Landing a Pitts, TRICK ??

[etemplet]

I have about 12 hours aerobatic training in a Pitts. I might have looked into purchasing one years ago if I had a prayer at a full stop landing. Taking off wasn't a problem at all it was transitioning from flying to taxing that I never got. After touch-down, I'd get happy feet with the rudders, going from full left to full right and finally the instructor would take over. I never did get the plane slowed enough to taxi.

On a side note. After about 10 hours in the Pitts, I flew the citabria and had no problems with landings take-offs or anything. My instructor asked me if I had any conventional time and I said, no... just the Pitts. LOL He was surprised. It was the same instructor I had for the Pitts.

Did my sitting up front have any effect on not being able to recognize the yaw ? I don't think that was it. I tried and tried to catch the yaw and bring the rudder back to neutral to keep it centered but I was always too late with too much. I never did use the brakes which was probably a good thing.

 

[whifferdill]

Gene, the Pitts is not a good initial tailwheel trainer. I've got a couple friends who started in a Pitts no tailwheel experience and it took them about 20 hrs to get solo competent. The problem is that the Pitts reacts so quickly and everything happens so fast that your brain has trouble catching up to what you're seeing. And it takes a little while to even see (as in recognize) everything that's happening, much less react to it. Budd Davisson calls this the "fog factor". It's helpful to get a few initial tailwheel hours in something like a Cub, Champ, or Citabria that does everything in much slower motion. Things happen slowly enough in these airplanes that you can actually see and react with more initial success than in something like a Pitts where your instructor will be required to do so much rudder riding in those first few hours that your own learning will be slow. These tailwheel trainer types are also much more tolerant of clumsy inputs than a Pitts, so again, you can make and correct more of your own mistakes. Once you've developed some basic tailwheel rudder skills, getting into the Pitts won't feel like such a blur. It'll still be a bit of a transition, but the learning curve won't be nearly as steep. And once you're used to it, the Pitts is just another airplane...albeit one you might always feel like you sit up and pay attention to a little more than the others. Eric

Did my sitting up front have any effect on not being able to recognize the yaw ? I don't think that was it.

It's true that the further aft of CG you sit that the more easily your body feels yaw. But IMO, learning to control a Pitts on the ground is mostly visual. After awhile, you brain also may take some cues from the feeling of yaw in your body, but I don't think switching seats would have made much of a difference in the learning process.

 

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

I tried and tried to catch the yaw and bring the rudder back to neutral to keep it centered but I was always too late with too much.

What do you mean "bring the rudder back to neutral"?

In most tailwheel aircraft, once you start a turn, neutral rudder just lets it keep turning. You need to start the correction, then stop the correction with a little opposite rudder when the nose starts to get close to where you want it.

 

[Ken Ibold]

Gene, the Pitts is not a good initial tailwheel trainer. I've got a couple friends who started in a Pitts no tailwheel experience and it took them about 20 hrs to get solo competent. The problem is that the Pitts reacts so quickly and everything happens so fast that your brain has trouble catching up to what you're seeing. And it takes a little while to even see (as in recognize) everything that's happening, much less react to it. Budd Davisson calls this the "fog factor". It's helpful to get a few initial tailwheel hours in something like a Cub, Champ, or Citabria that does everything in much slower motion. Things happen slowly enough in these airplanes that you can actually see and react with more initial success than in something like a Pitts where your instructor will be required to do so much rudder riding in those first few hours that your own learning will be slow.

Another thing that may be helpful if you do tailwheel training in a Citabria or something is to fly if from the back seat. That will help you get used to the limited view out the front on final and during the flare.

 

[RoscoeT]

What do you mean "bring the rudder back to neutral"?

In most tailwheel aircraft, once you start a turn, neutral rudder just lets it keep turning. You need to start the correction, then stop the correction with a little opposite rudder when the nose starts to get close to where you want it.

I think it would be fair to say that for typical small swerve corrections that you pretty much make a quick small input and then quickly remove it...as in back to neutral. IMO, in the tailwheel airplanes I've flown, you only need to use opposite rudder to stop your initial correction if your initial correction was overcontrolled. But then you're chasing the airplane to a degree.

 

[Jeanie]

Well, I certainly lagged behind the needed inputs on the eagle and I think I still do somewhat but I know now how it does and can anticipate it more. Also, it was easier when the CFI got out....
I have heard that an eagle is easier than a Pitts... From what my initial roll outs were like in the eagle I am sure glad that's what I got! It's still blind on final though.
My CFI told me : when we go to the 75 ft runway ( had started on 100) your feet will get faster - evil grin - and if you screw up and go in the grass go to the right it's smooth but there's a big ditch on the left... RIGHT, THANKS

 

[etemplet]

I didn't really have any problems getting the plane onto the runway, visibility was just something I adapted to quickly. My problem is that as the rudder effectiveness decreases, I over control and cannot calm it down. I end up with the rudder at the stops, left to right, right to left... repeat This is the reason I never looked at owning a Pitts. I'd probably crash every landing just under 40 mph.

I'm sure it was just a technique issue as we didn't practice full stop landings, just aerobatics. Take-offs are easy.

 

[etemplet]

I think it would be fair to say that for typical small swerve corrections that you pretty much make a quick small input and then quickly remove it...as in back to neutral. IMO, in the tailwheel airplanes I've flown, you only need to use opposite rudder to stop your initial correction if your initial correction was overcontrolled. But then you're chasing the airplane to a degree.

Yup, my small swerves get bigger as the plane slows down.

This Pitts had the springs on the tail wheel (not sure if that matters) ..... once it started moving in the direction I wanted, it just kept going and I'd give full rudder to correct it, then it would move the other way... full rudder to stop it. I tried less input but perhaps I was too impatient. It was comical.

 

[Ken Ibold]

I didn't really have any problems getting the plane onto the runway, visibility was just something I adapted to quickly. My problem is that as the rudder effectiveness decreases, I over control and cannot calm it down. I end up with the rudder at the stops, left to right, right to left... repeat This is the reason I never looked at owning a Pitts. I'd probably crash every landing just under 40 mph.

I'm sure it was just a technique issue as we didn't practice full stop landings, just aerobatics. Take-offs are easy.

This is just typical pilot induced oscillations. It gets easier with practice. Promise!

 

[etemplet]

This is just typical pilot induced oscillations. It gets easier with practice. Promise!

Yea, but you gotta live through it !! LOL

On a side note... We had a forklift (rear steering as most are) the steering was so worn out you could hardly keep it going straight. It was kinda like landing the Pitts, always trying to swap ends. I used to drive that fork lift a lot as practice for my landings. No one else wanted to drive it. I hated it too but it was good practice for me and I got paid.

 

[whifferdill]

I tried less input but perhaps I was too impatient. It was comical.

Some say the best aerobatics in a Pitts starts the moment it touches down.

 

[Jeanie]

Now that's funny

 

[etemplet]

Some say the best aerobatics in a Pitts starts the moment it touches down.

Amen .

I wonder what kind of aerobatic plane would fill the bill for me? Let's see. Easy to land, inverted fuel and oil, forgiving, durable and... I like biplanes with 2 holes. Any suggestions. Anything around $40K or less ?

 

[pigpenracing]

Amen .

I wonder what kind of aerobatic plane would fill the bill for me? Let's see. Easy to land, inverted fuel and oil, forgiving, durable and... I like biplanes with 2 holes. Any suggestions. Anything around $40K or less ?

Skybolt

 

[PittsDriver]

Yup, my small swerves get bigger as the plane slows down.

This Pitts had the springs on the tail wheel (not sure if that matters) ..... once it started moving in the direction I wanted, it just kept going and I'd give full rudder to correct it, then it would move the other way... full rudder to stop it. I tried less input but perhaps I was too impatient. It was comical.

The thing that helped me work through this tendency was to practice falling-leaf stalls. With plenty of altitude, you've got a lot of time to practice your footwork to keep the wings level and over controlling it exaggerates any oscillations back and forth. Once you get the quick little jabs down (very active feet) and can keep a falling leaf relative stable, landing becomes easier.

 

[whifferdill]

The thing that helped me work through this tendency was to practice falling-leaf stalls. With plenty of altitude, you've got a lot of time to practice your footwork to keep the wings level and over controlling it exaggerates any oscillations back and forth. Once you get the quick little jabs down (very active feet) and can keep a falling leaf relative stable, landing becomes easier.

Hey Wes, are you still flying?

 

[LifeInverted]

Proactive rudder controlled is what saved my day in the Pitts time and time again! So ditto to those who mentioned quick little jabs and active footwork. My feet never stopped moving on touchdown, left, right, left, right, left, right... over and over and quick little jabs, larger if needed! Good luck in your quest, and enjoy the heck out of flying a Pitts!!

 

[l8evator]

As an aside, Budd Davisson still makes a bit of his living teaching Pitts landing skills out of Scottsdale. I have long wanted take his training even though it's unlikely I will ever own a Pitts. See: http://www.airbum.com/

Looks like a good road trip!

Scott

 

[bbchien]

I didn't really have any problems getting the plane onto the runway, visibility was just something I adapted to quickly. My problem is that as the rudder effectiveness decreases, I over control and cannot calm it down. I end up with the rudder at the stops, left to right, right to left... repeat This is the reason I never looked at owning a Pitts. I'd probably crash every landing just under 40 mph.

I'm sure it was just a technique issue as we didn't practice full stop landings, just aerobatics. Take-offs are easy.

You are actually trying to displace the rudder pedals and so are too late, and inducing PIOs.

Try doing very fast short early "mini-JABS" with the pedals. As the a/c slows, get the cycle time shorter and shorter. When the jabs get bigger, you are losing it. Your cycle response time is too long.

 

[N3368K]

I wouldn't call it jabbing the rudder. Timely and measured inputs are critical. You need to put in small corrections early and use only enough to correct the change. Quick but smooth input is important to not over controlling. You have to feel it as much as see it. Sometimes, by the time you see the swerve, it takes bigger corrections and use of brakes to correct. As speed decreases, rudder effectiveness decreases. You want to keep the tailwheel firmly on the ground to take advantage of the tailwheel steering or locking tailwheel, which ever it has. You will also have to be ready with some possible brakes.

The Pitts rudder is extremely effective. It is very easy to over control if you are using big inputs. I've only flown S-1s so I can't comment on the difference between front and back seat. I've flown several other tandem seat biplanes (Stearman, Skybolt, Starduster) though and while visibility is better from the front, the feel is better from the back.

A Skybolt is a very nice flying airplane with ground handling much more akin to a Citabria than a Pitts. I owned a Starduster Too for a few years. It was fun, but not a great acro mount. Depending on landing gear geometry and engine mount length, the ground handling can range from tame to sporty. Roll rate sucks and ailerons are heavy.


Jim R
Collierville, TN

N7155H--1946 Piper J-3 Cub
N3368K--1946 Globe GC-1B Swift

 

[Bill]

All of this Pitts landing talk really really has me interested in learning how to fly and land this airplane.

Has anyone heard of Keith Davis? Anyone flown with him?

http://kdairshows.com/index.html

He instructs in the Pitts and his school is but a 30min Mooney hop from my homebase. I'm really tempted to give him a call...

 

[pigpenracing]

Call him. You will have a blast in his s-2b. This will open your eyes on a whole new kind of flying. I promise it will be the most fun you have had since you have been flying.

 

[Bill]

Call him. You will have a blast in his s-2b. This will open your eyes on a whole new kind of flying. I promise it will be the most fun you have had since you have been flying.

Thanks, Pigpen, I suppose this means you've heard of him?

I did to an intro to aero course (8 lessons) in a Citabria a decade ago, and it's always been rolling around in my mind since. It was a blast! I'd imagine the S2-B will be a huge step up in performance.

I also want to be able to land tricky tail dragger airplanes.

 

[CFI-Guy]

Amen .

I wonder what kind of aerobatic plane would fill the bill for me? Let's see. Easy to land, inverted fuel and oil, forgiving, durable and... I like biplanes with 2 holes. Any suggestions. Anything around $40K or less ?

PJ-260

 

[etemplet]

PJ-260

Man that is a smokin cool plane. Looks a lot like a Pitts. What is the normal price range for these and where can I get more information about them?

Thanks for posting up !!

 

[CFI-Guy]

There is a guy from Chuch Hill Md named Edward Bennett who seems about once a year to put his (N777KH) up on Barnstormers (Acrobatic section under PJ-260) typically asking ~$45K, I suspect its still for sale even though the listing has expired. We had one on our field once, our mechanic who serviced it said they were built like a bridge, very strong!

More info about them below:

http://www.pj-260.freeservers.com/click.htm

http://www.pj-260.freeservers.com/parsons.htm

http://www.steenaero.com/articles_detail.cfm?ArticleID=15

http://1000aircraftphotos.com/Contributions/SmithRon/11611.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D'Apuzzo_Senior_Aero_Sport