An Aero Biplane

[flyersfan31]

So, what would be a good all-around aerobatics biplane? What if you were interested in gentleman's aerobatics, even some of the more advanced competition maneuvers, without the competition? I hear lots of things about the Pitts being hard to land, even for an experienced Pitts driver. What aircraft would you choose? I imagine the Decathlon or (definitely?!) the Aerobat would be out of the running. Let's assume a budget of under $100k. Easy to own, easy to fly, easy to land. (or at least some of the above!)

Yak 52/Nanchang CJ6? Great Lakes?

I'm curious.

 

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

So, what would be a good all-around aerobatics biplane? What if you were interested in gentleman's aerobatics, even some of the more advanced competition maneuvers, without the competition? I hear lots of things about the Pitts being hard to land, even for an experienced Pitts driver. What aircraft would you choose? I imagine the Decathlon or (definitely?!) the Aerobat would be out of the running. Let's assume a budget of under $100k. Easy to own, easy to fly, easy to land. (or at least some of the above!)

Yak 52/Nanchang CJ6? Great Lakes?

I'm curious.

Skybolt?

 

[TangoWhiskey]

Yak 52/Nanchang CJ6? Great Lakes?

I'm curious.

The first two you listed aren't biplanes, as per your title. Are you really interested in a biplane, or simply an aerobatic aircraft regardless of how many wings it has?

 

[Anthony]

Marchetti SF260. Not a biplane though.

 

[gismo]

So, what would be a good all-around aerobatics biplane? What if you were interested in gentleman's aerobatics, even some of the more advanced competition maneuvers, without the competition? I hear lots of things about the Pitts being hard to land, even for an experienced Pitts driver. What aircraft would you choose? I imagine the Decathlon or (definitely?!) the Aerobat would be out of the running. Let's assume a budget of under $100k. Easy to own, easy to fly, easy to land. (or at least some of the above!)

Yak 52/Nanchang CJ6? Great Lakes?

I'm curious.

A Yak 52 is fairly capable, I've seen a competent pilot put on a show that included virtually every maneuver that can be accomplished without a huge excess of power. The CJ6 is "fully aerobatic" but not really up to the abusive stuff. AFaIK, a Great Lakes isn't even in that league. From the one time I landed one, I got the impression that an Extra 300 is pretty easy to land for a taildragger.

 

[flyersfan31]

The first two you listed aren't biplanes, as per your title. Are you really interested in a biplane, or simply an aerobatic aircraft regardless of how many wings it has?

Yeah, I know. I had Yaks on the mind, since I had just finished reading about them. I kinda think a biplane would be more all around fun. It's all tire-kicking until I decide to push the missus on the issue.....

 

[Ken Ibold]

There's nothing inherently difficult about landing a Pitts if you can cope with two realities. The first is that the airplane goes exactly where you point it. If you are rock steady on the controls and use small, surgical movements, the lack of forward visibility is not much of an issue (generally speaking). I believe most Pitts landing accidents are due to overcontrol.

The second is that you must remember there are two kinds of landings in a Pitts: successful and unsuccessful. Throw away the quest for style points and it takes a lot of the pressure off. I never seriously doubted the outcome of any of my Pitts landings, with the possible exception of my arrival to Gastons in 06, which was on the long side, though I was certainly more pleased with some than with others.

When I got my Pitts, I had a couple hundred hours in a Citabria, which of course is a rather docile taildragger. I successfully transitioned to the Pitts in three flights, the third of which included some landings on a runway with very nasty crosswinds. And anyone who has flown with me will testify that, while reasonably competent, I'm not all that hot a stick. A lot of the Pitts "learning to land" experience involves the ability to throw away your existing pattern habits in order to deal with the lack of forward visibility. (I found that controller-demanded long finals made for the most difficult landings. The best way to do them is a continual arc from downwind abeam the numbers to the threshold.) Additionally, finding the right transition teacher is important. I was fortunate to get Keoki Gray to teach me.

 

[gismo]

There's nothing inherently difficult about landing a Pitts if you can cope with two realities. The first is that the airplane goes exactly where you point it. If you are rock steady on the controls and use small, surgical movements, the lack of forward visibility is not much of an issue (generally speaking). I believe most Pitts landing accidents are due to overcontrol.

The second is that you must remember there are two kinds of landings in a Pitts: successful and unsuccessful. Throw away the quest for style points and it takes a lot of the pressure off. I never seriously doubted the outcome of any of my Pitts landings, with the possible exception of my arrival to Gastons in 06, which was on the long side, though I was certainly more pleased with some than with others.

When I got my Pitts, I had a couple hundred hours in a Citabria, which of course is a rather docile taildragger. I successfully transitioned to the Pitts in three flights, the third of which included some landings on a runway with very nasty crosswinds. And anyone who has flown with me will testify that, while reasonably competent, I'm not all that hot a stick. A lot of the Pitts "learning to land" experience involves the ability to throw away your existing pattern habits in order to deal with the lack of forward visibility. (I found that controller-demanded long finals made for the most difficult landings. The best way to do them is a continual arc from downwind abeam the numbers to the threshold.) Additionally, finding the right transition teacher is important. I was fortunate to get Keoki Gray to teach me.

Most of my original taildragger experience was in a Starduster Too, with similar landing (and forward visibility) characteristics of a Pitts S-2. I think it took me about 5 hours and about 50 landings before I felt comfortable landing it on my own. And I agree that overcontrol and it's cousin delayed reaction (aka lack of recognition and anticipation) are the issues to overcome when learning to land a taildragger. That you and I have been able to tame the tailwheel beast without breaking any airplanes is proof that most any pilot can learn to land one.

 

[AcroBoy]

If you're going to learn acro, the first thing would probably be to get some time in a tailwheel plane, which can be enough of a challenge. Then, try sitting in the back of a Citabria or Decathlon to get a better feel for the view of a biplane.

The Extra I am fortunate to fly is not that hard to land, but I transitioned after around 400 hours in the Decathlon. There are also three people I have seen who tried to get into a Pitts, Extra, or Su-29 and damaged them after only a few hours or during their training, since the speed and lack of view make them more difficult to land.

Again, an experienced instructor can make all the difference.

 

[dlawr]

Skybolt?

Try a Hatz....5 pos. 3 neg. 6 gal. hr. lands at 55. Good for sportsman acro.

 

[Henning]

Go for the Pitts, they aren't that bloody difficult. They are short coupled and you do have to stay with it, but that's pretty much going to be the same for any good aerobatic plane beyond the introductory ones.

Personally having worked biplanes, I am not particularly a fan. They have all the visibility restrictions of a low wing and a high wing with none of the benefits of either, plus you have a lot of extra drag from the struts and flying wires. The only advantage the Ag Cat had was if you went into a rice paddy, the top wing would keep you from drowning. There is a reason that BiPlanes went the way of the DoDo....

 

[Ken Ibold]

Go for the Pitts, they aren't that bloody difficult. They are short coupled and you do have to stay with it, but that's pretty much going to be the same for any good aerobatic plane beyond the introductory ones.

Personally having worked biplanes, I am not particularly a fan. They have all the visibility restrictions of a low wing and a high wing with none of the benefits of either, plus you have a lot of extra drag from the struts and flying wires. The only advantage the Ag Cat had was if you went into a rice paddy, the top wing would keep you from drowning. There is a reason that BiPlanes went the way of the DoDo....

But Henning, they LOOK so damn cool!!

 

[PittsDriver]

Hennings right that there's a mythology surrounding how tough it is to tame a Pitts. It's the most honest, responsive airplane you'll ever fly and with some training by a competent instructor you'll be comfortable in it in no time. The first tailwheel airplane I ever flew was a Pitts S-2C and owned one with about 30 hours tailwheel time total.

It would be wrong to say that they went the way of the Dodo - it's far and away the most popular bird you'll see on the ramp during any aerobatic contest with Extra's and the other monoplanes in a distant minority. It's because they make such a forgiving, well understood, and robust trainer. You can compete up through Intermediate in an S-1S and win - my hangar pal does it all the time competing against people that fly Extra's in air shows. That's a $30 - 35K airplane.

And, to another point - in acro, drag is your friend. That's why you don't see so many RV-whatevers at aerobatic contests. They're just too slippery to get slowed down. If I need to put a 4 point roll on a vertical down line or spin without climbing or ending up in the next county instead of in front of the judges, I need a plane that I have speed control over, not cruise speed. Having said that, my AEIO-540 equipped S-2C on economy cruise (23 squared) gets 135 kts on 14.5 g/h on a XC.

Henning has a point about the visibility though. It'll never be what you can get in a monoplane but here's a video of me flying an aerobatic sequence over the contest box at Warrenton VA and I'm using a Contour HD camera attached to my hat. You're basically seeing what I see during the sequence. You can judge for yourself. I kinda like my view

http://vimeo.com/19529992

 

[Hiperbiper]

Beautiful vids Pittsdriver!

Chris

 

[flyersfan31]

Sloppy. Very sloppy.




Great video!!!!!

 

[whifferdill]

There is a reason that BiPlanes went the way of the DoDo....

If you look at the aerobatic homebuilt market, you'd think monoplanes went the way of the dodo...or at least there was never much genesis. I only know of two currently-supported designs...the DR-107/109 and the Laser series sold by York Enterprises. And The DR-107 is a lead sled. Seems homebuilt (inexpensive) construction techniques don't lend themselves very well to building good stiff, strong, and lightweight monowings dedicated for acro. Look at all the supported (and very successful) bipe designs - Pitts S1, Model 11, 12, Eagle, Raven 2XS, Acroduster, Acrosport, Skybolt.

One nice visibility aspect of bipes is that that the top wing and cabanes give a good pitch reference when inverted.

My Pitts S-1S may never get me to Unlimited, but as far as just fartin' around fun flying, I'll take it over anything. I like the drag...makes it the most dramatically slipping airplane ever built. To me, doing pattern circuits is as much fun as acro.

 

[AcroBoy]

Drag may be good going down, but is not so good going up. Even with two aboard and on a hot day, a good monoplane can do six vertical rolls before running out of energy. The roll rate of most monoplanes is around four times greater, and the max g load is around four g greater for a good monoplane compared to a biplane. Still, a Pitts is a great plane that will provide a lot of fun, but I'm not so sure I would consider increased drag as an advantage in aerobatics.

 

[jesse]

Hennings right that there's a mythology surrounding how tough it is to tame a Pitts. It's the most honest, responsive airplane you'll ever fly and with some training by a competent instructor you'll be comfortable in it in no time. The first tailwheel airplane I ever flew was a Pitts S-2C and owned one with about 30 hours tailwheel time total.

It would be wrong to say that they went the way of the Dodo - it's far and away the most popular bird you'll see on the ramp during any aerobatic contest with Extra's and the other monoplanes in a distant minority. It's because they make such a forgiving, well understood, and robust trainer. You can compete up through Intermediate in an S-1S and win - my hangar pal does it all the time competing against people that fly Extra's in air shows. That's a $30 - 35K airplane.

And, to another point - in acro, drag is your friend. That's why you don't see so many RV-whatevers at aerobatic contests. They're just too slippery to get slowed down. If I need to put a 4 point roll on a vertical down line or spin without climbing or ending up in the next county instead of in front of the judges, I need a plane that I have speed control over, not cruise speed. Having said that, my AEIO-540 equipped S-2C on economy cruise (23 squared) gets 135 kts on 14.5 g/h on a XC.

Henning has a point about the visibility though. It'll never be what you can get in a monoplane but here's a video of me flying an aerobatic sequence over the contest box at Warrenton VA and I'm using a Contour HD camera attached to my hat. You're basically seeing what I see during the sequence. You can judge for yourself. I kinda like my view

http://vimeo.com/19529992

That looks like a lot of damn fun. Nice flying.

 

[Henning]

If you look at the aerobatic homebuilt market, you'd think monoplanes went the way of the dodo...or at least there was never much genesis. I only know of two currently-supported designs...the DR-107/109 and the Laser series sold by York Enterprises. And The DR-107 is a lead sled. Seems homebuilt (inexpensive) construction techniques don't lend themselves very well to building good stiff, strong, and lightweight monowings dedicated for acro. Look at all the supported (and very successful) bipe designs - Pitts S1, Model 11, 12, Eagle, Raven 2XS, Acroduster, Acrosport, Skybolt.

Right, but that speaks more to the ability and equipment of the average builder than the ultimate ability of design. How many unlimited competition aerobatic pilots are winning with biplanes? Why did the military and commercial flying services give up on biplanes (outside the AN-2) before WWII?

 

[Arbiter419]

Hennings right that there's a mythology surrounding how tough it is to tame a Pitts. It's the most honest, responsive airplane you'll ever fly and with some training by a competent instructor you'll be comfortable in it in no time. The first tailwheel airplane I ever flew was a Pitts S-2C and owned one with about 30 hours tailwheel time total.

It would be wrong to say that they went the way of the Dodo - it's far and away the most popular bird you'll see on the ramp during any aerobatic contest with Extra's and the other monoplanes in a distant minority. It's because they make such a forgiving, well understood, and robust trainer. You can compete up through Intermediate in an S-1S and win - my hangar pal does it all the time competing against people that fly Extra's in air shows. That's a $30 - 35K airplane.

And, to another point - in acro, drag is your friend. That's why you don't see so many RV-whatevers at aerobatic contests. They're just too slippery to get slowed down. If I need to put a 4 point roll on a vertical down line or spin without climbing or ending up in the next county instead of in front of the judges, I need a plane that I have speed control over, not cruise speed. Having said that, my AEIO-540 equipped S-2C on economy cruise (23 squared) gets 135 kts on 14.5 g/h on a XC.

Henning has a point about the visibility though. It'll never be what you can get in a monoplane but here's a video of me flying an aerobatic sequence over the contest box at Warrenton VA and I'm using a Contour HD camera attached to my hat. You're basically seeing what I see during the sequence. You can judge for yourself. I kinda like my view

http://vimeo.com/19529992

Those were great videos (watched all 3!), I'd love so much to ride along front seat for all of that! Maybe if I spend enough time bumming around airports, I'll get some acro time in

Looking forward to more videos!

 

[whifferdill]

Even with two aboard and on a hot day, a good monoplane can do six vertical rolls before running out of energy.

Nobody ever said a biplane will outperform a monoplane. Anyway, we have pretty much reached the limit of useful roll rate and vertical penetration. Who cares if a plane can do 20 vertical rolls? You're gonna be outta sight. And any more roll rate is just a blur from outside and inside the cockpit, and is too hard to precisely control. But anyway, a Pitts is more airplane than 99% of pilots will ever be. Fly what floats your boat.

The roll rate of most monoplanes is around four times greater.

Not sure where you're getting your numbers, but a Pitts S-1S rolls around 180 deg/sec, an S-2C around 240, and a model 11 over 300. The top monoplanes roll in the 420 deg/sec range. I'm not aware of anything that rolls 800 deg/sec.

but I'm not so sure I would consider increased drag as an advantage in aerobatics.

It depends on the airplane, its power-to weight ratio, and Vne. A very high powered airplane with a relatively low G limit and Vne can very much benefit from drag going down, especially if it has a slow roll rate. Most of the clean aerobatic monoplanes have higher stress ratings than the bipes because they NEED to. The clean nature of the plane has the potential for high speed build up. The only way to keep the speed from getting out of hand is to load the airplane with G's. The higher your speed, the more you must load the airplane to produce induced drag that keeps speed in check pulling out of a vertical downline.

And BTW, the aerobatic monoplanes are not as clean and efficient as they look. Sure, they are not loaded with flying wires and struts associated with high parasite drag, but they have very thick, blunt, inefficient airfoils, and some produce a lot of induced drag (different from parasite drag) under load. The monoplane's advantage occurs when it is drawing a non-loaded line.

Right, but that speaks more to the ability and equipment of the average builder than the ultimate ability of design. How many unlimited competition aerobatic pilots are winning with biplanes? Why did the military and commercial flying services give up on biplanes (outside the AN-2) before WWII?

No disagreement, just saying bipes still have their place for good reason. I know of an Unlimited Pitts pilot who beats the monoplanes more times than not. But he is an anomaly...most folks don't want to work that hard. Skill might have a wee bit to do with it too.

 

[PittsDriver]

You can get a sense of the trade-offs in design by comparing the newest aircraft in the Extra stable, the 330LT. They basically took the design that won the worlds last year and changed the airfoil to make it a faster XC machine. They market the 330LT as the fastest single engine normally aspirated certified airplane on the market at 205 kts. It's a damn nice airplane no doubt but even Extra would admit the changes to the airfoil and ailerons mean that it'll be way less competitive in the box - one article on it said up it would be competitive up through Intermediate maybe but more likely will see use from well monied pilots in Sportsman. The LT is less than 300 /sec roll rate.

There's no competition sequence that'll ever include more than 720 degrees (2 rolls) on a line, vertical or otherwise so 6 rolls on an up line while impressive means less to the competition pilot. The Unlimited pilot referred to competes in an S-2B and consistently beats an Edge 540 and the like in regionals competitions. He's working harder and flying better to do it but he's doing it. So clearly, roll rate and ultimate G limits are not the key factors.

In the final analysis, it comes down to how much airplane can you make effective use of and most aerobatic pilots feel that a Pitts fits that bill through performance and robust, well understood characteristics. Whifferdill was kicking my tail last year in Intermediate flying an S-1S and that's an airplane that, if you can afford an airplane at all, you can afford that one.

 

[d.grimm]

A Great Lakes is docile and fun to fly around on a nice evening.
A Stearman is lots of fun also, but requires some help moving it on
the ground. Hatz has all the Experimental advantages.
I guess you have decide the level of your aerobatic needs vs
out putting around giving rides.
Dave

 

[jesse]

A Stearman is lots of fun also, but requires some help moving it on
the ground.

I guess I've never tried but my Dad always moved the Stearman in and out of the hangars by hand himself. How bad could it be?

 

[Diana]

Here's an interesting biplane that I competed against in Kansas City. He's competing in Sportsman now.

 

[tonycondon]

I guess I've never tried but my Dad always moved the Stearman in and out of the hangars by hand himself. How bad could it be?

starting up and taxiing out of the hangar doesnt count

 

[jesse]

starting up and taxiing out of the hangar doesnt count

lol. They never did that. He'd pull it out by hand. Prop start it. And go flying. Afterwords he'd push it back in.

Looking back..Maybe he was proud of his ability to pull it around by hand:

 

[steingar]

If I wasn't competing or anything I'd go buy an RV. They'll happily to all that stuff, and you can finish off by doing a burger run a couple states away. Sweet airplanes.

 

[AcroBoy]

There is no argument on my part that the Pitts' are great airplanes. However, there is no comparison in performance between an Edge, Su29, Extra, and a Pitts. Likewise, the same arguments could be used for a Super Decathlon versus a Pitts in intermediate. It can be done, but becomes much harder.Given the same skill level and ability and enough practice, it is easier to do better in a monoplane because it simply takes less work to fly a given sequence.

 

[Arbiter419]

Here's an interesting biplane that I competed against in Kansas City. He's competing in Sportsman now.

Looks like fun!

 

[whifferdill]

Unlimited in a Pitts. Some of you may find this interesting. I don't guess Rob will mind a reprint of this great article he wrote for our chapter newsletter a few years back. Rob has of course further improved his flying since...which makes most of us sick. But we're glad he's around to watch. - Eric

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Recently I have been asked how Unlimited can be flown, and even won, in a Pitts S-2B? To this I offer, “I just arrive at the contest and hope to fly all of the figures.” While I say this as a joke, I am also serious. There are many allowable unlimited figures that simply are not flyable in the Pitts. This year the known is flyable; the pilot has control over the free so that should be flyable and I just cross my fingers on the unknown. As far as winning goes, a little luck and the fact that only the known was flown at Farmville helps; I look at it as simply winning a flight. OK, luck is nice, but the figures still need to be flown, so for the interested lets work our way through the 2006 Unlimited Known. I will share some of my thoughts and challenges I faced when learning the sequence, some of which I have been able to improve upon over the contest season.

Rule #1 – START HIGH!!!

Figure 1 – The first figure is always the easiest to manage from an energy standpoint and the objective here is to place oneself in the right spot at VNE. Then it’s a simple 2-point roll and the start of a regular loop. This loop needs to be tight enough so that you still have some energy left at the top for the snap roll and to round out the loop after the snap. I found that doing the first roll slowly allowed me to just pass the top of the loop before starting the snap while keeping the rolls centered. Note: just the start of the first roll and end of the second roll need to be symmetric, not the gap between rolls. As a new comer to outside snaps, I found it much easier to perform the snap as the plane was descending. Once completed, its time for the vertical line. This needs to be long enough so that there is lots of energy for figure two so DIVE…remember, we started HIGH.

Figure 2 – This is the first real energy critical figure in the Pitts. It is important that figure 1 was placed correctly because there is no time to “drive” between figures, as the speed will bleed quickly. The first half of this figure is a “just get through it” event with a pull to vertical, just enough line so the judges can see it and a QUICK 4 of 8. Unfortunately, the Pitts really suffers on the vertical lines and the points on these rolls can’t follow the age old rule of pausing for the same amount of time it took for the roll, there just isn’t enough time. I hit the points quickly and pause just long enough so that the judges can count them! Once completed draw another short line and push to the 45 down as you run out of energy. The snap on the 45 down line is almost relaxing (can I say that about competition aerobatics?) and care can be taken to place the snap on the center of the line. I count until I hit 120 mph for the snap and then make the next line equal length. Again, a bunch of speed will be needed for the next figure so the 45 line needs to be as long as possible and there is little time for positioning between figures.

Figure 3 – The classic pull-push-pull. Much like the vertical on figure 2, the lines must be short and the pauses in the 3 of 4 as short as possible…I am not worrying about high scores, just getting through. If it’s done quickly, there will be just enough energy to push over the top, albeit with a very small radius. Set the down line (the Pitts loves down lines), snap at 110 mph, draw the second line and pull out. Incidentally, the ¾ outside snap on this figure has become my favorite element. I think its because when you pitch the nose away from you during the snap you have a clear view of the center of rotation of the roll, which is hidden by the cowl in a positive snap. This combined with the quick start and stop of the snap make a very pleasing and precise feeling maneuver.

Figure 4 – Snap on the vertical line. This is another energy critical figure but, unlike the previous figures, can’t be solved by simply entering at VNE with you hair on fire (maybe that is what happened to my hair?). In this figure I set the vertical line and wait for 140 mph (the maximum snap speed) before performing the roll. By doing this I am actually slightly below 140 mph when I actually snap…a good thing. Because of this, the line after the roll is set by the energy that is left after the snap and can’t be drawn equal to the first line if the figure is entered at max speed. As such, I use the line between figures 3 and 4 for box positioning. Oh, I have only managed to ‘fly” off the top of this figure now the weather has cooled off. It is usually an exercise in flying with the wing stalled.

Figure 5 – The spin. Nothing to magical about this figure except to make sure the spin and roll are in the same direction (but this was determined on the ground… I use right rudder and left roll). Then I draw a long line and make a fairly large ¾ loop so I have enough energy to perform the ½ snap at the top followed by the 1 ½ roll. If you haven’t tried a long roll at slow speed its worth trying. As the plane accelerates, the roll rate will increase significantly. As such, it is important to reduce the aileron input to keep the roll rate constant…hopefully, keeping the judges happy in the process.

Figure 6 – Inside-outside-inside rolling turn. Truthfully, I haven’t really figured these out. They feel much less precise and satisfying than an inside or outside roller.

Figure 7 – OK, now a push-pull-pull humpty with a ¾ roll up. This figure is a real problem in the “B” as the looping segment to vertical is larger (it’s a push) so there is less speed for the line and roll. To add to this, the figure is entered from a “flat” figure (the roller) so it is not possible to enter at very high speed. Once the line is set (I hope the judges saw that) its full roll rate, stop after ¾ and “set” the top line before the pull. These are the shortest lines I fly in the known. Then it’s just a matter of setting the down line, centering the roll and exiting.

Figure 8 – Much like figure 4 (full snap on the vertical), figure 8 has an energy-roll centering problem, as the maximum outside snap speed is 110 mph. Another problem with this figure is that the B likes to be much “deeper” (high angle of attack) in outside snaps, which kills energy. This creates a problem, as there is not much airspeed left that can be used to stop the roll. I have had the most luck by waiting for the snap to “break” or start to roll and then almost immediately initiating the recovery. Once the snap is finished I relax a little and get set for the pivot in the hammer. Then its just a ¼ roll (the direction was determine on the ground) and opposite ½ roll.


Figure 9 – The loop and 8 point. Energy management is no longer a huge problem, so it’s all about making the loop round and centering the roll. The most difficult part of this figure is maintaining the looping segment during the roll and starting the roll so that it is half completed at the top of the loop. The bottom line is that the Pitts S-2B is pretty limited in vertical performance, so the sequence is an exercise in maintaining high airspeed without using too much altitude. Two words come to mind “Start High”, oh, and have fun! Rob Bond

 

[PittsDriver]

Rob's one of the nicest and best guys in competition acro and seeing him at the Mason/Dixon Clash is one the reasons I like that contest so much. In the 6 or so years that I've been coming to the Clash he's been consistently kickin' monoplane empennage - in a "B" no less. Kinda leaves me feeling whimpy that I fly a Charlie and get whooped by Whiff in his S1. Competition acro definitely bares out the aphorism that it's the indian, not the arrow, that counts.

 

[Inverted]

Drag may be good going down, but is not so good going up. Even with two aboard and on a hot day, a good monoplane can do six vertical rolls before running out of energy. The roll rate of most monoplanes is around four times greater, and the max g load is around four g greater for a good monoplane compared to a biplane. Still, a Pitts is a great plane that will provide a lot of fun, but I'm not so sure I would consider increased drag as an advantage in aerobatics.

You have no idea what you are talking about. A Pitts doesn't quite have the vertical penetration that an extra might but it's not far off. And they have nowhere near 4 times the roll rate. Extra's claim 400 degrees per sec, the Pitts is about 260.

If you want to talk certified to certified the Extra 200 has the same G loading as the Pitts S2c when both seats are filled. Extra 300 dual is +8. Plus in competition you don't need to pull 10 G's so arguing about the difference in G loading is moot. I can do 6 vertical rolls in the Pitts and get about 1300 feet of vertical penetration.

 

[AcroBoy]

I stand corrected, but again, the roll rate of a high performance monoplane, the vertical performance (even as stated in the cited article), and the presentation of a monoplane, are an advantage over a biplane. I doubt an S2C will do six vertical rolls from a max G pull with two aboard. At the highest levels (not entirely the topic here) when was the last time a biplane won the world championships? Again, I think the Pitts are great airplanes, but they do not have the same performance as a monoplane. Haves you seen a Super Decathlon flown competitively at intermediate, or a Hyperbipe or Stearman at Sportsman but to be competitive it took an exceptional amount of skill, and often pilots with lesser skill but a higher performance airplane did better.

The OP asked about a great biplane that he could also use for cross country and gentle aerobatics, and a Stearman would be a great choice for this.

 

[whifferdill]

Haves you seen a Super Decathlon flown competitively at intermediate, or a Hyperbipe or Stearman at Sportsman...

Absolutely about the Super D in Intermediate and Stearman in Sportsman. Quick google search: You might find some of these interesting. How about that Piper Cub winning Sportsman?

www.usnationalaerobatics.org/IAC/IAC_ContestResults.asp?ContestID=290

http://members.iac.org/contestresults/chapter/results_100501_west_hampton.html

www.usnationalaerobatics.org/IAC/IAC_ContestResults.asp?ContestID=223

http://members.iac.org/contestresults/2002/08_21_02%20-%20PENDLETON%20IAC%20AEROBATIC%20CONTEST%20-%20Pendleton,%20OR.html

...but to be competitive it took an exceptional amount of skill, and often pilots with lesser skill but a higher performance airplane did better.

Sounds like you have no experience with competition acro. Here's what gains you maximum points in contest flying - accurately setting 45 degree and vertical lines, roundness of looping maneuvers, stopping your spins precisely on heading, centering your rolls on a line, rolling the airplane without deviating from altitude/heading, precise rudder timing for hammerheads, precise hesitations on point rolls, no attitude deviation before/after rolls, clean and well-timed snap rolls, non-barreled rolls, staying on heading, staying in the box, and good positioning in the box.

Aircraft performance alone doesn't help much with any of this. Obviously the higher categories contain figures that certain airplanes cannot fly. That is why you don't see a Super D in Advanced or Unlimited. It takes the same amount of skill to fly a good Intermediate sequence in a Pitts as it does in a Super D. But in each type, you must know how to fly your airplane. Put a consistently winning Pitts pilot in a Super D, give them time to learn the airplane, and guess what - they'd be winning in that too. The Super D might just have to be flown closer to its performance limits than a Pitts. For the competition pilot, this mostly means proper airspeed entry, and proper G-pull. Different types of airplanes require different planning.

The main reason you don't see a lot of unusually low-performing airplanes in any particular category is that most folks who are seriously into competition don't want to be held back. Most want an airplane that can take them into the upper categories even if they are relatively new, and still flying the lower categories. Regarding the Super D specifically, years back it was pretty common to see them in Intermediate. But now, you see very few flying above Sportsman not so much because of its performance, but because of potential wing/fuel tank damage resulting from repeated snap rolls. Some pilots would also wear them out trying to make figures PRESENT similar to the higher performing ships by overstressing and/or overspeeding the airplane, whether it was technically necessary or not.

This brings us to a reason why a lower-performing airplane MIGHT not score as well as a higher-performing airplane in the same hands...but it's not due to aircraft performance. It's because the judges may perceive the higher-performing airplane to LOOK better, even though by strict application of the judging criteria, the flights were similar. Different airplanes present very differently, and it can sometimes be hard for judges to take this into consideration. This is not true of all airplanes and all judges, since as you can see from various contest results, there's not exactly a pattern...like the Stearman two places down from a Sukhoi 29. But in my experience, the pilot who flies the best during a contest is the one that wins, regardless of type flown.

I think the Pitts are great airplanes, but they do not have the same performance as a monoplane.

Not sure why you're arguing that point. Nobody has ever said otherwise...at least in the context of top biplanes vs. top monoplanes.

 

[Inverted]

Acroboy,

Yes we compete intermediate in our Super D. It does ok but we go through fuel tanks like oil changes because of the snap rolls.

As to lesser skill pilots in higher performing airplanes winning competitions. I suggest you attend a competition. It is the exact opposite. I see more people competing in sportsman with a 540 or 300, in hopes that the airplane will fly the competition for them. It is not the case. Vertical penetration is not scored in competition, although it looks cool at an airshow, the wow factor of a higher performance monoplane is not enough to score higher in competition. In fact I find the S2c a boatload easier to fly than the 300.

 

[Inverted]

I doubt an S2C will do six vertical rolls from a max G pull with two aboard. At the highest levels (not entirely the topic here) when was the last time a biplane won the world championships?

There is no need to do a max G pull, I don't understand why you think people are doing 10 G entries to maneuvers in competition. You have to understand there is a balance between how much G you pull into the maneuver and how much energy you lose from doing so.

In unlimited and free I am sure people are pulling higher G's than lower classes, but the last time I pulled more than 5 G's in competition was when I was about to bust the box.

I am willing to bet the last time a biplane one worlds was when one competed. You wont see a factory certified Pitts win a world championship, but you put in a modified Pitts and it would have a fighting chance, why wouldn't it?

 

[AcroBoy]

I never said you need 10 g in a competition, but even the lengthy quote from the Pitts flying in the upper levels acknowledges that it is harder to fly than an unlimited level biplane- it takes more skill to do the same, no argument there. The Pitts and Extra 300l have not been competitive at the world level for years.

 

[PittsDriver]

I never said you need 10 g in a competition, but even the lengthy quote from the Pitts flying in the upper levels acknowledges that it is harder to fly than an unlimited level biplane- it takes more skill to do the same, no argument there. The Pitts and Extra 300l have not been competitive at the world level for years.

The planes that the unlimited pilots are flying in world competitions would actually be harder for the novice to fly well in the lower categories or even in recreational acro. There's no way for someone of mere mortal skills to make any effective use of the roll rate or vertical or horsepower or G capability of those aircraft and what it would come down to is that they're too fast to stay mentally ahead of and it would likely be enough airplane to put the casual acro pilot into the hurt locker.

I'll say it again, the Pitts of just about any model is a very predictable, forgiving, and very well understood aerobatic performer and trainer. I personally think it's the best but there are others that could make a good case that a 300L would be too. The difference in a 300L and an S-2C, in reality for the average skilled pilot, is quite nuanced.

 

[B2Soar]

My Pitts S-1S may never get me to Unlimited, but as far as just fartin' around fun flying, I'll take it over anything. I like the drag...makes it the most dramatically slipping airplane ever built. To me, doing pattern circuits is as much fun as acro.

Eric, does your Pitts have spring gear? Fly off a grass field? My S-1 has bungy gear and I fly off pavement. The bungys are very tight! So far the gear could just as well be welded. I do not want to be in there when the bungys come off the stops.

Rick