s complete lack of steering tiller. The cockpit seats seemed comfortable, and Kerherve said the seats in the production model are considerably more plush.

The four 10- by 13-inch screens of the Epic EASy system aboard the 7X allow for only a single FMS at a time to be used to prevent one pilot from programming something about which the other pilot has no knowledge. In addition, the Epic EASy system does not allow one pilot to make changes to the flight display of the other without confirmation from the other pilot.

Each pilot has a primary flight display that also includes all engine operating dynamics. The display sits just beneath the visor, requiring only a minor tilt of the head downward to see. The center panel just below the visor is the primary navigation display, and the screen beneath that is for systems.

Although I did not have an opportunity to evaluate the head-up display on this flight, all of the HUD guidance vector symbology was available on the primary flight display, including flight path in green and thrust vectors in red, a layout designed to minimize reaction time about where the thrust levers need to be positioned for any given configuration.

The trackball allows either pilot to update all portions of the displays–the primary flight display, central navigation panel or systems panel–for information in what appears to be a Windows-like environment. The trackball housing is positioned exactly where a pilot might rest his inside hand during flight, making it also easy to find by feel.

Before-start checks and programming the FMS were traditional, as were the engine starts themselves. All three of the 6,400-pound-thrust Pratt & Whitney Canada PW307As are fadec-controlled, which means pilot interaction is minimal, requiring only that the pilot move a fuel lever during spool-up. Pitot heat and windshield heat come on automatically once two engines are running, which makes for essentially no items at takeoff.

We started the center engine first, then the right (number three) and finally the left. Outside air temperature in Paris was 24 degrees C (75.2 degrees F), and the aircraft was light at about 49,000 pounds, or about 20,000 pounds below gross with 8,000 pounds of fuel on board. The FMS of later production aircraft automatically calculates landing and takeoff data, but this particular airplane was not yet equipped to do the math, so Kerherve handled that task manually on this flight. The final check before taxi was for the fly-by-wire system, which happened with a click of the mouse.

Kerherve said we’d need about 3,500 feet of runway for takeoff, with speeds of V1 99, Vr 107 and V2 111 for takeoff on 8,700-foot Runway 21 with flaps set to two. All takeoffs and landings are conducted with the leading-edge slats extended. Kerherve gave me the takeoff briefing before we taxied out. “When I call rotate, pull the stick back gently until you see the pitch of the nose in a position where you are comfortable and simply release the stick. Never push.” That was the end of the briefing. He added that it would probably take me no more than 10 seconds to get used to the sidestick control.

For taxi, there is no tiller. With the aircraft pointed east after the engine starts, I pushed the left rudder to the floor and released the parking brake. As light as the airplane was, it began to roll ahead with no advance in the throttles. The rudders are sensitive at first but more so if the pilot does not keep his feet high enough on the pedals. The 7X soon became a docile airplane to taxi.

There are no memory items in the 7X except to don an oxygen mask in case of decompression or fire. The only confirmation needed before the takeoff roll was to verify that all sensor information was coming from the left side.

FBW Makes for a Smooth Flight
On takeoff we’d be restricted to 7,000 feet headed southwest out of Paris. We experienced no delay in takeoff as we reached the runway. The takeoff run was short–12 seconds to reach V1 and less than 10 more until the gear was in transit. While I wanted to believe the smooth roll down the runway was all my doing, my guess is the 7X nosewheel steering through the rudders was tuned precisely and produced a smooth run from brake release to rotation.

It was an odd feeling to pull the stick gently back at rotation and then release it when the nose of the aircraft was barely 20 feet in the air. But the fly-by-wire was as smooth as silk, and following the flight path vector that Kerherve had programmed for the SID was easy as I continued to fly by hand.Out of 3,000 feet the 7X was straining to fly faster as I held it to 250 knots. As someone who spent most of his career flying aircraft with control wheels, I commented to Kerherve that I felt my hands should be doing something. I felt no pitch changes on departure as first the flaps and then the leading-edge slats were retracted. But there was little to do other than a few very light movements on the sidestick. As Kerherve had predicted, it took only a short time to get used to it. I want one from now on.

The sidestick is a revolutionary style of flying an airplane unless, of course, the pilot has considerable time with Microsoft Flight Simulator. This flight made it clear that Flight Simulator time would not be wasted. Sidesticks allow a pilot to rest his left forearm comfortably on a cushioned pad and quickly learn to control the aircraft with minor movements of the wrist. As I would later see, flying the aircraft in a very nose-high attitude becomes clearly more difficult, with the strain on the pilot’s wrist sending a clearer signal of trouble than the ache of a bicep pulling back on a control wheel.

All altitude restrictions fell before we ever reached them, and I wondered if Kerherve had used some of that French pilot charm on the controllers to pave the way ahead. Climbing through 18,000 feet at 300 knots, I was reminded how much difficulty I had had understanding the French controllers while taxiing at Le Bourget. “Controllers here speak a sort of Franglish, a French-English combination,” Kerherve said, trying to set my mind at ease about a flight he’d probably made a thousand times.

Short-term information was delivered graphically to my display, with slightly more medium-term information such as flight plan data shown on the center display.

We did almost no keyboard typing, allowing me to focus my eyes where they should be–out the window. We continued to climb to FL390, which took about 15 minutes, and I watched the airplane accelerate to Mach 0.89. The maximum ceiling is 51,000 feet, at which the cabin altitude is 6,000 feet. At FL390 the cabin remains below 4,000 feet. Level at FL390 I took off the headset, and even though the airplane had no production interior the noise in the cockpit seemed quite tolerable.On the way to Marseilles we set in the frequency for the special flight-test area ATC that Dassault had set up for its operations. We’d ask them for a block of airspace to conduct some airwork before heading to Istres, a military base that also doubles as the flight-test center for Dassault.

Along the way, we spoke about a noticeable lack of circuit breakers in the 7X. There are essentially none. Nothing can be reset in flight, either. The designers did not want pilots trying to get mixed up with bits they had little or no knowledge of.
By this point in the flight, I was beginning to feel that the 7X and the Epic EASy system had a much better idea of how to fly the airplane than I did. All I needed to do was watch and jump in if something looked amiss. It was indeed an odd sensation.

The trip to Istres at Mach 0.89 was short, and we were soon beginning our descent. There was no descent checklist to perform for the 7X as we approached. Destination weather was VFR with some light rain. The plan was to try some slow flight, steep turns and configuration changes before landing. Kerherve explained that in slow flight, the 7X would not let the pilot fly into a stall. We would first see the amber low-speed cue and finally the red tape, but we would not be able to fly into the red. The pilot can bypass the computer in roll but not in pitch.

Low-speed Airwork
With the autothrottle now off, I retarded the power and extended the speed brakes to slow the airplane, which now weighed in at about 46,000 pounds. The 7X’s response to my switching off the autopilot was interesting. The sidestick vibrated,
a cue that I was now flying the airplane. The 7X responded quickly and we soon slowed through 180 knots hand flying the airplane. I took no action anywhere in the process because there was no noticeable pitch change.

Once I began my first steep turn, I put the flight-path vector on the horizon and released the stick as the bank reached the 30-degree mark. The Falcon held the turn perfectly all by itself and with the autopilot turned off. I pulled the power back to idle and listened as the warning system yelled again in a way that was impossible to miss, “Increase speed.” There were no pitch changes as I applied power and climbed out of the approaching stall.

I tried another with flaps at the first notch and slats down again with the power at idle. As the aircraft neared 102 knots, the system again yelled at me. Noticeable back pressure was required to hold the 7X in an attitude nose-high enough to slow it to this speed, something I also believe would be difficult to ignore. We tried it again at full flaps and with the gear down. The airplane was still controllable down to 83 knots, at which I put it into a succession of 30-degree banks.

After stowing the gear and flaps, I accelerated the aircraft to 250 knots to try some steeper turns. At 250 knots and less than 35 degrees I again was able to release the stick and the 7X would hold the bank. At more than a 35-degree bank I needed to hold the stick back. If I released the sidestick in a 50-degree bank, the aircraft righted itself to 35 degrees. There is no limit to the bank angle in the 7X–pitch yes, bank angle no.

Approaching Istres, we descended through 4,000 feet and had an opportunity to see the TCAS in action as VFR traffic appeared out of nowhere. Initially at 400 below us, it climbed to our altitude as we began to search. The “traffic” announcement quickly switched to “descend, descend.” I complied quickly and turned away as the traffic disappeared over us unseen. Without TCAS, it would have been close despite the good visibility outside.

We eventually headed back to Istres, and the tower sequenced us behind a landing C-130. With 185 knots still on the airspeed indicator, I reduced the power to idle as Kerherve lowered the gear and flaps and I was quickly down to 120 and easily slowing behind the C-130. Ref speed would be 111 knots. The 7X seemed to find a landing power slot easily, and I made small changes with the throttles until the flare.

I retarded the throttles at 40 feet and increased nose pitch only slightly. On touchdown, the trailing-link gear made me look good, with an incredibly smooth landing as I pulled the center reverser handle back. We were so slow at touchdown, however, that by the time the bucket came out–probably six seconds–we were already slowing through 70 knots. The brake-by-wire on the 7X is highly effective and I easily used no more than about 2,500 feet to the turnoff.

We taxied to the Dassault ramp and shut down. We had used about 4,000 pounds of fuel during the 1.6-hour flight. Kerherve said that with the 3,900 pounds of fuel remaining, we could easily have landed in Rome or returned to Paris with a reserve since the 7X burns about 2,000 pounds per hour total when it’s light. With full fuel on board, the 7X can routinely fly from Paris to Cape Town, South Africa; or Paris to Tokyo; or New York to Dubai nonstop.

For a large aircraft, the 7X is incredibly easy to fly. The sidestick was something I quickly learned to enjoy, as well. A strong point on this aircraft is how little time I spent with my head inside the cockpit because so much necessary information was available almost within my peripheral vision or with only the slightest downward tilt of my head. This is what we should all be doing in any airplane.

Pilots of the 7X will learn quickly to fly with their fingertips rather than with their hands because the aircraft is that light on the controls. Indeed, the systems that control the 7X may be technologically complex, but from a control input perspective they are as light as on a small aircraft.

The immediate question might well be whether or not the 7X is worth the wait. From the perspective of a pilot who had only a few hours of exposure to the aircraft, I’d have to say absolutely

Vickers Vimy (Replica)

In July 2005 the Vimy Atlantic team recreated the first direct crossing of the Atlantic by the British team of John Alcock and Arthur Whitten-Brown in June 1919.

Our mission was to recreate the flight and bring to life the impact this flight had on the peoples on both sides of the Atlantic. This and subsequent Vimy flights demonstrated that the airplane, considered a tool of war, had a tremendous civilian application.

Alcock and Brown's flight happened when a spirit for adventure and incredible skill combined to accomplish a truly heroic act. Today, significant pioneering and invention often happens at the far reaches of science and at the molecular level; invention appears out of reach to today's students.

The Vickers Vimy replica that flew across the Atlantic has become almost as famous as its original ancestors, whose feats also include the first London to Australia flight in 1919 and the first London to Cape Town flight in 1920.

The record-breaking Vickers Vimy, which in 1919 made the first non-stop flight across the Atlantic, was designed as a new generation heavy bomber for the Royal Air Force and was intended to attack German targets at the height of the First World War. Designed by Reginald Kirshaw Pierson, the Vimy was manufactured at the Vickers Company factory in Leighton Buzzard but failed to see active service during the War. However, its place in history was guaranteed with a number of historic pioneering flights.

In 1913, the London Daily Mail offered a £10,000 prize for the first successful non-stop flight across the Atlantic Ocean. By the end of the First World War, despite numerous attempts the prize remained unclaimed. However, on 14 June 1919, a Vickers Vimy Mk.IV flown by two Royal Air Force officers, pilot Captain John Alcock and navigator Lieutenant Arthur Whitten-Brown, took off from St John’s, Newfoundland, and headed across the Atlantic towards Europe.

They flew through the night battling against snow, ice, fog and fatigue. The Vimy flew between sea level and 12,000 feet at an average speed of 118 miles per hour and the following morning the two aviators sighted

1946 Piper J3C-65 Cub – NC3403K

The classic Piper Cub, the J3C-65 in our collection, evolved from the Taylor E-2 of 1930, a bare-bones design with open tandem seating accessed through a long, bottom-hinged door on the right side of the fuselage. Initially, it was to be powered by a 20-hp Brownback “Tiger Kitten” two-cylinder engine. The Kitten didn’t fly – literally – but it did inspire the “Cub” nickname. Production E-2s rolled off the line in 1931 with the newly introduced Continental A-40.

The “classic” Cub, the J-3, arrived in 1937, just in time to become the trainer of choice for the new, college-based Civilian Pilot Training Program and give tens of thousands of men and women their first taste of flying. Dressed in olive drab and designated the L-4, the Cub was the only light plane to serve overseas in the liaison role during World War Two.

Its success continued post-war; so great was demand in 1946 that Piper set up an additional production line in Ponca City, Oklahoma. The museum’s J-3 was one of 1,190 examples built there, out of a total of 6,320 Cubs delivered in that boom year.

NC3403K passed through a number of owners. At one point, it was re-licensed as a crop sprayer, its standard A-65 Continental upgraded to 85hp. It finally wound up, in its present owner’s words, as “a pile of junk on the hangar floor” in Chattanooga, OK. It was a pile of complete, well-preserved junk, though, which convinced John Konneker to buy it in 1993. Though he had owned other airplanes, John said, “I always wanted a J-3.”

John found a mentor in EAA’s Norm Petersen, a fellow Cub owner who put him in touch with Stearman specialist Chuck Andreas in Wisconsin. Andreas produced a very authentic restoration, right down to the period tires and cream-colored gauges. John then made the decision to loan the aircraft to the EAA museum for display.

Product Code: 5433ES
Shipping Weight: 1 lbs
Inventory Status: In Stock

Aircraft on loan from John Konneker

Supermarine Spitfire Mk XIX PS853

Above is an unarmed, high-altitude reconnaissance variant of the famous Spitfire aircraft, one of 79 Mk XIXs built at Supermarine in Southampton and now owned and flown by the Rolls Royce company. On 13 January 1945 this aircraft was delivered to the Central Photographic Reconnaissance Unit at RAF Benson before seeing service in the UK, Belgium and Holland. At the end of the war it returned to the UK and later became a member of a meteorological Flight. It was ultimately allocated to the Battle of Britain Memorial Flight. From 1987 to 1989, it was grounded and, following extensive work, a modified Rolls-Royce Griffon engine was installed. She flew once more on 20 July 1989 and has a top speed of 706 km/h and a ceiling over 13,700m. The aircraft is currently painted as 'C' of No. 16 Photographic Reconnaissance Squadron, 2nd Tactical Air Force. The Griffon engine was the second engine type (the first being the renowned Rolls-Royce Merlin) to be installed on the Spitfire aircraft family. The first experimental Griffon, which was a close relative of the 'R' engine used in the Schneider Cup air races of 1929 and 1930, had in fact run in about in 1933. The Griffon had the same V-12 configuration as the Merlin, but it had 36 litres capacity, instead of 27 litres in the Merlin. The engine also turned over the other way, which gave new pilots a bit of a surprise on take off, as their aircraft swung the opposite way! The first Griffon-engined Spitfire, the Mk XII, came into service with No 41 Squadron in February 1943. The engine on this Spitfire has accumulated more than 235 hours and the airframe over 1,912 hours. The aircraft was bought by Rolls-Royce in 1996 and is based at Filton Airfield, just across the road from the Rolls-Royce facilities in Bristol. Seen at the British Army Air Corps' Wallop '08 event.

de Havilland Canada DHC-1 Chipmunk

de Havilland Canada DHC-1 Chipmunk by alexdrennan.
The de Havilland Canada DHC-1 Chipmunk is a tandem, two-seat, single-engined primary trainer aircraft which was the standard primary trainer for the Royal Canadian Air Force, Royal Air Force and several other air forces through much of the post-Second World War years. The de Havilland Chipmunk was the first true postwar aviation project of de Havilland Canada.

Today, over 500 DHC-1 Chipmunk (affectionately known as "Chippie") airframes remain airworthy with more being rebuilt every year.
The RAF received 735 Chipmunks, designated Chipmunk T.10, manufactured in the UK. They initially served with Reserve Flying Squadrons (RFS) of the RAF Volunteer Reserve (VR) as well as the University Air Squadrons. A few Chipmunks were pressed into service in Cyprus on internal security flights during the conflict in 1958. From 1956 to 1990 some were used for covert reconnaissance by BRIXMIS operating out of RAF Gatow, Berlin.[citation needed] They were still in service for ATC Air Experience Flights until 1996 (the final AEF to use the Chipmunk was No. 10 Air Experience Flight, RAF Woodvale) when they were replaced by the Bulldog (itself replaced by the Grob Tutor in 1999-2001). Chipmunk T.10s were also used by the Army Air Corps and Fleet Air Arm for primary training. The last Chipmunks in military service are operated by the British historic flights - the RAF Battle of Britain Memorial Flight (including one of the BRIXMIS aircraft), the Royal Navy and Army historic flights, to keep their pilots current on tailwheel aircraft for flying displays in the UK.

Downsview built 217 Chipmunks, the last in 1956.[citation needed] A total of 1,000 were built in Britain initially at Hatfield Aerodrome and then later at Hawarden Aerodrome.[4] A further 66 Chipmunks were licence-manufactured by OGMA (Oficinas Gerais de Material Aeronáutico, at Alverca) from 1955 to 1961 in Portugal for the Portuguese Air Force de Havilland Canada DHC-1 Chipmunk by alexdrennan.

Country of origin

Canada

Photos

Click for large version.
Photo © Glenn Beasley
More photos of De Havilland Canada DHC-1 Chipmunk

Click for large version.
Photo © Allan Jensen
More cockpit photos...

Powerplants

One 108kW (145hp) de Havilland Gipsy Major 8 four cylinder inverted inline engine driving a two blade fixed pitch wooden propeller.

Performance

Max speed at sea level 223km/h (120kt), cruising speed 200km/h (108kt). Initial rate of climb 900ft/min. Service ceiling 17,200ft. Max range 450km (243nm). Endurance 2.3 hours.

Weights

Empty 526kg (1158lb), max takeoff 914kg (2014lb).

Dimensions

Wing span 10.46m (34ft 4in), length 7.75m (25ft 5in), height 2.13m (7ft 0in). Wing area 15.9m2 (172sq ft).

Capacity

Seating for two in tandem. Two were modified for crop spraying and fitted with a chemical hopper in place of the front cockpit.

Production

1277 Chipmunks built, including 217 in Canada, 60 under licence in Portugal and 1000 in Britain. Most of these were built originally for military customers, but many now fly with private operators.

Type

Two seat light aircraft

History

Affectionately known as the Chippie, De Havilland Canada's Chipmunk was designed in response to a growing need to replace the Royal Air Force's ageing Tiger Moth two seat basic trainer biplane (described separately).

With a full design workload (courtesy of the revolutionary Comet jet airliner project among others) De Havilland decided to hand design responsibility for the new trainer to its Canadian subsidiary, De Havilland Canada. Design leadership for DHC's first aircraft was the responsibility of W J Jakimiuk who had emigrated to Canada from Poland in 1940 and was previously responsible for the design of the PZL P-24 and PZL P-50 Jastrzab fighters and the DH-95 Flamingo airliner.

His new aircraft was designated the DHC-1 Chipmunk and flew for the first time on May 22 1946. Features of the design included a De Havilland Gipsy Major engine and all metal construction (but with fabric covered control surfaces). First deliveries took place the following year. Main Chipmunk models included the Canadian built DHC-1A-1 and DHC-1B-2 (Mk1 and Mk2 in the RCAF), and many featured clear view blown canopies, while main British production models included the initial T10 for the RAF, the Mk20 for foreign military users and the civilian Mk21. OGMA built 60 Mk20 under licence in Portugal.

Civilianised versions of RAF aircraft became available in large numbers from the late 1950s, and the T10 became the Mk22 in civil service, while the Mk22A was a Mk22 with greater fuel capacity. Farm Aviation Services in the UK heavily modified Chipmunks with a hopper tank in place of the forward cockpit for spraying duties, these aircraft were designated Mk23s. Three similar conversions were performed in Australia by Sasin/Aerostructures as the SA-29 Spraymaster. The Masefield Chipmunk was a conversion available for ex RAF T10s with a blown canopy, wheel pants, luggage space in the wing and increased fuel capacity.

In 1999 a kit version became available for the homebuilt market, developed by Gilles Leger in Montreal, Canada. Leger’s version is called the Super Chipmunk. It has a new more spacious fuselage while using original Chipmunk wings and tail unit, and is powered by a 156kW (210hp) Continental IO-360 engine.

Today the Chipmunk remains a very popular sport and private aircraft, while a small number are still used for pilot training and tailwheel endorsements. Some have also been extensively modified with the installation of Lycoming or Continental engines, e.g. the two Super Chipmunks of famous airshow performer Art Scholl.