Aerobatic aircraft options?

[QR30]

First time poster here, did some searching didnt find the answers I am looking for, apologies in advance if i missed something or am in the wrong spot.
So I am a low TT pilot and have about 40hrs tailwheel in Cubs, citabria, little bit of super D etc. Nothing that most would consider to be tricky or high performance. I am interested in acro mainly, have done a little but not much in a Decathlon. Where I live, there is basically no access within 6 or so hours drive time where an AC capable of acro is available for instruction let alone rental.
I am hoping in the next couple years or so to buy my own plane. Seems like Super D type aircraft (2 seat certified is the reason?) are pretty expensive relative to their performance. I have always liked the Pitts Special, but have heard a few differing opinions on them. Some people make it sound like you need to be a high time tailwheel pilot to even consider purchasing. Others say that as long as you get a good checkout you'll be ok. Anyone have experience as a relative beginner flying something like a pitts/skybolt/eagle or heck even something somewhat exotic like a Yak-55?
Also, what are they typical running costs on a nice pitts S1? I'm sure this question is highly dependent on several things, but maybe compared to a more run of the mill aircraft like a 172? The short answer is probably "alot" haha but anyone have a ballpark for everything minus hanger costs since that seems to depend wholly on location?
Thanks!

 

[mandm]

I’ve never been in an aerobatic airplane but I think the Cessna 150/152 aerobat is cool and I saw one for sale last year on barnstormers asking around 50k, seemed like a cool plane and good entry point but I’m unsure about what it can do exactly. Other than that I like the Mustang and Extra 300L but those are $$$.

 

[Terry M - 3CK (Chicago)]

Where are you located? I’d love to partner in a Decathlon. Prices are insane right now!

No real experience to share but I know a few of the acro guys will stop in.

Good luck in your search! That would be fun.

 

[ebetancourt]

Highly recommend you join EAA and IAC. As you start thinking about owning an airplane, consider all costs and support issues. I think a Citabria or Decathlon would be a great first choice, but neither should be left out of a hangar. Same for a Pitts or any other fabric plane. Where/who will do the maintenance? Will they work on an experimental? Are they competent to work on whatever you want to buy? Most S1s are experimental some mechanics won't do the yearly condition inspection on an experimental.

Take a look here: Budd Davisson's Airbum.com
Among other things, he teaches low time pilots how to fly a Pitts, according to his website.

 

[kyleb]

I can't tell from your initial post what level of acro you're interested in. Hardcore stuff or gentleman's acro?

If you're interested in the Pitts, I think you'll get good input over at www.Biplaneforum.com.

 

[QR30]

Where are you located? I’d love to partner in a Decathlon. Prices are insane right now!

No real experience to share but I know a few of the actors guys will stop in.

Good luck in your search! That would be fun.

Ya they seem to be quite high, slim pickings as well. I'm about 1200 plus miles from Chicago if that's where you are unfortunately

 

[QR30]

Highly recommend you join EAA and IAC. As you start thinking about owning an airplane, consider all costs and support issues. I think a Citabria or Decathlon would be a great first choice, but neither should be left out of a hangar. Same for a Pitts or any other fabric plane. Where/who will do the maintenance? Will they work on an experimental? Are they competent to work on whatever you want to buy? Most S1s are experimental some mechanics won't do the yearly condition inspection on an experimental.

Take a look here: Budd Davisson's Airbum.com
Among other things, he teaches low time pilots how to fly a Pitts, according to his website.

Good point, will check out EAA and IAC. Thanks

 

[QR30]

I can't tell from your initial post what level of acro you're interested in. Hardcore stuff or gentleman's acro?

If you're interested in the Pitts, I think you'll get good input over at www.Biplaneforum.com.

I've really only done the basics before, loops, rolls hammerheads etc. Would like to do more at some point though. Thanks, will checkout that forum as well

 

[Dana]

It depends on what kind of acro you want to do and whether you need two seats. The Pitts is the gold standard, of course, and competitive at all but the highest levels if that's what you're aiming for. If you want to do $100 hamburger runs with a loop and roll along the way, then a Starduster or Skybolt would be a good choice. Single seat Stardusters, or the tiny biplanes like the Smith Miniplane or Baby Lakes can often be gotten dirt cheap. If you want a traveling machine with a loop and roll along the way, an RV. Clipwing Cubs, whether STCd or built as experimental, are another option. For clipwing Cub performance and gentle acro in a biplane with a 1930s vibe, Hatz. A lot of other homebuilts are capable of "gentleman's aerobatics" with varying levels of cross country performance.

Solid tailwheel skills help with the small biplanes, as does a checkout by a good Pitts instructor (Budd is the man for Pitts instruction). Insurance is a consideration, you may need a Pitts checkout even if you buy a Skybolt or other small biplane. Pitts prices are all over the place, I've been tempted by older homebuilt S1Cs in the teens, while a high end S1S can surpass $100K and a newer S2 or Model 12 can run well into six figures.

Operating costs are comparable to any other fabric airplane of comparable HP. Small biplanes can often share hangars, which can help on costs.

 

[QR30]

It depends on what kind of acro you want to do and whether you need two seats. The Pitts is the gold standard, of course, and competitive at all but the highest levels if that's what you're aiming for. If you want to do $100 hamburger runs with a loop and roll along the way, then a Starduster or Skybolt would be a good choice. Single seat Stardusters, or the tiny biplanes like the Smith Miniplane or Baby Lakes can often be gotten dirt cheap. If you want a traveling machine with a loop and roll along the way, an RV. Clipwing Cubs, whether STCd or built as experimental, are another option. For clipwing Cub performance and gentle acro in a biplane with a 1930s vibe, Hatz. A lot of other homebuilts are capable of "gentleman's aerobatics" with varying levels of cross country performance.

Solid tailwheel skills help with the small biplanes, as does a checkout by a good Pitts instructor (Budd is the man for Pitts instruction). Insurance is a consideration, you may need a Pitts checkout even if you buy a Skybolt or other small biplane. Pitts prices are all over the place, I've been tempted by older homebuilt S1Cs in the teens, while a high end S1S can surpass $100K and a newer S2 or Model 12 can run well into six figures.

Operating costs are comparable to any other fabric airplane of comparable HP. Small biplanes can often share hangars, which can help on costs.

Thanks for the response. Couple people have mentioned Budd now. Sounds like he is the pitts guru. Mainly looking for a dedicated acro plane. Dont do many Hamburger runs lol.

 

[Mtns2Skies]

Thanks for the response. Couple people have mentioned Budd now. Sounds like he is the pitts guru. Mainly looking for a dedicated acro plane. Dont do many Hamburger runs lol.

I guess the last question is just 1 or 2 seats? and budget?

 

[Grum.Man]

You definitely need to be considering a Biplane. Whether that’s a Skybolt, Acrosport, Pitts, Smith, or Acroduster. All of these will out perform even the newest Decathlon with their smallest available engine. If you can forgo the 2nd seat, most would be able to share a hangar with a high wing Cessna to save storage cost. There are plenty of opinions on landing a Pitts. I don’t think a lot of tailwheel time will make much difference unless it’s in another biplane. You are mostly just learning bad habits that will need to be corrected for flying a Pitts. I will say I’ve never heard someone sell a Pitts because they didn’t like landing it lol.

I can provide more detail in a year or so when one of mine are done.

 

[QR30]

I guess the last question is just 1 or 2 seats? and budget?

1 seat would be fine with me. Still working on the budget. Will likely be a year or two before I'm in an optimal position to purchase.

 

[QR30]

View attachment 103449 You definitely need to be considering a Biplane. Whether that’s a Skybolt, Acrosport, Pitts, Smith, or Acroduster. All of these will out perform even the newest Decathlon with their smallest available engine. If you can forgo the 2nd seat, most would be able to share a hangar with a high wing Cessna to save storage cost. There are plenty of opinions on landing a Pitts. I don’t think a lot of tailwheel time will make much difference unless it’s in another biplane. You are mostly just learning bad habits that will need to be corrected for flying a Pitts. I will say I’ve never heard someone sell a Pitts because they didn’t like landing it lol.

I can provide more detail in a year or so when one of mine are done.

Good points. I have heard people will often stick a pitts under a high wing and save $.
I have not heard of anyone selling due to landing either lol. Guess I didnt think of it that way. Would definitely be interested in details one you get one of yours done. Looks like both are getting close!

 

[Grum.Man]

Good points. I have heard people will often stick a pitts under a high wing and save $.
I have not heard of anyone selling due to landing either lol. Guess I didnt think of it that way. Would definitely be interested in details one you get one of yours done. Looks like both are getting close!

Not even close lol. I just picked them up a couple days ago. Both need to be re-covered among many other things. One is an S1C the other an S1S.

 

[QR30]

Not even close lol. I just picked them up a couple days ago. Both need to be re-covered among many other things. One is an S1C the other an S1S.

Haha gotcha. Guess I didnt know what I was looking at. I'm sure will be alot of fun once they are ready to go. Why did you get an S and a C if you dont mine me asking?

 

[pigpenracing]

I started out in a 172 and got 50 hours then bought a Decathlon and flew it a little.
With about 75 hours Total time I bought a 540 powered Skybolt and flew it 50 hours. With 125 total pilot hours I bought a Pitts S-2C.
I went to get a Pitts checkout and the instructor told me just pretend your flying the Skybolt. 10 takeoffs and landings and he signed me off. I found the Pitts easier to land than my Skybolt. After that I have had several Christen Eagles, Pitts S1S, Pitts S1C, Pitts Model 12, a Stearman, Staudacher S300D and a few others. That being said my favorite ones of them all were the Christen Eagles... I had a couple of stock ones, a highly modified 4 cyl Eagle and a 540 Eagle. I loved them all and if I buy another aerobatic plane it will 100% be a Christen Eagle. I like the cockpit layout with no panel in the back.

 

[QR30]

I started out in a 172 and got 50 hours then bought a Decathlon and flew it a little.
With about 75 hours Total time I bought a 540 powered Skybolt and flew it 50 hours. With 125 total pilot hours I bought a Pitts S-2C.
I went to get a Pitts checkout and the instructor told me just pretend your flying the Skybolt. 10 takeoffs and landings and he signed me off. I found the Pitts easier to land than my Skybolt. After that I have had several Christen Eagles, Pitts S1S, Pitts S1C, Pitts Model 12, a Stearman, Staudacher S300D and a few others. That being said my favorite ones of them all were the Christen Eagles... I had a couple of stock ones, a highly modified 4 cyl Eagle and a 540 Eagle. I loved them all and if I buy another aerobatic plane it will 100% be a Christen Eagle. I like the cockpit layout with no panel in the back.View attachment 103460 View attachment 103462 View attachment 103463

Thanks for the response. That really gives me some perspective. I have looked at eagles as well, good looking and seem to have alot of performance. Still working on getting to where I'd need to be for an Eagle financially but should be there soon. Definitely a strong contender. Have considered trying to build one before, but unless my math was way off, buying one that's already running seems to be the way to go.
P.S. love the red/gold paint scheme.

 

[Grum.Man]

Haha gotcha. Guess I didnt know what I was looking at. I'm sure will be alot of fun once they are ready to go. Why did you get an S and a C if you dont mine me asking?

Because he offered the second one at a price I couldn't say no to. lol

 

[RoscoeT]

Thanks for the response. That really gives me some perspective. I have looked at eagles as well, good looking and seem to have alot of performance. Still working on getting to where I'd need to be for an Eagle financially but should be there soon. Definitely a strong contender. Have considered trying to build one before, but unless my math was way off, buying one that's already running seems to be the way to go.
P.S. love the red/gold paint scheme.

Hopefully with some additional training/experience you'll figure out what type of aircraft you might want to start with. Ignore anyone who says you need an intermediate airplane before getting into a Pitts. Getting good training is all that matters. This means a checkout as well as aerobatic specific spin training with all the spin modes. You should not being doing solo acro in a Pitts without this.

The Pitts S1 is the best bang for the buck aerobatic airplane. The One Design is very good too. Once you get into two seats, you are spending a lot more money for less aerobatic performance. This includes the Eagle. The Eagle might be the best bang for the buck two seater ship, but a Pitts S-1 significantly outperforms it unless we're talking a 540 Eagle, which there are very few of. Do understand that the 2nd seat of an aerobatic bipe is very rarely filled unless you have kids who love to fly. You will get very takers for a (lazy) acro ride, and even fewer who want to go again.

It's hard to find decent S-1 Pitts' for sale these days, but for anything you're considering, don't even think of buying one without a pre-buy inspection by someone who really knows what they are doing. Practically nobody is building these airplanes anymore and most of the fleet are getting long in the tooth, and few are willing to invest in quality rebuilds since the financials don't make sense. Many airplanes are at the age where the glue in the wings has degraded and things are coming apart inside, even if someone might have slapped new fabric and shiny paint on it relatively recently. Most of what you see for sale on the ad sites is junk, so don't get too acclimated to the idea that you can get a quality rebuilt one for the average asking price of what you see on the ad sites. The days of fresh solid $35-40K S-1 Pitts' are over. You will have to pay more for a really good one.

And as far as Pitts S-1's being "demanding", well that depends on your abilities and what you're used to. It also depends on the landing gear/tailwheel configuration. With rod/spring main gear and a locking tailwheel you have a pretty braindead landing airplane, very much like a Citabria or Decathlon. With bungee gear and a leaf spring steerable tailwheel, they are much more sensitive on the ground, but they are honest. They are also the ones where you will see the most scraped wing tips if you go poking around looking underneath them.

 

[QR30]

Hopefully with some additional training/experience you'll figure out what type of aircraft you might want to start with. Ignore anyone who says you need an intermediate airplane before getting into a Pitts. Getting good training is all that matters. This means a checkout as well as aerobatic specific spin training with all the spin modes. You should not being doing solo acro in a Pitts without this.

The Pitts S1 is the best bang for the buck aerobatic airplane. The One Design is very good too. Once you get into two seats, you are spending a lot more money for less aerobatic performance. This includes the Eagle. The Eagle might be the best bang for the buck two seater ship, but a Pitts S-1 significantly outperforms it unless we're talking a 540 Eagle, which there are very few of. Do understand that the 2nd seat of an aerobatic bipe is very rarely filled unless you have kids who love to fly. You will get very takers for a (lazy) acro ride, and even fewer who want to go again.

It's hard to find decent S-1 Pitts' for sale these days, but for anything you're considering, don't even think of buying one without a pre-buy inspection by someone who really knows what they are doing. Practically nobody is building these airplanes anymore and most of the fleet are getting long in the tooth, and few are willing to invest in quality rebuilds since the financials don't make sense. Many airplanes are at the age where the glue in the wings has degraded and things are coming apart inside, even if someone might have slapped new fabric and shiny paint on it relatively recently. Most of what you see for sale on the ad sites is junk, so don't get too acclimated to idea that you can get a quality rebuilt one for the average asking price of what you see on the ad sites. The days of fresh solid $35-40K S-1 Pitts' are over. You will have to pay more for a really good one.

And as far as Pitts S-1's being "demanding", well that depends on your abilities and what you're used to. It also depends on the landing gear/tailwheel configuration. With rod/spring main gear and a locking tailwheel you have a pretty braindead landing airplane that a 172 driver could practically jump into cold. I'm only half kidding. With bungee gear and a leaf spring steerable tailwheel, they are much more sensitive on the ground, but they are honest. They are also the ones where you will see the most scraped wing tips if you go poking around looking underneath them.

Lots of detail, thanks! I have noticed there is really a premium put on the nicer ones (understandably so). Seems like most the nicer S1 you see these days, from my limited looking are running well above what they did even just a few years ago. I get the impression this is the case with the eagle fleet as well. I'm sure people are still building them but not in any great numbers. Will take all of this into consideration when the time comes. Have considered a 1D as well, seem to pop up from time to time for sale. Not sure I'd have the talent to build one myself. Definitely would get throughout checkout and spin training before hand.

 

[somorris]

I started out in a 172 and got 50 hours then bought a Decathlon and flew it a little.
With about 75 hours Total time I bought a 540 powered Skybolt and flew it 50 hours. With 125 total pilot hours I bought a Pitts S-2C.
I went to get a Pitts checkout and the instructor told me just pretend your flying the Skybolt. 10 takeoffs and landings and he signed me off. I found the Pitts easier to land than my Skybolt. After that I have had several Christen Eagles, Pitts S1S, Pitts S1C, Pitts Model 12, a Stearman, Staudacher S300D and a few others. That being said my favorite ones of them all were the Christen Eagles... I had a couple of stock ones, a highly modified 4 cyl Eagle and a 540 Eagle. I loved them all and if I buy another aerobatic plane it will 100% be a Christen Eagle. I like the cockpit layout with no panel in the back.View attachment 103460 View attachment 103462 View attachment 103463

I really like the Eagle also. I am probably nuts, but I really don't care much for a Pitts.

 

[RoscoeT]

I really like the Eagle also. I am probably nuts, but I really don't care much for a Pitts.

The Eagle certainly does have ergonomic advantages over a Pitts, which is why it exists. But it's very rare to hear anyone say they prefer the performance and feel of the Eagle over a Pitts. But practically speaking the overall performance of the Eagle is about the same as the Pitts S-2A.

 

[pigpenracing]

I really like the Eagle also. I am probably nuts, but I really don't care much for a Pitts.

My Model 12 was the most fun I had in the Pitts flying I did. My son liked it also. That kid got to fly in some cool planes!

 

[Grum.Man]

Lots of detail, thanks! I have noticed there is really a premium put on the nicer ones (understandably so). Seems like most the nicer S1 you see these days, from my limited looking are running well above what they did even just a few years ago. I get the impression this is the case with the eagle fleet as well. I'm sure people are still building them but not in any great numbers. Will take all of this into consideration when the time comes. Have considered a 1D as well, seem to pop up from time to time for sale. Not sure I'd have the talent to build one myself. Definitely would get throughout checkout and spin training before hand.

I almost fell for the trap of buying a few older S1's that were around or just below the 30k mark. It's simply not a good idea and a money trap. Most of these planes don't get flown a lot unless you find someone who was competing. A recover job is never just a recover job. The fuselage will almost always need to be completely stripped to the frame, sand blasted, and at least primed before recover. Stringers warp over time so might as well replace those. Then the wooden wings will have a few joints that might have popped loose, some leading edge work etc etc... So either pay the premium for a nice one that has been recently rebuilt or recently built period, or buy one expecting a complete rebuild.

I am planning to do the Wolf rod gear, cowling, and titanium firewall. Going to recover my C wings and use them for now. Eventually I may build a set of wolf wings for it, or restore the sparcraft wings that came with the S1S I got.

 

[QR30]

I almost fell for the trap of buying a few older S1's that were around or just below the 30k mark. It's simply not a good idea and a money trap. Most of these planes don't get flown a lot unless you find someone who was competing. A recover job is never just a recover job. The fuselage will almost always need to be completely stripped to the frame, sand blasted, and at least primed before recover. Stringers warp over time so might as well replace those. Then the wooden wings will have a few joints that might have popped loose, some leading edge work etc etc... So either pay the premium for a nice one that has been recently rebuilt or recently built period, or buy one expecting a complete rebuild.

I am planning to do the Wolf rod gear, cowling, and titanium firewall. Going to recover my C wings and use them for now. Eventually I may build a set of wolf wings for it, or restore the sparcraft wings that came with the S1S I got.

Agreed, pay now or pay later. Sounds like a good turn key S1 will command a premium.
Sounds like you'll have a couple sweet machines when it's all said and done! Not really knowledgeable on alot of the possible pitts modifications, just the basics really on gear and wings (S1C vs S1S etc). Good luck getting the restorations done, I'm sure it will be fun project!

 

[Ed Haywood]

I would first make certain that your performance requirements are actual and not theoretical. Some people like the idea of aerobatics more than the reality. Others like the ability to do a few loops and rolls with a friend on the weekend, but are not motivated to put in the necessary practice to achieve competition-worthy precision in their figures and sequences.

Pitts are awesome machines. For development of pure stick and rudder flying skills, they are one of the best aircraft ever designed, and I think you could make a good case that they are The Best. They are also sufficiently capable that it will be many years before the aircraft becomes the limiting factor instead of your skills.

But like everything in life, there are tradeoffs. There are things that a Pitts does not do well, especially a single seater. Like going on long XC's, carrying a passenger, carrying baggage, unimproved airstrips, visibility, and panel space to install avionics and instrumentation to deal with weather, etc. There are also ownership challenges such as finding instructors and mechanics in the local area familiar with your aircraft.

As an example, last summer I finally made my first Oshkosh pilgrimage in my Super Decathlon. I loaded up 100 pounds of bags and camping gear and flew 2000 miles in 7 days from Florida to Wisconsin to Colorado and back to Florida. I visited 9 states for the first time. And when I got home, I started practicing the 2021 Sportsman sequence for a fall IAC contest. I suppose you could do that in a Pitts, but you would probably need lifetime chiropractic care as a result.

So if you know you want to go down the competition path, the Pitts is a great choice. If however, like a lot of new pilots and aircraft owners, you expect to try a variety of aviation experiences, then there may be other options available that are more suited to your needs, both certified and experimental. Once you know you want to specialize, the Pitts is always there as an option.

WRT Decathlon and Citabria prices, IMO the perception of those is skewed by recent production models on the market. Yeah, if you want a 5 year old Super Decathlon with metal wings, aluminum gear, glass panel, and composite prop, it is going to cost well north of $200K. But there are plenty of older Super D's in reasonable condition for well under $100K. And decent Citabrias can still be found for under $50K.

 

[QR30]

I would first make certain that your performance requirements are actual and not theoretical. Some people like the idea of aerobatics more than the reality. Others like the ability to do a few loops and rolls with a friend on the weekend, but are not motivated to put in the necessary practice to achieve competition-worthy precision in their figures and sequences.

Pitts are awesome machines. For development of pure stick and rudder flying skills, they are one of the best aircraft ever designed, and I think you could make a good case that they are The Best. They are also sufficiently capable that it will be many years before the aircraft becomes the limiting factor instead of your skills.

But like everything in life, there are tradeoffs. There are things that a Pitts does not do well, especially a single seater. Like going on long XC's, carrying a passenger, carrying baggage, unimproved airstrips, visibility, and panel space to install avionics and instrumentation to deal with weather, etc. There are also ownership challenges such as finding instructors and mechanics in the local area familiar with your aircraft.

As an example, last summer I finally made my first Oshkosh pilgrimage in my Super Decathlon. I loaded up 100 pounds of bags and camping gear and flew 2000 miles in 7 days from Florida to Wisconsin to Colorado and back to Florida. I visited 9 states for the first time. And when I got home, I started practicing the 2021 Sportsman sequence for a fall IAC contest. I suppose you could do that in a Pitts, but you would probably need lifetime chiropractic care as a result.

So if you know you want to go down the competition path, the Pitts is a great choice. If however, like a lot of new pilots and aircraft owners, you expect to try a variety of aviation experiences, then there may be other options available that are more suited to your needs, both certified and experimental. Once you know you want to specialize, the Pitts is always there as an option.

WRT Decathlon and Citabria prices, IMO the perception of those is skewed by recent production models on the market. Yeah, if you want a 5 year old Super Decathlon with metal wings, aluminum gear, glass panel, and composite prop, it is going to cost well north of $200K. But there are plenty of older Super D's in reasonable condition for well under $100K. And decent Citabrias can still be found for under $50K.

Hey! Glad a super D owner jumped in on this. I have limited time in the Super D but do like them (maybe some bias from time in citabria and champs along the way). Many things you pointed out have crossed my mind. I think my interest in aerobatics is beyond the theoretical. I have very limited Akro experience but really enjoyed the time I have. I know spins dont count but often look for an excuse to practice them (providing sufficient altitude and aircraft capability of course). To be frank, I'm sure a super decathlon is more capable than I am at the moment and I could learn alot or akro in one. Still definitely on my list of possible future mounts. I'm not sure I'd compete, I am mostly interested in doing akro for my own satisfaction, but who knows what the future holds. Agree with a pitts being terrible for XC haha. Am still keeping my eyes on the Super D market. As far as price, I think you are correct. Seems like from time to time can find a nice low time Super D for under 100k. If what I have heard is correct, they are capable up to what would be "intermediate" level akro. Thanks for taking the time to respond.

 

[Ed Haywood]

Hey! Glad a super D owner jumped in on this. I have limited time in the Super D but do like them (maybe some bias from time in citabria and champs along the way). Many things you pointed out have crossed my mind. I think my interest in aerobatics is beyond the theoretical. I have very limited Akro experience but really enjoyed the time I have. I know spins dont count but often look for an excuse to practice them (providing sufficient altitude and aircraft capability of course). To be frank, I'm sure a super decathlon is more capable than I am at the moment and I could learn alot or akro in one. Still definitely on my list of possible future mounts. I'm not sure I'd compete, I am mostly interested in doing akro for my own satisfaction, but who knows what the future holds. Agree with a pitts being terrible for XC haha. Am still keeping my eyes on the Super D market. As far as price, I think you are correct. Seems like from time to time can find a nice low time Super D for under 100k. If what I have heard is correct, they are capable up to what would be "intermediate" level akro. Thanks for taking the time to respond.

If you got the bug, then the only cure is more cowbell.

I have been flying a Super D for 20+ years, and it is still more capable than I am. Yes, the Super D can be flown in Intermediate, but you really have to push the airplane to do so, and push it in some ways that may be harmful to the aircraft's longevity. I always planned to upgrade to a Pitts when/if I decided to step up from Sportsman.

The Decathlon does have some constraints, and the Citabria more so. The biggest one is roll performance. Roll rate is slow and stick force is high. But that does force you to master your aircraft and stick inputs. A slow roll in an older wood spar Decathlon is truly a SLOW roll, usually taking 3 to 4 seconds, so you better be putting in top rudder on the knife edges and forward stick while inverted or you are going to be going downhill at the end. IMO a crazy fast roll rate, while challenging in it's own way, does conceal some bad habits that are exposed with a long winged slow rolling airplane like a Decathlon or Stearman.

If you can find a partner, that might be a good way to get in a more capable aircraft for less $$. Availability is often less of an issue for aerobatic club partnerships because long trips are not part of the normal use.

 

[QR30]

If you got the bug, then the only cure is more cowbell.

I have been flying a Super D for 20+ years, and it is still more capable than I am. Yes, the Super D can be flown in Intermediate, but you really have to push the airplane to do so, and push it in some ways that may be harmful to the aircraft's longevity. I always planned to upgrade to a Pitts when/if I decided to step up from Sportsman.

The Decathlon does have some constraints, and the Citabria more so. The biggest one is roll performance. Roll rate is slow and stick force is high. But that does force you to master your aircraft and stick inputs. A slow roll in an older wood spar Decathlon is truly a SLOW roll, usually taking 3 to 4 seconds, so you better be putting in top rudder on the knife edges and forward stick while inverted or you are going to be going downhill at the end. IMO a crazy fast roll rate, while challenging in it's own way, does conceal some bad habits that are exposed with a long winged slow rolling airplane like a Decathlon or Stearman.

If you can find a partner, that might be a good way to get in a more capable aircraft for less $$. Availability is often less of an issue for aerobatic club partnerships because long trips are not part of the normal use.

Ya, I have heard that snap rolls can be problematic for example, can cause leaky fuel tanks etc. I think the Super D has an advertised roll rate of like 180°/sec if I remember. A bit optimistic maybe, dont have enough experience in one to know. Is there an appreciable difference in performance between the wood and metal spar? As I understand there is an AD for recurring inspections for wood, maybe weight a bit more? Unless you're referring to the original decathlon with the o320 and wood spars
I suppose every airplane is a compromise in some way or another.
Have considered a partnership as well, that may be a possibility for me at some time.

 

[Ed Haywood]

Ya, I have heard that snap rolls can be problematic for example, can cause leaky fuel tanks etc. I think the Super D has an advertised roll rate of like 180°/sec if I remember. A bit optimistic maybe, dont have enough experience in one to know. Is there an appreciable difference in performance between the wood and metal spar? As I understand there is an AD for recurring inspections for wood, maybe weight a bit more? Unless you're referring to the original decathlon with the o320 and wood spars
I suppose every airplane is a compromise in some way or another.
Have considered a partnership as well, that may be a possibility for me at some time.

Metal spar Decathlon wings are more rigid and have a more efficient aileron design, resulting in faster roll rate and less stick force. I don't have a spec for my older wood winged Decathlon, but I would bet it is not more than 120 degrees per second. It also takes a lot of stick force, so it's easy to accidentally apply less than full deflection and get even less roll rate. Again, all maneuvers at Sportsman level are readily doable, but sloppy habits get magnified.

Yes, all wood spar Decathlons and Citabrias have an annual inspection requirement. It is not as onerous as reputed, but does require some extra effort and cost. But a properly maintained and inspected wood spar is perfectly safe, and about $30K less in market price.

 

[QR30]

Metal spar Decathlon wings are more rigid and have a more efficient aileron design, resulting in faster roll rate and less stick force. I don't have a spec for my older wood winged Decathlon, but I would bet it is not more than 120 degrees per second. It also takes a lot of stick force, so it's easy to accidentally apply less than full deflection and get even less roll rate. Again, all maneuvers at Sportsman level are readily doable, but sloppy habits get magnified.

Yes, all wood spar Decathlons and Citabrias have an annual inspection requirement. It is not as onerous as reputed, but does require some extra effort and cost. But a properly maintained and inspected wood spar is perfectly safe, and about $30K less in market price.

Ah gotcha. Learn something new every day. Ya a citabria I have flown a few times has wood spar. The owner expressed some regret that didnt go with metal when doing a rebuild sounded like, but sounds like so far it's not been an issue. Has the little ports on the wings for checking spars for cracks.
Thanks for the explanation.

 

[RoscoeT]

Ya, I have heard that snap rolls can be problematic for example, can cause leaky fuel tanks etc. I think the Super D has an advertised roll rate of like 180°/sec if I remember. A bit optimistic maybe, dont have enough experience in one to know.

There's an article out there by AOPA claiming 180 deg/sec roll rate for a Decathlon which is more than laughable. That's the roll rate of a Pitts S-1S. Pitts S-1C rolls about 120 deg/sec. Take a look at this video which takes 4.8 seconds from inverted to inverted (stabilized roll rate) which is 75 degrees/sec. You could probably get to 90 deg/sec sustained if you fly with a little more speed on a slightly descending line to avoid airspeed decay from drag.

 

[Ed Haywood]

There's an article out there by AOPA claiming 180 deg/sec roll rate for a Decathlon which is more than laugable. That's the roll rate of a Pitts S-1S. Pitts S-1C rolls about 120 deg/sec. Take a look at this video which takes 4.8 seconds from inverted to inverted (stabilized roll rate) which is 75 degrees/sec. You could probably get to 90 deg/sec sustained if you fly with a little more speed on a slightly descending line to avoid airspeed decay from drag.

Mine feels even slower than the one in the video. I just got the parts to mount a GoPro, so I will conduct a more objective test when I get it set up.

I have never flown a metal winged Decathlon. But there is a guy on the Decathlon-Citabria Facebook group with a 2 year old Decathlon who posts acro videos all the time. I am shocked at how fast his roll rate appears compared to mine.

 

[Ed Haywood]

Mounted a GoPro in my Decathlon today and flew some rolls for timing. Not gonna post video because my technique is embarrassingly bad, but my roll rate is 60 degrees per second AT BEST.

 

[CaptainXap]

Sonex aircraft are designed for gentle aerobatics, and they're cheap as chips - ones currently on sale are between $25k and $35k. Most of them only have an 85hp engine, but with a 1,100lbs max gross (950lbs for aerobatics), that might not be too limiting.

 

[kyleb]

Mounted a GoPro in my Decathlon today and flew some rolls for timing. Not gonna post video because my technique is embarrassingly bad, but my roll rate is 60 degrees per second AT BEST.

You leading with rudder and everything?

 

[QR30]

Mounted a GoPro in my Decathlon today and flew some rolls for timing. Not gonna post video because my technique is embarrassingly bad, but my roll rate is 60 degrees per second AT BEST.

I looked at an old video I have doing a few rolls in a newer super D. Looks to be about 90 degrees per second. My technique was not the greatest though either lol.

 

[QR30]

Sonex aircraft are designed for gentle aerobatics, and they're cheap as chips - ones currently on sale are between $25k and $35k. Most of them only have an 85hp engine, but with a 1,100lbs max gross (950lbs for aerobatics), that might not be too limiting.

Those seem to be kinda cool. Super small. I see they even have a kit built jet!

 

[RoscoeT]

You leading with rudder and everything?

Leading with the rudder is not good technique for precision acro...if you're into that sort of thing.