Entry Aircraft

[Adam Oke]

What is the suggested entry aircraft for learning aerobatics and why?

I have heard train on what you intend to fly. So you want to go fly a pitts....start in a Pitts and build up on yourself from that point forward. On the other side of the spectrum I have heard of starting in a "gutless" aircraft. One with little performance will make you a better aerobatics pilot in the long haul. Reasons I have heard are because "gutless" aircraft will make pilot mistakes more pronounced. Thus mastering the skills required in something that requires more effort to perform smoothly and accurately.

What's the true type of aircraft one should start on?

152 Aerobat?
Citab?
Pitts?
Sukhoi?
Yak?
Extra?

[Osiris]

I’d stay away from the Aerobat. It’s a great Aerobatic aircraft for a flying school to own because it can merge into the regular fleet when there’s no aerobatics going on, but it’s such a poor performer that it really takes the fun out of aerobatics. It also can’t do hammerheads due to structural limits (and good luck with the Immelman). Another drawback is that it’s got conventional gear, so if you plan on upgrading to an Extra or a Pitts, you’re missing out on valuable tail wheel time if you don’t have a bunch already. With all that said it’s a strong aircraft, and it snap rolls better than a Citabria or Decathlon.

The Citabria’s great, but also underpowered to the point that it almost takes the fun out of what you’re doing. With both the Citabira and the Aerobat, you’ll find that you’ll spend a significant portion of any practice climbing. You’ll do a couple figures, then climb for a few minutes, figures, climb, figures, climb, etc…

I’d go middle of the road with a Super Decathlon. It’s a basic enough aircraft that you’ll develop the precision, accuracy and energy management skills you’re looking for, but it’s also got enough power that you can get a nice long set of figures in without constantly climbing. It’s also got an inverted fuel and oil system, so you can enjoy the world of inverted flight. Another feature that people might over-look in choosing an aerobatic training aircraft is a constant speed prop. It sure is nice to have, and the Super Decathlon’s got one. The price difference between a Citabira and Super Decathlon wouldn’t be huge, but the difference in performance is.

[Hedley]

*** edited ***

[lepetitdebaie-comeau]

hi


I want to know if there is in canada an aerobatic training school and where is it

[Osiris]

Unfortunately, there's not much around. I'm guessing you're located in Quebec (based on your username), and I have no idea what's out there. You could try contacting Aerobatics Canada http://www.patspencer.ca/aerobaticscanada/joomla/ and ask if anyone in their Quebec chapter knows of any aircraft/instructors available. A lot of the competition aerobatic guys used to have instructor ratings so they could take people up (media types for example), but the requirement to carry passengers during aerobatic flight went from an instructor rating to 20hrs of total aerobatic time or 10hrs of dual aerobatics with an instructor (plus a currency provision of 1 hour in the preceding 6 months). I'd imagine most of them no longer bother with keeping the rating current, but you never know.

If you're willing to travel, Harv's Air, located in Manitoba, does aerobatic training http://www.harvsair.com/site/services/t ... atics.html.

Around Vancouver, there may be something available in the near future (fingers crossed). There's a bit of renewed interest in the sport, and a number of instructors are looking at getting their aerobatic instructor ratings. There's also a new Citabria/Decathlon dealership out of CZBB, so some schools (again, fingers crossed) might be getting an aircraft that's up to task. Pro's got a Citabria (not sure if they use it for aerobatics at all) and I think Montair still has their Aerobat, so there may already be aircraft available out this way. There's also a couple instructors around Vancouver who are current.

Another option is going South of the boarder. Lots of schools down there, but I'm not sure how the cost compares to what's up here.

Hope that helps.

[lepetitdebaie-comeau]

thaks i will take a look on that

[cisco]

If you're in Southern Ontario, you can check out Future Air. I think they run a Citabria program new Newmarket.
http://www.futureair.ca/flighttraining/aerobatics.php

[Cat Driver]

Another drawback is that it’s got conventional gear, so if you plan on upgrading to an Extra or a Pitts, you’re missing out on valuable tail wheel time if you don’t have a bunch already

Here is an Aerobat on conventional gear.

http://i43.photobucket.com/albums/e353/ ... 010783.jpg

I sold it last year and it is now based at Delta Airpark......it may lack for power to do aerobatics with but once you learn to wheel land it you will be proficient enough to fly most any tail wheel airplane.

[nacho]

YAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAK !!! Almost there... I need a few more acres sprayed and I am going to get a 55M..

Go see Wayne Handley in California, I flew with him and he is top!

N

[sugarfree]

Dumb question on my part, but are Zlin Z-50's not also considered as a very good acrobatic a/c ??

SF./

[Hedley]

*** edited ***

[sugarfree]

Thanks Hedley.

I would love to park my butt in a Pitts, though I am petrified of those ground loops. Did some time in a Citabria, while I always managed to walk away from my landings, I am sure they did not look very good. Everything looks good until the tail touches down Tried it all 3 point, stick forward, slow, faster, but once the tail is down, man that thing wobbles.. especially in variable crosswinds..

Ok back to the point I was trying to make.. You mentioned single seater Pitts going for 30K ??? Where may I ask.

Thanks

SF./

[Hedley]

*** edited ***

[sugarfree]

OK now I am drooling


What is a ball park figure for operating a Piits S1-C, I guess insurance wise its more expensive..

SF./

[Hedley]

*** edited ***

[cgzro]

I'd second Andy's comments r.e. the S-1S. They are incredible value for money.

You can probably pick up a beauty for $40K USD (you can't even buy most aerobatic propellors for 40K these days). It is possible to get insurance, probably at about 3% or so and you could probably get that with about 50hrs tail dragger and about 10 or so in type.

If you don't have much high performance tail dragger experience its still doable but stay away from narrow/short runways and strong crosswinds for a hundred or so hours.

[Hedley]

*** edited ***

[cgzro]

Peter is the poster child for getting a single-seat Pitts
as your first aircraft

Mid life crisis toy. Everybody should have one.

[Hedley]

*** edited ***

[cgzro]

Who ever would have thought an airplane would be a good investment....

[Hedley]

*** edited ***

[SeawingsUAE]

an S1 is a great aircraft, lots of fun, pretty easy to fly, and definately great bang for the buck, BUT it is very important to do your research when looking, as they are most definately not all created equally.
amongst single seat pitts there is the following:
S1C- Flat wings, short fuselage usually, 150-160 hp is the norm, and no sheetmetal back to the seat. Homebuilt.
S1D- 4 aileron version of the C, but still an M6 airfoil. better rolling, still weak inverted performance. Homebuilt.
S1E- Kit built version, produced via the homestead factory, homebuilt, pretty rare.
S1S- plenty of variants! 23012 wing, frise ailerons, some kits, mostly homebuilt, massive number of variants and changes.
S1T- Factory built in Afton, basically an S with a 200HP angle valve engine and constant speed hartzell prop, also kit built.
S1SS- the "super stinker" 260Hp engine, longer fuselage, not really an S1, more closely related to an S2S.
and they are all different, and even more so even with the same designant they are also different, do they have "factory wings, Stewart wings, Sparcraft wings, Precision wings, raven wings, is the fuselage long or short, spring or bungee gear, etc etc etc.
In my humble opinion the best flying S1 is the 180HP parallel valve S1S, with all the stuff sky dynamics makes, sump, 4-1 exhaust, a Lycon engine, and a haigh tailwheel, it should not have sparcraft wings, ( it should have built up ribs) spades, lexan floor and sides, spring gear, and a three blade MT prop. There is some other stuff but it is either esoteric or very one off personal.It should not weigh over 900 empty, and even that is pretty heavy, but these days stuff adds up.
Then you can add Wolf wings, a benjamin cowl, rod gear, 230+hp, and end up with an aircraft which exceeds normal VNE in cruise, climbs great, has a pretty good roll rate, 240+, and is really good fun, but it is still a Pitts.
As was mentioned, a good S1S will take advanced in any regional contest, so rather than spend big bucks on all the mods, the best money you can spend related to a Pitts is
1 put gas in the tank and fly it, lots,
2 lose weight.
because every pound you try and drop from an S1 with performance mods costs you approx 100 dollars, and it is pretty funny to see a 230 pound guy flying an S1 without a Battery and starter!
there are a bunch of aircraft available all the time, barnstormers is a good source, as is trade a plane, but when you see various single seat Pitts listed from 18000 to 55000 usd it is because they are all so different.
actually, if you really want to have fun, skip the S1 entirely, and build/buy a Model 12!

[Blue Side Down]

Why should it not have sparcraft wings?

[Hedley]

*** edited ***

[SeawingsUAE]

Regards the Sparcraft wings, Hedley is correct, it was an attempt to simplify the rib construction by using routed 1/4" Birch plywood ribs instead of the built up standard rib.
There were problems, the ribs would crack at the webs just behind the front spar and ahead of the rear spar, as well the rib profile was different from a standard Pitts 23012 airfoil rib, with the lower leading edge being slightly more rounded, and the upper leading edge slightly more pointed, as well there was no reflex aft of the rear spar.
As well, a Sparcraft wing was heavier than a wing with built up ribs, about 6 pounds for the lowers, 8 pounds on the upper. That is significant, close to 4 gallons of gas, or half a header tank.
Some said the rib profile made a difference, but having flown both rib types alot I never noticed it.

Sparcraft also produced the first plywood leading edges, they were very nice, although Curtis Pitts was never a fan of the Plywood leading edge. they have now come to be the accepted norm on a high performance wing for a number of reasons.
The Pitts factory continues to use aluminum, always have, always will.
For a performance wing, Plywood leading edges are superior.

When Hedley mentions a "built up" ply rib, I guess that is a reference to the sparcraft lite rib which was tried, initially by Sparcraft, it was a routed 1/16th plywood rib, then capstripped with spruce vertical, and upper and lower horizontals.and it still had a 1/4" plywood nose section. Precision aircraft also made a kit with these for a while, but in fact they were not as good as a built up rib, they took almost as long to make, and had no real advantage. The selling point was that no rib jig was required.
The Factory Pitts S2C now uses a similar rib, mainly as it lowers production time, costs, and parts count.

For strength, light weight, and function, the built up rib is superior.