Pitts Model 12

[moyo26]

.

[Old Dog Flying]

If you really want a great performing biplane project, why not look at the Bucker Jungmann with a 180 hp Lycoming. I have a friend with a Jungmann and he might be willing to part with it...far too many projects to build!

[bmc]

Don't the Russian engines have to be monitored for cooling? (Fouga will step in to answer that I'm sure.) The engines have the series of cooling vanes in front that need to be managed.

[moyo26]

.

[fougapilot]

Don't the Russian engines have to be monitored for cooling? (Fouga will step in to answer that I'm sure.) The engines have the series of cooling vanes in front that need to be managed.

Why do I feel like someone is looking at me?

The gills on a Yak/Cj are nothing more then cowl flaps. Plus, the newer Yaks52tw do not have gills, they have real US type cowl flaps. The Macho Stinker (Pitts M12) does not have any gills/iris either.

The CHT is as easy to manage on an M14 engine as it is on any other flat engine. I now have nearly 1000hrs behind one of them and never had an issue with temp. Where it gets a little (the emphasis here is on LITTLE!) complex is on the ground. You MUST meet specific CHT values before take off (nothing unusual here) and let the engine CHT cool down below a specific value (150C) before shut down. This shut down limitation is basically to prevent the residual oil film on cylinder walls from evaporating. If it evaporates, there is simply a bit more wear the next time you start the engine. But then again, if you don't fly for a few days/weeks the film is most likely gone anyway.

Ciao dudes,

F

[Hedley]

*** edited ***

[cgzro]

Lets say you pick up the fuselage already welded for 12000 usd. Like the one in Barnstormers. You pick up the rest of everything that is missing. Buy completed wings and the M14P with 360 horse. Will that cost you over 165 000 usd like the ones selling completed? I find that hard to believe but you obviously know more than I do about this topic. Not to mention its understandable that someone wouldnt want to go out and drop 165 000 all at once, and maybe piece it together with the budget as time goes by. What do you think? What are the headaches I can anticipate?

No probably not, but it won't be far off 100K and 5 years work. For example that massive prop adds a wack load of bucks, possibly twice the cost of the engine. All the engine driven stuff, instruments .... hell some of those instruments are 3K-4K each, radio, GPS 5+K, yada yada, wiring, battery 1K. Hmmm the hoses , holy crap the hoses ... that plane probably has 15K worth of hoses in it (unless you make them yourself). Fuel tank another couple of K? Smoke tanks a K, smoke pump perhaps 2K, hooker harness hmmm 1K? parachutes 2x2K ... all that sheet aluminum for the fuse sides. AN hardware probably 1K or so. ...

Kinda scary but the problem is all the 'little' things add a thousand or so each. Anyway just go into it with your eyes open. If you have lots of time and are primarily interested in building its probably a great project. if you love to fly, well buy, if you like both, buy used and fix-er up, trust me if you fly an hour or so a week of acro you will have an hour or so a week of fixing up to do.

Cool planes though, like great big sky tractors! I've seen a couple flown in contests and they are impressive. Smoke is awesome too.

[moyo26]

.

[pilotdreams]

I would build this only I would be too scared to fly it! Thing has balls man.

[Hedley]

*** edited ***

[fougapilot]

he calls it "an old man's Pitts".

More like Pitts for larger man... not every one is "privileged" with the size required to actually fit in a Little Stinker...

[Hedley]

*** edited ***

[Hedley]

*** edited ***

[moyo26]

.

[Hedley]

I would be checked out in my friends P51 by now

You're not missing much. My 16 year old kid could fly a P-51
in his sleep. If you can fly a C185, you can fly a P-51. Slightly
more interesting stall characteristics due to the NLF wing, but
that's about all.

A P-51 is fun because it's fast, but it's noisy as hell - the neighbours
are gonna hate you - and it's really not very much fun to fly. As
you speed up, the flight controls get ridiculously heavy. And it
bleeds off energy horribly when you pull G. It's fast, but I can't
imagine getting into a turning contest in one. Plus, it's a maintenance
pig

Speaking of maintenance, you only own one aircraft, right? I am now
doing an annual on average every 4 weeks. I spend far more time
wrenching than I do flying, these days.

[Jerz]

Quite frankly I rate a Kimbel S12 right up there with some of the better mono planes, to me the regular Pitts is not much better then a Super Decathlon. [quote][/quote]


I have yet to see Model 12 score well at aerobatic contest, despite Allan Cassidy's rating. Not even close to unlimited monoplanes. Standard S1S is probably better competition mount. It is definitely way better then a Decathlon. Solid Advanced machine at regional level. I have flown modded one which would easily fly Unlimited, even the short 6 or 7 figures Free sequences from a few years back. These were the most challenging sequences in history of competition aerobatics.

[Hedley]

S1S is probably better competition mount

Absolutely! The huge, lumbering model 12 does an ok airshow,
but for a contest, I'd pick a single seat Pitts (or Yak-55) over
the model 12 any day.

Not even close to unlimited monoplanes

I would dare anyone to actually fly a model 12, then
an MX2, then try to equate the two.

The model 12 is so huge, I don't even think of it as
a Pitts. It dwarfs the S-2A/S-2S/S-2B/S-2C which
in turn are enormous trucks compared to the tiny,
original single seat Pitts.

Think of the model 12 as a baby Stearman. There's
a guy in the northeast, Guenther Eichorn, he's been
flying contests for years. His regular mount is an S-2A
and sometimes, for comic relief, he will try to struggle
through Sportsman in a Stearman.

P.S. I still don't understand all the hype about the P-51 -
the prices have been skyrocketing, ever since Tom Cruise
bought one. I must wonder if Scientology has experienced
a similar surge in popularity.

I would much rather fly this, than any of the V-12 fighters:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-47_Thunderbolt

The Republic P-47 Thunderbolt, also known as the "Jug," was the largest single-engined fighter of its day, and a vast improvement over the Curtiss P-40 Warhawk, its predecessor. It was one of the main United States Army Air Forces (USAAF) fighters of World War II, and also served with other Allied air forces. The P-47 was effective in air combat but proved especially adept at ground attack. It had eight .50-caliber machine guns, four per wing. When fully loaded the P-47 could weigh up to eight tons. A modern-day counterpart in that role, the A-10 Thunderbolt II, takes its name from the P-47

The P-47's initial success in combat was primarily due to tactics, using rolls (the P-47 had an excellent roll rate) and energy-saving dive and zoom climbs from high altitude to outmaneuver German fighters. No German piston-engined plane could out-dive the Thunderbolt. The Thunderbolt was the fastest-diving American aircraft of the war — it could reach speeds of 480 knots (550 mph, 885 km/h). Major Robert S. "Bob" Johnson described the experience of diving the big fighter by writing, "the Thunderbolt howled and ran for the earth".[14] Some P-47 pilots claimed to have broken the sound barrier, but later research revealed that due to the pressure buildup inside the pitot tube at high speeds, airspeed readings became unpredictably exaggerated.

The arrival of the new Curtiss paddle-blade propeller significantly increased climb rate at lower altitudes, and came as a shock to German pilots who had resorted to steep climbs to evade pursuit by the P-47.[12] Other positive attributes included the P-47's ruggedness; it could sustain a large amount of damage and still be able to get its pilot back to base.[15] With eight .50-caliber machine guns, the P-47 did not lack for firepower. German aircraft caught in a well-aimed burst tended to fly apart from the impact of so many armor-piercing projectiles.

I'd take a Jug or a Corsair over one of those girly
liquid-cooled V-12's any day - they can be brought
down by a single .22

Hey EngineGuy, since you don't have "budgetary constraints"
are you interested in an ex-Canadian F-5? Low time, they
start at one million USD.

[Jerz]

Now you talking. Nothing sounds better than R2800 going by at 400+mph, well maybe R4630 in Super Corsair.

[Jerz]

moyo26, back to the topic.
You have to ask yourself some basic questions and be totally honest with yourself. Do you really want to build an aircraft? It is huge undertaking and you better enjoy the challenge. More then 50% kits sold never get finished. The ones to finally fly are often finished by second or third owners. Myself, I started a project about 20 years ago and it is almost finished. It will fly hopefully in the next 15 years when I retire. I also recently finished rebuild of my Su26. It took 2 years and about 3000hrs. And I am familiar with mechanical, composite, and sheet metal work. If I could afford it I would have bought another one in flying condition. Good rule of thumb in aviation is double the time and money you originally budgeted for any build, repair, or modification. If you look at $ hourly rate for the thousands of hrs of your work, you will not make the minimum wage. Not even close. Flipping burgers pays so much better.
Don't get me wrong, if you are a “hands on” kind of guy and enjoy building stuff, it can be very rewarding experience. They are few things in life as exiting and satisfying as first flight in an aircraft you put together yourself. Just don't kid yourself that it will cost less then one you can buy already built. If you want to spread the cost of purchase over time, talk to your friendly banker.
Now that you are absolutely sure you want to be a builder, ask yourself a second most important question: what type? Judging by your posts you haven’t answered that question yet. Make sure you fly the type you want to build. Again be honest with yourself in determining the reason you need one. Aerobatic aircraft are very specialized. The better they are at loops and rolls, the worst they serve in basic sport plane role. It seems that you are convinced you want a two seater. Think about it again. I'd covered that topic on this board before.
Or, if you are like the 90% of us and want to fly rather then build, just buy a Pits S1S, spent the $150k difference on avgas and coaching, train for the 5000hrs you just saved yourself and you will be the best aerobatic pilot in Canada. And for this special rare occasion when you need to carry a passenger, rent a Decathlon, or similar.
Cheers
Jerzy

[Hedley]

want to fly rather then build, just buy a Pitts S1S

Exactly! No aircraft has more bang for the buck than a single
seat Pitts. Despite all the strutting and posturing here, I doubt
that there are more than a handful of pilots in all of Canada who have
enough aerobatic skill to be limited by the airframe of a single seat Pitts.

You will learn an awful lot about flying from a single seat Pitts.

Don't buy a two-seat aerobatic aircraft. 99.9% of the time it
will be empty - trust me, despite what you make think, wifey will
not enjoy it - and on the rare occasion when you have someone
in the other seat, you will have to fly completely different aerobatics,
because you are now in the aerobatic instructor business, even if
you don't have the rating. Two seat aerobatic aircraft are hideously
expensive because of the above misconceptions.

when you need to carry a passenger, rent a Decathlon

Precisely. Everyone wants one aircraft to fulfill all their
needs. It has to have six seats, 2000nm range, 1000lb
baggage capacity, full IFR, de-icing, and capable of winning
Unlimited aerobatics at the WAC

Even the military has that problem. Don't get sucked
into that - don't buy an Edsel. Is anyone here old enough
to know what an Edsel was? Get an aircraft that does
what it was designed to do, very well.

[pilotdreams]

The Ford Edsel http://www.time.com/time/specials/2007/ ... 81,00.html

Im not old enough to remember it, just heard my father talk about it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jJnK4qwX ... re=related
I thought it had balls because of the three rolls, I guess any pitts could pull that off?

[Blakey]

Is anyone here old enough
to know what an Edsel was?

The older ones among us remember "Who" Edsel was not just "What" an Edsel was!!