Monoplane Corruption

[whifferdill]

On Saturday my friend goaded me into taking his Giles 202 up. He knew I'd never flown an "unlimited" monoplane (not RVs and Decathlons) before and was trying to turn me. I made a quick 15 minute flight, spent a few minutes trying to get a feel for it, then tried the '15 IAC Advanced sequence. Got about half way through and chickened out on the push down outside loop. Need to play with some things at altitude first. All that made it out of the camera was the very first few minutes I spent throwing it around. Few clips below. It's sloppy and nothing fancy. It feels WAY different from the Pitts. Full deflection roll rate is silly, and would take some practice to utilize while stopping clean. But there is really no need for 400 deg/sec. of roll rate competing through Advanced. But flying a Giles in Unlimited, sometimes you'll need all you can get going vertical. My impression was that it took the same amount of force to return the ailerons to neutral from full deflection as it took to initially deflect them. Weird for this Pitts pilot. Except for the very first roll here, the rest were done between 1/4 and 1/3 aileron deflection.

I hit 9G on the first pull to vertical without meaning to. Pitch is very light and tiny stick movements really pile on the G. Totally different feel from the Pitts and other airplanes with traditional stick force/feel. 9G felt about like 6G in the Pitts.

I did not figure out how to snap it from level flight on the few attempts I made. My Pitts snap inputs do not work in the Giles. I think I was pulling too hard and stalling the whole airplane. Could feel a buffet through the rudder pedals and it just slowly wallowed around. Got a decent 3/4 vertical down snap during the pass at the Advanced sequence, but you can pull the stick more on vertical snaps since they're started at zero AOA. It's pretty cool how much vertical rolling you can get done compared to the Pitts. No need to rush vertical points like in the Pitts.

Oh, and the thing is like a tricycle gear airplane on the ground it's so easy to handle after touchdown. But it's so light and pitch sensitive you really need to force your hand to stay still and let it settle onto the ground or it'll PIO very easily. I'm still a hardcore bipe buy, but I have a confession - I want to fly it again.

 

[pigpenracing]

Fly a Model 12 and you will feel like a real man!
Ha Ha!
I bet that Giles is sweet, my Staudacher was awesome but the biplanes just seem to be more fun all around.

 

[whifferdill]

Fly a Model 12 and you will feel like a real man! Ha Ha!

I dunno, I bet it's just as sissy on the ground as the Giles. But the sound and the two wings should pump the T levels back up. I would like to fly one though. Hope you're having fun with it. Post some video sometime - just leave off the music so we can hear the M14.

 

[Seanaldinho]

That plane looks like a lot of fun! Hope to see more videos of it!

 

[SCCutler]

Envy!

 

[pigpenracing]

I dunno, I bet it's just as sissy on the ground as the Giles. But the sound and the two wings should pump the T levels back up. I would like to fly one though. Hope you're having fun with it. Post some video sometime - just leave off the music so we can hear the M14.

Just like landing any Pitts. Actually that black eagle was the squirliest one

 

[Jimmy cooper]

It is gooooood lookin! Reminds me somewhat of an RV4 which I've always wanted.

 

[whifferdill]

Just like landing any Pitts. Actually that black eagle was the squirliest one

Pitts' vary hugely though. All I meant was that the landing gear style makes a huge difference in ground handling qualities - even on the same airplane. Spring/rod gear handles a lot differently from stiff bungee gear. I flew an S-1S with rod gear and it's a totally different airplane on the ground from my bungee gear S-1S. The rod gear was much more stable and easy to control. The Pitts 12 has wide spring gear and a rod tailwheel spring, which should make it completely different on the ground from a bungee gear Pitts. Even a rod tailwheel spring makes it less sensitive and "squirelly" compared to a leaf spring. I've flown other S-1's with rod tailwheel springs too. Spring main gear typically soften the swerves and make the airplane more stable while rolling on the ground.

Funny you found your Eagle squirrely - I've never flown one, but about all I've ever heard from those who fly them is that they are really stable and easy on the ground - a lot like a Decathlon - and way different from a bungee gear Pitts. Maybe yours was misaligned or something. It was almost a shock to the system getting back in my S-1S after just two landings in the Giles.

 

[Henning]

Nice. When I had my Travelair out in Long Beach, a buddy who I would trade with originally had a Pitts S-2B that I thought had unreal performance coming out of a Robyn 2160 and a Citabria. Then he got the Extra 300 and holy cow, not quite as big of a performance difference gap, but it was definitely a big step up.

 

[whifferdill]

Then he got the Extra 300 and holy cow, not quite as big of a performance difference gap, but it was definitely a big step up.

Do you remember if he had the original 300 mid wing, or the later 300L low wing? Going from an S-2B to a 300L is almost like going from a 300L to the Giles. The original 300 mid wing is lighter and handled better, but the guys with money who weren't serious into acro and just wanted a hot toy (typical Extra pilot) much preferred the low wing for better visibility. The Giles has about the same power to weight as the 300L, but it's way more responsive and rolls faster. Makes my Pitts feel like a Citabria. I need to stop it, and start thinking pure biplane thoughts.

 

[pigpenracing]

My buddy is about to put his Giles G-200 for sale if you want it.

 

[whifferdill]

Thanks for the heads up. If only I could have two airplanes...

 

[Henning]

Do you remember if he had the original 300 mid wing, or the later 300L low wing? Going from an S-2B to a 300L is almost like going from a 300L to the Giles. The original 300 mid wing is lighter and handled better, but the guys with money who weren't serious into acro and just wanted a hot toy (typical Extra pilot) much preferred the low wing for better visibility. The Giles has about the same power to weight as the 300L, but it's way more responsive and rolls faster. Makes my Pitts feel like a Citabria. I need to stop it, and start thinking pure biplane thoughts.

Early, first year IIRC, 300 2 hole, definitely mid wing, he had been waiting for it.

 

[northwest]

Hello gentlemen, this is Mark. I am from Jamaica. I visit Fort Lauderdale atleast twice each month for work. My favorite airplane of all time is the Pitts Special (any round wing/tail version except the eagle). I have always dreamed of flying one, but I can't seem to locate anybody in the Fort Lauderdale area. I am not interested in a joyride, rather I want about 2 hours dual instruction just to say I have operated the airplane.
Are there any links or #s to anybody at FXE or North Perry that I can check?

I also really need to fly a J3 Cub any any ultralight that is not a parachute.

I am 41, a former Air Jamaica pilot, now with Caribbean Airlines. B737, A320.

Thank you.

 

[Henning]

Check Pompano. There used to BA an aerobatics school there with nearly any acro plane you could think of. Let me ask around, I haven't been hearing of or seeing one recently, but I haven't been looking either.

 

[whifferdill]

Hello gentlemen, this is Mark. I am from Jamaica. I visit Fort Lauderdale atleast twice each month for work. My favorite airplane of all time is the Pitts Special (any round wing/tail version except the eagle). I have always dreamed of flying one, but I can't seem to locate anybody in the Fort Lauderdale area. I am not interested in a joyride, rather I want about 2 hours dual instruction just to say I have operated the airplane.
Are there any links or #s to anybody at FXE or North Perry that I can check?

I also really need to fly a J3 Cub any any ultralight that is not a parachute.

I am 41, a former Air Jamaica pilot, now with Caribbean Airlines. B737, A320.

Thank you.

Hello Mark - the list below is a start, though this information is not necessarily complete or current.

http://www.iacusn.org/schools/#state_FL_

 

[northwest]

Thank you gentlemen, I think I have made a start. Sorry for hijacking your thread.
I am now seriously considering doing a tailwheel rating just for fun. I have 1.3hrs in a Decathlon where I did most of the flying, but I never got to handle it on the ground. The Pitts and the Cub are just legendary to me so thanks for pointing me in the right direction.

 

[lolachampcar]

Whiff,
Snag a hop in an MX2/MXS if you get a chance. It's a truly jacked up Giles without some of the issues (although it is still pitchy as can be).

 

[whifferdill]

Whiff,
Snag a hop in an MX2/MXS if you get a chance. It's a truly jacked up Giles without some of the issues (although it is still pitchy as can be).

I'd definitely be up for that just to fly a new type, but there's something fun about trying to push a stock Pitts as far as it'll go in competition and just for fun. The MX has very impressive performance, but there are only a handful of pilots in the country who can truly utilize all that airplane has to offer. Even 99% of Pitts pilots don't come close to utilizing the full potential of the airplane. Nice try...attempting to corrupt me further. Biplanes will always be way cooler.

 

[lolachampcar]

an ole time aerobatic guy (which I am not) said something about taking off the "training wing"....... I knew he was not talking about me cuz mine only has one wing

Agreed on making the most of your hardware. I'm most certainly not up to my ride's capabilities.

 

[Henning]

I always prefer my machines to have more capability than me, that way I break it before it breaks me.

 

[AcroBoy]

While the Pitts series may be thought of as classic aerobatic planes, even an S2C does not compare to any of the late model composite monoplanes. I've flown in Super Decathlons, Citabrias, Eagles, and an S2C, and all of the drag really slows the vertical performance (and also minimizes the speed acceleration when going straight down).The Extra can do six or seven rolls from a seven G pull with two people on board and can snap positive and negative at reasonable speeds without worrying about exceeding the G limit. The roll rate is probably around double that of an S2C, with a lot lighter stick forces. However, the 300L I fly is pretty heavy- it has a 430, fuel flow, and an STEC autopilot. If I want to get it lighter I can go on a diet, but it does everything a Pitts will do only faster, and without the feeling that things are torquing around and flexing as I often felt in the Decathlon. Of course, they now cost more than double an S2C.

Yes, they have more range and comfort than any Pitts, and can be used as simply a hot rod, but it still takes some skill to land, and has overall superior aerobatic performance as well.

 

[whifferdill]

Wait...you're saying that carbon monoplanes have more aerobatic performance than tube and fabric biplanes? Methinks you protest too much and are secretly envious of the Pitts.

Your roll rate numbers are way off though. A 300L doesn't come close to twice the roll rate of a Pitts S-2C. The S-2C rolls about 260 deg/sec, the 300L about 360. But I'd love to see video of your 300L rolling 520 deg/sec...or even more than 360.

As far as performance goes, most aerobatic pilots can't fully utilize the performance of even a Decathlon, much less come close to a Pitts...and even more so an Extra. I'm more interested in learning to fly my airplane as well as possible and getting the most out of it rather than being able to do 2 vs. 7 vs. 10 vertical rolls. And to me, roll rate doesn't make an airplane more fun to fly. For me, increased performance must serve a purpose. For me, that's competition. For others it's air shows. Some just like hot airplanes like an Extra regardless of how they actually fly them...which is why Extra came out with the cruiser model 330LT. Some like having the most technically advanced airplane they can afford. And some get their jollies out of watching the horizon spin as fast as possible I guess. Of course those types won't maintain interest in aerobatics for very long. Others savor a perfectly performed slow roll in something that takes some real technique and effort such as a Great Lakes or Decathlon. There are all types out there. I guess my point is that pilots need to have some perspective on "performance" and what they really find satisfying about aerobatics. It's not at all about chasing the highest performing airplane. 99.9% of aerobatic pilots who are honest about their skills know that even a Pitts is more airplane than they'll ever be as a pilot.

I invite you to bring your Extra to a contest to show how superior it is to a Pitts. Unless you're a good Unlimited pilot, the Extra's performance won't help you much compared to a Pitts. If you did have these skills, then you'd be in the top 99.9 percentile of aerobatic pilots in the country.

This is all in good fun. There are just plenty of us who think biplanes are a whole lot cooler and truly more fun than monoplanes. Higher performance, lower fun. Most of those monoplanes barely require tailwheel skills at all. haha...and we Pitts pilots actually like the small added challenge of these airplanes. We also like that our airplanes don't blast though the subtlety of a nice level aileron roll or snap roll. We like that a perfect hammerhead is a real art form compared to a monoplane. The monoplane guys cheat the crap out of their snap roll stops with aileron. You know without a doubt when a Pitts pilot hits a good clean snap. So on and so forth...I could keep going, but I'll stop.

BTW, have you ever flown a Giles solo? It'll make the handling of that 300L feel like a dog.

 

[AcroGimp]

This is a real monoplane aerobat....

More airplane than 99% of us are likely to master, breathes smoke and fire, shakes and rattles - 2/3 the performance of an Extra 300L with the exception of speed, and more fun than a human being should be allowed to have.

Soon as I wrap up my formation wingman card moving on to IAC Primary and Sportsman sequences, aiming to fly maybe 2 competitions later this year.

'Gimp

 

[whifferdill]

This is a real monoplane aerobat....

You get a pass for sure John.

 

[AcroBoy]

I have around 600 hours on my 300L, and this is after 300+ in a super D. I really liked the Decathlon, but by your reasoning we should all be flying clipped wing cubs or a stearman- they require a lot more inputs doing a roll, and energy conservation is really an issue. I do enjoy the additional speed of the Extra, and how it responds immediately to even the lightest inputs. It does not feel like the tail is bending like when snapping in the Decathlon. Flying it requires a much more aggressive approach rather than emphasizing smoothness in lower powered planes. The faster roll rate does hide a lot and it certainly takes less input to do a good looking roll or even a looping maneuver, but it also takes a lot more G to do it. A 4G loop in a Decathlon needs a 6-7G pull to make it look good in an Extra or other monoplane. Both were certainly more than I am ever capable of exhausting, but the Extra is really solid, with outstanding fit and finish inside and out, great attention to detail, and is supported by excellent service by Southeast Aero in Florida. I guess some people buy them for cruising like a Ferrari, but I have a Baron for that purpose. Most of my flights are 0.5 or a little longer, and I'm pretty tired after that. It's heavy, has long range tanks, autopilot as mentioned, fuel flow, etc, but still capable at advanced. For unlimited it's not there, but I don't intend to ever fly that sequence, and most of the planes in that category are unique and built by small companies like Staudacher, Giles, Edge, etc. that come and go. If someone's in the top 20-30 unlimited pilots in the country and are willing to put the time, money, and coaching into flying at that level, then one of those planes is worthwhile.

The SU-29 and 31 are awesome planes, but the last I looked there were only around 30 in the world, while there are hundreds of Extras, and the parts are all easily obtained. There are lots of Pitts out there that never see competition as well. I have nothing against the biplanes, but Extra has been the right fit for me, and I doubt that I'll ever get tired of it.

Our field has a mustang, a bunch of T-6s, some beautiful Stearmans, a T-33, T-37, etc. I've given up talking about the benefits or drawbacks of different planes- it's whatever makes the owner happy- just don't criticize my choices for planes in return!

 

[pigpenracing]

This is a real monoplane aerobat....

I thought real monoplane aerobat's had tailwheels?

 

[whifferdill]

it's whatever makes the owner happy- just don't criticize my choices for planes in return!

Not criticizing, just explaining why I prefer bipes to monoplanes for those not familiar with the whole "bipes vs. monoplanes" debate that acro pilots like to rib each other about. Extras are very fine aircraft. Not saying you shouldn't have one. There have been several times where out of the blue you posted a long description of how an Extra significantly outperforms a Pitts. Everyone knows this. People don't prefer Pitts' to Extras because the Pitts has higher performance. Maybe you didn't intend it, but those posts almost came across as implying that one should prefer an Extra due to pure performance factors alone. All I was saying is that there's a whole lot more to aerobatic airplane selection than pure performance numbers. Not putting down your choice of aircraft.

but by your reasoning we should all be flying clipped wing cubs or a stearman- they require a lot more inputs doing a roll, and energy conservation is really an issue.

That is not my reasoning at all. I said what I said to maybe provide some perspective for some of those aspiring acro pilots out there who may want to get into an airplane, but think they need maximum performance in an aircraft. Newbie acro pilots are easily influenced and impressed by roll rate, climb rates, etc., thinking that is what they really need and want, but not knowing what the heck this really does (or does not do) for them. Without experience, many folks tend to see acro planes in terms of more performance = better. Not so. More performance does not equal more enjoyment - and enjoyment is the whole point.

Perspective is all I'm trying to offer. It's like the brand new student pilot who thinks they need an all glass A36 Bonanza when they don't even know what they really want or need in an airplane, and what their mission will be. It might just be 40 mile hamburger runs on the weekend.

 

[pigpenracing]

Not criticizing, just explaining why I prefer bipes to monoplanes for those not familiar with the whole "bipes vs. monoplanes" debate that acro pilots like to rib each other about. Extras are very fine aircraft. Not saying you shouldn't have one. There have been several times where out of the blue you posted a long description of how an Extra significantly outperforms a Pitts. Everyone knows this. People don't prefer Pitts' to Extras because the Pitts has higher performance. Maybe you didn't intend it, but those posts almost came across as implying that one should prefer an Extra due to pure performance factors alone. All I was saying is that there's a whole lot more to aerobatic airplane selection than pure performance numbers. Not putting down your choice of aircraft.



I had someone want to trade a Extra for my Model 12. HELL NO! The biplane is just way to cool and fun.

 

[AcroBoy]

I think the biggest thing about getting into acro is getting good instruction. For most serious aerobatic planes this means tail wheel training first, and then basic spin recognition and recovery. We had one guy on our field who had a brand new model 12 Pitts that departed the runway during a somewhat abbreviated checkout. He took out a bunch of lights and damaged the plane. It left on a flatbed truck back to Florida and he never flew it again, and this was after hundreds of hours in a Husky.

Likewise, we had a guy who bought an SU-29, and was told he was good to go after around 6 hours of dual and no tailwheel time. He dropped it in, dinged the prop, and drove the tailwheel into the rudder. He never flew the plane again either.

A lot of the acro planes are more challenging to land than your average tricycle gear plane, so a good TW checkout and lots of practice are a great starting point. I think this is true whether you're planning on flying a clipped wing cub, Stearman, Pitts, Extra, or even something hotter.

 

[whifferdill]

I think the biggest thing about getting into acro is getting good instruction. For most serious aerobatic planes this means tail wheel training first, and then basic spin recognition and recovery. We had one guy on our field who had a brand new model 12 Pitts that departed the runway during a somewhat abbreviated checkout. He took out a bunch of lights and damaged the plane. It left on a flatbed truck back to Florida and he never flew it again, and this was after hundreds of hours in a Husky.

Likewise, we had a guy who bought an SU-29, and was told he was good to go after around 6 hours of dual and no tailwheel time. He dropped it in, dinged the prop, and drove the tailwheel into the rudder. He never flew the plane again either.

A lot of the acro planes are more challenging to land than your average tricycle gear plane, so a good TW checkout and lots of practice are a great starting point. I think this is true whether you're planning on flying a clipped wing cub, Stearman, Pitts, Extra, or even something hotter.

Totally agree. I'll add that aerobatic spin training is a must as well so that pilots learn to use an emergency spin recovery technique to keep in their back pocket should they need it. Lots of pilots would be alive today if they had learned and utilized one or two simple techniques.

I was kidding of course about monoplanes barely requiring tailwheel skills. Just more bipe vs. monoplane trash talk. Compared to a stock Pitts, they just seem so easy and stable during the landing process...assuming you actually arrive at the ground somewhat smoothly and under control.