Dreaming of a "toy" plane...

flyingcheesehead

flyingcheesehead

Touchdown! Greaser!
Joined
Feb 23, 2005
Messages
24,256
Location
UQACY, WI
Display Name
Display name:
iMooniac
I'm always dreaming of my next dose of Vitamin G, and I hope to be able to own an aerobatic plane someday.

I was digging around looking at various Pitts' and Extras, and found a few:

1985 Pitts S2B $70,000
1992 Pitts S2B $86,750
2002 Pitts S2C $169,000 with 5-camera video system built in... Very nice.
1997 Extra 200 $150,000
Found a 1998 Extra 200 with glider towhook for 125,000 Euros plus tax. Insert pic of Tony drooling here. :rolleyes:
1998 Extra 300L $225,000 with removable electric gyros
1997 Extra 300L $229,000 with GPS, smoke, and "Barret engine."

Of course, I really don't know much about these planes. I'm not likely to be insurable in any of 'em... So, what's a good plane to get into acro and build tailwheel time? I know I'll hear lots of "Citabria" and "Super D" but I'm curious if there are any other options.

What's there to watch out for on these planes? What the heck is a "Barret engine?" Is an Extra any more comfortable than a Pitts on a cross-country flight? (Sorry Ken. :D) Where can I go to learn more?

FWIW, I just bought Kershner's basic aerobatics book.
 
I'm gonna build my own. 2 spars. +/- 50 G. LOL
 
EdFred said:
I'm gonna build my own. 2 spars. +/- 50 G. LOL
Click to expand...
I'll pay a dollar to watch you flight test it. :D


Kent, be cheesy and get the one with all the cameras. There won't ever be a flight without video of a smile....

and evidence. :D
 
I'm kinda' bias...
A Hiperbipe will do whatever an 200HP Pitts will do and is fast and comfy on a cross country 3.5 hrs(w/reserve) @ 145 knots.
They come up for sale from time to time. $30,000.00-$50,000.00.
Landing ranks right between a Citiabra and a Pitts

Yes; she has "Experimental" tattooed on her hide but to me, that a BIG plus!:yes:

A Barrett Engine comes from the shop of Monty Barrett. Well built Hot Rod motors for sure!

No; an Extra isn't any more comfortable on a CC than a Pitts...

If that Pitts has 5 camaras in it I'd bet it's been used to Video "Thrill Rides"...
Probably been barfed in more often than Paris Hiltons car...

Chris
 

Attachments

  • MVC-002F.JPG
    MVC-002F.JPG
    60.3 KB · Views: 73
  • MVC-005F.JPG
    MVC-005F.JPG
    67.9 KB · Views: 60
What about the Harmon F1 Rocket or RV-8 equivalent?
 
flyingcheesehead said:
I'm always dreaming of my next dose of Vitamin G, and I hope to be able to own an aerobatic plane someday.

I was digging around looking at various Pitts' and Extras, and found a few:

1985 Pitts S2B $70,000
1992 Pitts S2B $86,750
2002 Pitts S2C $169,000 with 5-camera video system built in... Very nice.
1997 Extra 200 $150,000
Found a 1998 Extra 200 with glider towhook for 125,000 Euros plus tax. Insert pic of Tony drooling here. :rolleyes:
1998 Extra 300L $225,000 with removable electric gyros
1997 Extra 300L $229,000 with GPS, smoke, and "Barret engine."

Of course, I really don't know much about these planes. I'm not likely to be insurable in any of 'em... So, what's a good plane to get into acro and build tailwheel time? I know I'll hear lots of "Citabria" and "Super D" but I'm curious if there are any other options.

What's there to watch out for on these planes? What the heck is a "Barret engine?" Is an Extra any more comfortable than a Pitts on a cross-country flight? (Sorry Ken. :D) Where can I go to learn more?

FWIW, I just bought Kershner's basic aerobatics book.
Click to expand...
Kent, define what you want to get out of your aerobatics. "Gentleman's" aerobatics? Competition? World-class eat-em-up? As a general rule, the more extreme the aerobatics, the more specialized the airplane and therefore the worse it is for other things.

And, by the way, the comfort factor for X-Cs has little to do with seating postion or anything like that. Better aerobatics require less stability designed into it, and so you get very fatigued flying an airplane that goes into a 60 degree bank when you look down for 2 seconds to find a water bottle. You have to be on top of the airplane literally every second of every minute of every hour.
 
Hiperbiper said:
I'm kinda' bias...
A Hiperbipe will do whatever an 200HP Pitts will do and is fast and comfy on a cross country 3.5 hrs(w/reserve) @ 145 knots.
Click to expand...
I've heard great things about a Hiperbipe, but don't you sit off the center line in one? You'd need to decide if that's a problem for you. I don't know how difficult it would be to get used to.

Hiperbiper said:
No; an Extra isn't any more comfortable on a CC than a Pitts...
Click to expand...
That's not my experience comparing a Pitts S2A and an Extra 300L. The back seat of an Extra 300 is much, much, much more comfortable than the back seat of a Pitts on cross country flights (IMHO).

Patch said:
What about the Harmon F1 Rocket or RV-8 equivalent?
Click to expand...
You're probably going to pay more for a good RV8 or Rocket than you would for a good S2B. Just as a point of clerification... There is a Harmon Rocket and an F1 Rocket. John Harmon sells components that turn one of Van's airplanes into a Harmon Rocket. Mark sells complete kits for the F1, no Van's material required. And the Rockets aren't especially good acro airplanes in my opinion. They pick up speed really, really quickly, so down lines are difficult.

Ken Ibold said:
And, by the way, the comfort factor for X-Cs has little to do with seating postion or anything like that. Better aerobatics require less stability designed into it, and so you get very fatigued flying an airplane that goes into a 60 degree bank when you look down for 2 seconds to find a water bottle. You have to be on top of the airplane literally every second of every minute of every hour.
Click to expand...
That was true in the Extra but it wasn't a difficult airplane to fly x-country. It was difficult to fly and do anything else however - like read a sectional, enter a frequency, etc. The Pitts was worse because I think the seating position is much more uncomforrtable than the back seat of an Extra.

There's also a size factor to consider (Kent isn't a little guy). I would rule out the Extra 200 immediately. Most people consider it an answer to a question nobody asked. The single hole Pitts probably won't fit either. Based on what Kent and I have discussed, I'd say the 'perfect' airplane for Kent might be a Sukhoi 29. Bring lots of oil and cash.

In general, the cost of playing goes up when you add the second seat, so you need to make sure that's important to you. Your airplane cost will generally be higher, therefore you hull insurance will be higher. Liability insurance will be higher with the extra seat. We can visit about it at Gaston's if you like. There are lots of choices based, as Ken says, on what you really want to do with the airplane.
 
Ken Ibold said:
Kent, define what you want to get out of your aerobatics. "Gentleman's" aerobatics? Competition? World-class eat-em-up?
Click to expand...

I dunno. The more capable the better I guess... I got addicted in Chip's Extra, so of course that's what I really want. :yes: They tend to be a bit on the expensive side tho, so the Pitts might be better there.

I'm mostly interested in what steps to take to get TO the Extra/Pitts level. A "Starter" aerobatic plane if you will. Something to play around with and learn in so that when I'm able to buy a screamer I can get insurance in it.

I'm also interested in learning more about the Pitts/Extra class planes, as I really don't know much about 'em.

And, by the way, the comfort factor for X-Cs has little to do with seating postion or anything like that. Better aerobatics require less stability designed into it, and so you get very fatigued flying an airplane that goes into a 60 degree bank when you look down for 2 seconds to find a water bottle. You have to be on top of the airplane literally every second of every minute of every hour.
Click to expand...

I don't have a problem with the stability factor, I just want to know which planes feel like you're sitting on a board and which planes have more comfy seats. Seating comfort will make a difference in the ability to concentrate as well. Plus, like Chip said, I'm a big dude. 6'4" can be somewhat limiting. (No Cri Cri for me. :() Even getting in and out of the front seat of the Extra was a bit interesting when it came time to get the knees under the panel...
 
gibbons said:
I would rule out the Extra 200 immediately. Most people consider it an answer to a question nobody asked.
Click to expand...

It's the same as the 300 but with only 200 hp right? Not quite as fun, but probably plenty for me to start out with. I'd think that it would be a bit cheaper to operate, but a bit hard to sell.

Based on what Kent and I have discussed, I'd say the 'perfect' airplane for Kent might be a Sukhoi 29. Bring lots of oil and cash.
Click to expand...

Hmmmm, very interesting. I'm gonna have to read up on that some more.

In general, the cost of playing goes up when you add the second seat, so you need to make sure that's important to you.
Click to expand...

Yup. Gotta share the joy. :yes:

One other thing I should have mentioned - I'm really not interested in an experimental. I'm sure some will roast me for that, but I know I don't even trust myself to build one well enough to withstand the beating I'd give it, so I damn sure don't trust anyone else either. :no:
 
Last edited:
flyingcheesehead said:
I don't have a problem with the stability factor, I just want to know which planes feel like you're sitting on a board and which planes have more comfy seats. Seating comfort will make a difference in the ability to concentrate as well. Plus, like Chip said, I'm a big dude. 6'4" can be somewhat limiting. (No Cri Cri for me. :() Even getting in and out of the front seat of the Extra was a bit interesting when it came time to get the knees under the panel...
Click to expand...
In my Pitts, I added Oregon Aero seat and back cushions in the back seat. That made a HUGE difference and was $150 well spent. Without a chute, you sit very deep in the Pitts, and eventually for non acro flight I settled on 2 folded towels, then the stock cushion, then the 2" oregon aero cushion. With a Strong seat pack, I'd leave the towels out and sometimes the stock cushion, depending on how tall I felt that day. (5'11 on a normal day.) Shoulder room once you get in is no problem. The back seat of a Pitts 2 holer is FAR roomier than the front.

I like the Extra a whole lot, unfortunately spending that much on a toy airplane would have been impossible, even if I somehow deluded myself into thinking it was worth it. Pitts is great bang for the buck. See the redboard discussioin Pitts Advice for more details on this unique airplane.
 
gibbons said:
You're probably going to pay more for a good RV8 or Rocket than you would for a good S2B.
Click to expand...

True, but it's a little below the Extra price range, no? The RV-8 rocket equivalent (whatever it's called) would be a nice X-C machine with aerobatic capabilities.

Just as a point of clerification... There is a Harmon Rocket and an F1 Rocket. John Harmon sells components that turn one of Van's airplanes into a Harmon Rocket. Mark sells complete kits for the F1, no Van's material required. And the Rockets aren't especially good acro airplanes in my opinion. They pick up speed really, really quickly, so down lines are difficult.
Click to expand...

Copy all.
 
AztecWannabe said:
My next toy will hopefully look something like this: http://www.orionite.com/yakforsale.html

What a blast to fly and built like a brick sh$& house.
Click to expand...

Bin-GO! From the top of this thread, I kept thinking "Yak 52". Yes, it is experimental. And a few things you need to be certain of, make sure you've got the FOD barrier (or get one). This prevents loose objects which don't belong in the cockpit of an aerobatic aircraft from jamming the controls (and causing bailout or DEATH). Another is the Spar upgrade (you want it).

Beyond that, they are inexpensive (relatively speaking) in the $50K to $70K range, very good performing and fully aerobatic (2 min. inverted also).

For XC, you're going to want extended fuel (stock is something like 2 hours!). If you really want the tailwheel too, and have a budget for it (around $125K), there is a "Western" version available with extended fuel, landing light, baggage compartment, tailwheel and an upgraded 400hp engine (stock is the bullet proof 360hp MP-14, same as the Sukhoi).

These things are Russian basic trainers. Virtually all their combat pilots start with these. They are tough as nails and quite reliable. Something to think about (and if I had the spare 70 grand, I'd hangar one in a heart beat!).
 
Last edited:
AztecWannabe said:
My next toy will hopefully look something like this: http://www.orionite.com/yakforsale.html

What a blast to fly and built like a brick sh$& house.
Click to expand...

T Bone said:
Bin-GO! From the top of this thread, I kept thinking "Yak 52". .... They are tough as nails and quite reliable. Something to think about (and if I had the spare 70 grand, I'd hanger one in a heart beat!).
Click to expand...

I was thinking the same. I've flown the Yak 52TW, the 450-HP tailwheel Yak 52. Loved it. Sweet handling qualities. Gotta love that engine sound too. Yes it's built strong... you realize that up close when you see how close together the rows of rivets are.

**reminds self to arrange a ride for Kent...**

yak52twhangar.jpeg
 
How is the YAK as a cross country machine? Speeds?
 
Out of the box, not great. As with any airplane, there are trade-offs and none can do everything well.

According to Wikipedia, the cruise is 128 Kts. But with the stock two hour fuel and no baggage area, it'd be a ***** to travel with (let's not forget it is classified in the "experimental-display" class). One could travel with it, but creativity would be in order.

You'd want the extended fuel, which would cut into the useful load (neighborhood of 640 lbs I think). And you'd want to add a baggage compartment.

Without mods, for travelling, you'd be better off to spend the extra 20 grand or so for the (similar in appearance) Nanchang CJ-6. It's a lower horsepower, yet faster (cruise 135 Kts) basic trainer from China (essentially their version of a Yak 18). It has the baggage area, carries more fuel and has a higher useful load (880 lbs). Tade offs with the Yak, it won't do all the outside maneuvers and I don't think it'll do 2 min. inverted like the Yak. And I don't think it is quite the "tank" the Yak is.

To travel with either then there'd be notification of the FFA that you planned to fly outside the 300 nm (think that's right, for some faster aircraft it's 600 nm) range from home, for some "organized training, fly in, air show or display". I think I got those buzzwords correct. Not sure what they'd constitute a "legal" definition for fly in or display, it seems to me, wherever you landed it'd be on display. Folks are gonna look (just not your run of the mill Cessna or Piper). Doubt they'd buy that. Now off to Gaston's (for example)? Seems proper enough to me ;).
 
Last edited:
YAK-52 Yeah, they're usually registed as Experimental Exhibition. Weirdest thing about them......add LEFT rudder on take off and climb. The prop spins counterclockwise (as seen from the cockpit).

Want a family cruiser (small family) still capable of aerobatics? http://www.russianaeros.com/yak18Tproduct.htm
 
Last edited:
I've flown both the CJ6 and Yak-52. The Yak is a bit more capable acro wise but still not in the Extra 300 class. The CJ has lots more range with standard fuel but there's a guy in WI that will add a "drop tank" that mounts below the fuselage for travelling and can be easily removed (on the ground) for acro. Even then the range isn't fantastic, just better than stock which is horrible. Visibility in the Yak-52 out of the rear cockpit (solo is from the front) is about as bad as it gets. You can't see out the front and you can't see out the sides much ahead of the wings. Both these planes have some very strange quirks. First everything except the instruments and radios is air powered. That includes the landing gear, the flaps, the brakes, and even the starter. And speaking of the brakes, they are operated by a hand brake that looks like it came off an old motorcycle with a valve connected to the rudder that splits the action between the left and right main wheel according to the position of the rudder pedals. The nosewheel is free-castoring and if cocked to one side, wants to stay there. Makes for some "interesting" moves when navigating around other planes on the ground. The trailing axle gear also likes to squat on one side if you brake too hard (easy to do) with the rudder on one side.

That said, both are very fun to fly and pretty responsive. The radial engines are very smooth, almost turbine like. They have a gear driven supercharger which boosts the power a bit but the MP falls off as you climb just like in a normally aspirated bird. The gauges in these planes are usually a mishmash of original Chinese, Russian, and American with some strange markings. The original tachs have two hands that work like the hands on an altimeter. IIRC the AI looks "upside down" too.

One thing's for certain, you'd better find a mechanic that's experienced with this type before getting into one, as your typical CPB (Cessna, Piper, Beech) shop will not have a clue how to maintain them.

And FWIW, I believe that the legal operating range limitations have been or are about to be lifted by the FAA on these kinds of experimentals. They've pretty much been ignored for the most part anyway IMO.
 
Some have said that the Sukhoi is more than a hand full and can be dangerous. I witnessed a Sukhoi go into a torque roll, fall out of it in an inverted flat spin. This professional aerobatic pilot was performing during an air show in Santa Fe New Mexico.... He recover only to spin it into the ground.

A good plane to do aerobatics is the Zlin 526F and other Zlins. They love flying right-side up or up-side down.
 
One other "toy" to consider is the Sai Marchetti SF-260. Fairly aerobatic yet also a decent cross country machine for two. Biggest drawback IMO is the side by side seating.
 
I always blanch at the idea of a toy airplane. If you are talking RC. I can buy that. If you are sitting in it. If it is in the sky, it is not a toy.

Of course, I really don't know much about these planes. I'm not likely to be insurable in any of 'em... So, what's a good plane to get into acro and build tailwheel time? I know I'll hear lots of "Citabria" and "Super D" but I'm curious if there are any other options.

It sounds like you are looking for a beginning airplane, for both tailwheel, and aerobatic.

If these two needs are accurate than you should be hearing a lot about the Super Decathlon. It is not sexy. It is a basic aerobatic tailwheel airplane, and it will teach you many things that you need to know. It will teach you well.

It is forgiving in places that count, but it asks enough to make you grow.
 
Welcome to PoA

Alan, welcome to PoA...it's nice to have you here. :) I enjoy reading your informative posts over on sp.com.
 
Two words -- Aerobatic Bonanza.

OK, not a taildragger. But the E33c and (I think there was an) F33c, built in limited numbers, are certified aerobatic. What more could you want? OK, so you won't be doing hammerhead stalls. I don't remember what the limitations are, probably only inside moves, no crazy stuff. If they're like the aerobatic Sundowner they're good for +6/-3. You can look at a sectional without entering an inadvertent 40 turn spin, too.
 
flyersfan31 said:
Two words -- Aerobatic Bonanza.
But the E33c and (I think there was an) F33c, built in limited numbers, are certified aerobatic. What more could you want? OK, so you won't be doing hammerhead stalls. I don't remember what the limitations are, probably only inside moves, no crazy stuff. If they're like the aerobatic Sundowner they're good for +6/-3.
Click to expand...
Here's a post by Stephen, who has one:
http://www.pilotsofamerica.com/forum/showpost.php?p=175710&postcount=42
 
Go get yerself a Rans S9 Chaos - Rans isn't selling the kits any more, but you can find 'em on barnstormers and such. :)
 
If you go for the Rans machine go for the S-10...it's a 2-place capable A/C for straight and level with the control stick between the two occupants but for acro (solo) you move to the center...
Sololy ( if that's a word) speaking; the S10 has a lighter wing loading and more Horsepressure for not much more money...

I personally think Randy made a LARGE Boo-Boo stopping production of the S-10 kits just when SP started to almost sorta' kinda' take off.

JMPO Chris in S'port
 
Last edited:
Yessir, the Sakota seems like a pretty neat plane - there is a difference in g-load limits. The Sakota is +4,-2 and the Chaos is +6, -4. So you can have a bit more fun in the Chaos. But I like that Sakota!! :D
 
Hiperbiper said:
If you go for the Rans machine go for the S-10...it's a 2-place capable A/C for straight and level with the control stick between the two occupants but for acro (solo) you move to the center...
Click to expand...

Preflight briefing: "OK, self, remember that the left pedal is now right rudder, and the right pedal is now left rudder..."
 
Troy Whistman said:
Preflight briefing: "OK, self, remember that the left pedal is now right rudder, and the right pedal is now left rudder..."
Click to expand...

If you suck at Dancing the way I do you have no Left foot/ Right foot problems...they're all neuter...sigh...!

BTW; (and not to P**s anyone off...) my airplane IS my TOY!
If you ain't using it for serious Business travel and writing it off then you're flying for the hell of it! That makes it a thing bought for personal enjoyment. aka a TOY! I have 2 cars that are faster than my airplane...they are also my TOYS. So?
My consideration of my vehichle's usefulness does not indicate my dilligence (or lack thereof) in my use of them. I am; as the Brits say, a "Hobby Pilot" and Danmed happy to be one!


Chris
 
Dude, be careful with your language! Spouses DO NOT need to hear that!:D
 
Troy Whistman said:
Preflight briefing: "OK, self, remember that the left pedal is now right rudder, and the right pedal is now left rudder..."
Click to expand...
Nah, you use the OUTSIDE pedals, so your left foot is on the leftmost pedal on the left side and your right foot is on the rightmost pedal on the right side! :D

See? It's easy! :)
 
I say find a good RV-4. Great for "fun" aerobatics, fast for going cross country & 2 seats so you can take your favorite friend. Any of the RV series is great...and so are the Harmon or F-1 Rockets.

Love my RV-6!
_______________________
-Groucho
http://www.thedukes.org/rv
 
Interesting... I just went throught the same mental excersize... was looking for something for Saturday morning fun more than full on competition work, but still has some personality.

Ended up settling on building an S1C, probably order the plans and wood for the wing in the next couple months.
 
As I posted on the Red Bored:eek: (soon to be the Baby Blue Board) a friend has an E33C that is Be-u-t-ful and is for sale 160K.

Marion Cole did airshows in this particular bird in the '80's...

Chris
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top