Pitts S-1C

whifferdill

whifferdill

Line Up and Wait
Joined
Jan 31, 2010
Messages
989
Location
NC
Display Name
Display name:
whifferdill
I've had the privilege of flying my buddy's beautiful IO-320 S-1C a couple times now. Had not flown an S-1C before. For those unfamiliar, the S-1C has a flat bottom airfoil and 2 ailerons rather than symmetrical 4-aileron wings of the other Pitts models. Many seem to sell the S-1C short due to the airfoil and slightly slower roll rate, but it's a great performer. Feels a little more Cub-like than my S-1S. Slightly more push needed flying inverted. Doesn't descend or slip down as quickly as my S. Has rod tailwheel spring which makes it more stable on the ground than mine. Just a pure, super fun Pitts. This one must be one of the best S-1C's in the country.

Some video of my first acro flight in this plane...well sloppy acro anyway. This airplane WILL fly the IAC Advanced category - no doubt about that. Has a different feel from my S-1S and would take a little practice to start flying super clean. If anyone is ever considering a Pitts S-1, don't pass on a good S-1C. HD enabled.



25qqgc3.jpg


bg67tg.jpg
 
Curious, does it feel underpowered compared to the S? I'm sure you notice the difference, but after a while of flying the 1C, do you care that it has less power?
 
I'm jealous. I want something like that to take out every day of the week.

Did you post a Clipped Cub video awhile back? That is one of my favorites to watch.
 
MachFly said:
Curious, does it feel underpowered compared to the S? I'm sure you notice the difference, but after a while of flying the 1C, do you care that it has less power?
Click to expand...

This S-1C weighs about 40 lbs less than my 180 hp S-1S, so the power-to-weight ratio isn't too much less than mine, but is noticeable. The difference is more in handling characteristics than difference in power. Roll rate is slower and this C has heavier controls than mine. Spades would lighten the ailerons, and gap seals and a Catto prop w/ slightly further aft CG would lighten the elevator.

Cpt_Kirk said:
Did you post a Clipped Cub video awhile back? That is one of my favorites to watch.
Click to expand...

Cool, yeah I've got a few Clipped Cub videos up. Not involved with that airplane anymore but it sure was fun.
 
whifferdill said:
This S-1C weighs about 40 lbs less than my 180 hp S-1S, so the power-to-weight ratio isn't too much less than mine, but is noticeable. The difference is more in handling characteristics than difference in power. Roll rate is slower and this C has heavier controls than mine. Spades would lighten the ailerons, and gap seals and a Catto prop w/ slightly further aft CG would lighten the elevator.
Click to expand...

I see.

I think the roll rate and heavier controls are to be expected. Considering the price difference the controls are only a small disadvantage.
 
And by the way....very beautiful airplane.
 
Great post. How is it mannered as far ground handling? S1s are very high on my "first airplane" list.
 
Arbiter419 said:
Great post. How is it mannered as far ground handling? S1s are very high on my "first airplane" list.
Click to expand...

It handles like a normal bungee gear S-1, which is to say it is a lot more sensitive and responsive on the ground that just about anything else out there. It's not a matter of it being "difficult", it's a matter of adjusting to it. Once you do, it's just another airplane...albeit one that your reflexes will probably always be a little more spring-loaded with during landing than in any other airplane.

This particular S-1C has a rod tailwheel spring. The rod tailwheel spring does two things - extends the wheel base a little, and flexes a bit laterally. This makes the airplane a little less short-coupled on the ground, and a little more stable when rolling. Or in other words, less "twitchy" - not that I like that word applied to tailwheel airplanes. I've got a leaf tailwheel spring on mine which is very rigid laterally, making it a little more sensitive. Unless you convert a Pitts to spring gear, they're all going to handle very similar. Just imagine a J-3 Cub where everything happens twice as fast - touchdown speed, swerves, corrections, groundloops, etc....and doesn't like to roll straight on its own between about 30-45 mph. :)

There's nothing wrong with buying a Pitts as a first airplane as long as you get proper training. As Budd Davisson, who has been teaching in Pitts for about 40 years says, "if there was ever an airplane that needs a little appropriate training before flying it for the first time, this is the one." I've got a couple friends who bought a Pitts with zero tailwheel time. Took them about 20 hrs to get competent, but it can be done. These are honest airplanes. You will get training in an S-2. The S-2 doesn't perfectly replicate the handling characteristics of the S-1, but it's as close as you can get. The S-2 is bigger and heavier, and a little more stable on the ground. A bungee gear S-1 is noticeably more sensitive. If you're comfortable and competent in an S-2, you should be safe to go off on your own in an S-1...not that you have much choice about the own your own part. :) There's nothing like flying a single-seat airplane for the first time.
 
Last edited:
whifferdill said:
It handles like a normal bungee gear S-1, which is to say it is a lot more sensitive and responsive on the ground that just about anything else out there. It's not a matter of it being "difficult", it's a matter of adjusting to it. Once you do, it's just another airplane...albeit one that your reflexes will probably always be a little more spring-loaded with during landing than in any other airplane.

This particular S-1C has a rod tailwheel spring. The rod tailwheel spring does two things - extends the wheel base a little, and flexes a bit laterally. This makes the airplane a little less short-coupled on the ground, and a little more stable when rolling. Or in other words, less "twitchy" - not that I like that word applied to tailwheel airplanes. I've got a leaf tailwheel spring on mine which is very rigid laterally, making it a little more sensitive. Unless you convert a Pitts to spring gear, they're all going to handle very similar. Just imagine a J-3 Cub where everything happens twice as fast - touchdown speed, swerves, corrections, groundloops, etc....and doesn't like to roll straight on its own between about 30-45 mph. :)

There's nothing wrong with buying a Pitts as a first airplane as long as you get proper training. As Budd Davisson, who has been teaching in Pitts for about 40 years says, "if there was ever an airplane that needs a little appropriate training before flying it for the first time, this is the one." I've got a couple friends who bought a Pitts with zero tailwheel time. Took them about 20 hrs to get competent, but it can be done. These are honest airplanes. You will get training in an S-2. The S-2 doesn't perfectly replicate the handling characteristics of the S-1, but it's as close as you can get. The S-2 is bigger and heavier, and a little more stable on the ground. A bungee gear S-1 is noticeably more sensitive. If you're comfortable and competent in an S-2, you should be safe to go off on your own in an S-1...not that you have much choice about the own your own part. :) There's nothing like flying a single-seat airplane for the first time.
Click to expand...

That's pretty consistent with what I've heard before. All of my tailwheel time to date is in a done up super cub, gotta go about procuring an S2 for some familiarization now...thanks for the post!
 
Hey Wiff, How do you have your tailwheel springs adjusted. I like them with about 1/2" slack in them. Allows the rudder to move a bit while the tailwheel stays straight. Makes a Pitts and similar airplanes a lot less twitchy on the roll out. Don
 
yakdriver said:
Hey Wiff, How do you have your tailwheel springs adjusted. I like them with about 1/2" slack in them. Allows the rudder to move a bit while the tailwheel stays straight. Makes a Pitts and similar airplanes a lot less twitchy on the roll out. Don
Click to expand...

Don- I've flown mine both ways - a slight bit of slack as you describe, and also taught, - but not tight. When I first bought my Maule tailwheel, I had to loosen the chains slightly to allow the tailwheel to break out without putting too much stress on the horns. Now that the tailwheel mechanism has some wear on it, it's able to break out with taught chains. I flew it for a few years with the chains slightly slack, and tightened them up this past annual. I like it better now with the taught chains.

You're right that a little slack in the chains allows the rudder to move a bit before engaging the tailwheel steering, but once you've dropped below 50 mph on rollout into that zone where the rudder authority has dropped, it takes a little bit of rudder flapping back and forth to engage the smallest amounts of tailwheel steering as you transition through that zone where the airplane is least stable on the ground. With the taught chains, it is more sensitive, but (to me) if you calm your feet down it feels more stable, responsive, and controllable.

At high speed after touchdown, it'll roll fairly straight for a few seconds on its own as long as you touch down straight. I never moved the rudder much in this zone, so didn't notice excessive "twitchiness" with the taught chains. Taught vs. slack is totally a personal preference thing.
 
Last edited:
That's the problem with Maule tailwheels as they loosen up pretty quickly and the tire wears with an angle. I like Scott 3200 better but they are big for a S-1. The Van's tailwheel works really good but the wheel bearings wear out quickly. Don
 
I would like to try a lockable tailwheel on a Pitts. I think it would work great plus it is light weight. The N3N has a lockable wheel as did my SNJ and a few other airplanes I have flown and they work great. Don
 
When I replace my Maule, it will definitely be with an Aviation Products tailwheel, dual fork, 6" tire. The one here is for a rod spring, but they also make them for 1-1/4" and 1-1/2" leaf springs. Everyone who runs them says they are the best tailwheels they have used. No shimmy problems like Langs and Maules seem to develop. Way cheaper - under $300. They are not FAA approved though. Not a problem since I converted mine to Exp. Exhibition. Never flown a locking tailwheel on a Pitts. I guess I'm in the "why would I want to give up tailwheel steering" camp. :) Lots of folks say the locking Haigh works well on a Pitts - that it takes all the "drama" out of the landing roll for pilots new to Pitts'. Tailwheel style is another preference thing I guess.

API-Tailwheel.jpg
 
What is the stall speed of a flat bottomed airfoil pitts vs a symmetrical airfoiled pitts? Also is it fully symmetrical, or semi?

I'm assuming they have the same wing area. I looked at the Steen Aero Lab site. It looks like the C and S both use the same airfoil now.
 
I'm pretty damn happy with the Matco tailwheel I put on the Flybaby, it had a Maule previously.
 
Looking a little deeper into the Steen site, the specs show the same airfoil number, but the pictures of the finished ribs clearly show a symmetrical for the S and a non-symmetrical for the C.
 
PilotRPI said:
What is the stall speed of a flat bottomed airfoil pitts vs a symmetrical airfoiled pitts? Also is it fully symmetrical, or semi?

I'm assuming they have the same wing area. I looked at the Steen Aero Lab site. It looks like the C and S both use the same airfoil now.
Click to expand...

S-1C stalls around 58 mph, S-1S about 62.

S-1C uses a flat-bottom NACA M6 airfoil. S-1S wings are fully symmetrical, though the airfoils are slightly different between the upper and lower wings.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top