Next step up in capability after an RV?

J

Johnbo

Pre-takeoff checklist
Joined
Apr 15, 2019
Messages
189
Display Name
Display name:
Johnbo
I’m not looking to sell my RV4 but looking to add or partner on something more capable for aerobatics. The RV is slippery, has a good bit of dihedral, a high lift wing and isn’t all that suited for inverted / outside maneuvers, snaps or potential tail slides.

I’m not really looking to compete although as a bucket list item I’m sure I would try some local competition. The main goal is to get something that I can wring out that won’t break so easily in the air. RV aerobatics are about finesse…I want to be able to be more aggressive, have a better roll rate and better inverted performance.

the logical place to look seems to be a pitts s-1s or acro duster I. The DR107 seems too sketchy on the ground (I’m based at a tight 2400’ field) and I’ve known several high time, excellent pilots to have had trouble with them.

what else should I be considering?

thx
 
I’ve been thinking about building an S-1 after I finish my RV-8, for the same reasons. I’d love to have a partner.

Im hoping, once the -8 is flying, I can find a S-1 project that someone is looking to bail out of for a good price.
 
If you plan to remain in the experimental category you don't have a ton of options. The S1 is an obvious choice as well as the one design. Good luck finding a true Acroduster 1, I think there are only 2-3 in existence and I don't think the plans are even available anymore. Skybolt's are nice but are lacking in the roll rate department. Best bang for your buck is probably a Christen Eagle.

If you plan to build the Raven 2xs would take you deep into competitive acro. You could do an Acroduster II which is pretty decent but again not many available and building one versus a 2xs doesn't make a lot of long term financial sense as the Pitts based 2xs will have a much higher re-sell. I think you can still get Laser plans and there used to be a company that sold DR109 plans which is a 2 place 107.
 
I will add that the nice thing about a Pitts is how much aftermarket support there is for them and the prices have really shot up lately. You could start with a C model and start building a set of SS wings for it as you progress. Tons of cowl and landing gear options to increase it's performance.
 
Decathlon is the default entry level acro bird. Good to learn how to compete in, because you can fly it hard and not worry about getting in trouble. It is competitive with anything in Sportsman, and could fly Intermediate in the hands of a skilled pilot. You can also stuff it full of camping gear and go on a 3,000 mile XC trip to Oshkosh, like I did last week.

PXL_20210726_232347708.jpg

Next step up is a Pitts. Pretty much a rite of passage.

Final step on the progression is one of the high performance monoplanes.
 
Ed Haywood said:
Decathlon is the default entry level acro bird. Good to learn how to compete in, because you can fly it hard and not worry about getting in trouble. It is competitive with anything in Sportsman, and could fly Intermediate in the hands of a skilled pilot. You can also stuff it full of camping gear and go on a 3,000 mile XC trip to Oshkosh, like I did last week.

View attachment 98865

Next step up is a Pitts. Pretty much a rite of passage.

Final step on the progression is one of the high performance monoplanes.
Click to expand...

I’ve got acro time in a Decathlon but am looking for something more responsive and probably single place for affordability. I also have time in an Extra 300L which is more in line with what I want in terms of handling. It seems like a single hole Pitts may be the best combo of affordability and handling so far in my research.
 
Just as "Bonanza" is the standard answer here on POA, "Pitts" is the standard answer (and rightfully so) in the acro world.

Though I must say POA is slipping if nobody yet has suggested the aerobatic version of the Bonanza...
 
Pitts S-1S is the best bang for the buck in aerobatics, trouble is finding a decent one for sale that's not ragged out and needing rebuild/resto. There aren't many left, and the few that become available for fair money, most people turn up their noses at the asking price, thinking they can still get a fresh airplane for the average asking price of the junk they see on the ad sites. I only mention this is as a bit of a reality check if you end up serious about a Pitts S-1. Don't overlook a good S-1C either, if you can find one. They are more airplane than 99% of aerobatic pilots. Yeah they roll slower, but the more acro experience you get, the less you will care about pure roll rate unless it's for a real purpose - as in flying higher level competition sequences. The One Design is not at all sketchy on the ground. They have spring gear and roll out easy. It just has a little higher landing speed than a Pitts S-1, so uses up a little more runway is all. The 1D is also one of the best bangs for the buck in aerobatics. Any two seater, you're just paying twice the money for less aerobatic performance, just to have the 2nd seat which will usually be empty unless you have unlimited numbers of family/friends who want to go for a lazy acro ride.
 
The Extra 200 is a bit of an odd duck that was mostly used in euro countries due to certification and lower fuel burn compared to the 300. Rare to see one in the US. But you can buy a Giles 202 for comparable money, which flies circles around the Extra 200. The 200 is real porky for a 4-cylinder. Yak 50 is cool if you want to keep up with a plane like that, but not really much further up the performance scale from the RV. They are ruggedly built though.
 
RoscoeT said:
Pitts S-1S is the best bang for the buck in aerobatics, trouble is finding a decent one for sale that's not ragged out and needing rebuild/resto. There aren't many left, and the few that become available for fair money, most people turn up their noses at the asking price, thinking they can still get a fresh airplane for the average asking price of the junk they see on the ad sites. I only mention this is as a bit of a reality check if you end up serious about a Pitts S-1. Don't overlook a good S-1C either, if you can find one. They are more airplane than 99% of aerobatic pilots. Yeah they roll slower, but the more acro experience you get, the less you will care about pure roll rate unless it's for a real purpose - as in flying higher level competition sequences. The One Design is not at all sketchy on the ground. They have spring gear and roll out easy. It just has a little higher landing speed than a Pitts S-1, so uses up a little more runway is all. The 1D is also one of the best bangs for the buck in aerobatics. Any two seater, you're just paying twice the money for less aerobatic performance, just to have the 2nd seat which will usually be empty unless you have unlimited numbers of family/friends who want to go for a lazy acro ride.
Click to expand...

Thx for this info. besides roll rate, doesn’t the C also give up a bit of inverted flight ease? Regardless, is it a significant step up in overall acro capability from the RV or more of a baby step?

they seem to be well priced.
 
RoscoeT said:
Pitts S-1S is the best bang for the buck in aerobatics, trouble is finding a decent one for sale that's not ragged out and needing rebuild/resto. There aren't many left, and the few that become available for fair money, most people turn up their noses at the asking price, thinking they can still get a fresh airplane for the average asking price of the junk they see on the ad sites. I only mention this is as a bit of a reality check if you end up serious about a Pitts S-1. Don't overlook a good S-1C either, if you can find one. They are more airplane than 99% of aerobatic pilots. Yeah they roll slower, but the more acro experience you get, the less you will care about pure roll rate unless it's for a real purpose - as in flying higher level competition sequences. The One Design is not at all sketchy on the ground. They have spring gear and roll out easy. It just has a little higher landing speed than a Pitts S-1, so uses up a little more runway is all. The 1D is also one of the best bangs for the buck in aerobatics. Any two seater, you're just paying twice the money for less aerobatic performance, just to have the 2nd seat which will usually be empty unless you have unlimited numbers of family/friends who want to go for a lazy acro ride.
Click to expand...

What are your thoughts on S vs T?
 
Johnbo said:
Thx for this info. besides roll rate, doesn’t the C also give up a bit of inverted flight ease? Regardless, is it a significant step up in overall acro capability from the RV or more of a baby step?

they seem to be well priced.
Click to expand...
The C will require more forward pressure on the stick than the S models while inverted. If you just want an airplane to beat around the sky the C will feel like a significant step up in acro capability. It will roll faster, snap better, and do better on the down line thanks to the added drag. When it comes to competition it will likely only get you one step deeper in the ranks. IAC is making an effort to make the routines more RV friendly as they know that is the key to keeping their organization alive. If you think of the Vans as a solid sportsman plane, C as a solid Intermediate, and an S as an advanced capable mount in the right hands and with enough HP.
 
Johnbo said:
Thx for this info. besides roll rate, doesn’t the C also give up a bit of inverted flight ease?
Click to expand...

The C wing is a semi-symmetrical M6 airfoil that requires a little more pitch change for inverted flight compared to the symmetrical S-1S/T wing. It's not that much though, and either way you still have to push a little to fly inverted. You're not really gonna spend time droning around inverted anyway. Mostly it'll be hesitations on point rolls. I've flown both and it's a non-issue as far as I'm concerned. The symmetrical wing does present attitudes and lines slightly better to the judges for competition acro, but that's not really a big deal either.

Johnbo said:
Regardless, is it a significant step up in overall acro capability from the RV or more of a baby step?
Click to expand...

It depends on what your mission and goals are. Some people just want as much performance as possible even though the actual level of aerobatics they perform can easily be done in a Stearman. Nothing wrong with that. On the other hand a 180HP S-1C can be competitive in good hands at the Advanced level in aerobatic competition, even though 99% of aerobatic pilots never reach this level of capability. The C wing doesn't really roll any faster than an RV-4, but an S-1C with inverted systems will let you build new skills in the negative G realm, learning true level rolling technique, and especially snap rolls which you can do with abandon in a Pitts, just keep the snap speed around 125 mph or less for airframe longevity. Nothing snaps like an S-1. All that being said, I do prefer the S wing for sure.
 
Johnbo said:
Thx for this info. besides roll rate, doesn’t the C also give up a bit of inverted flight ease? Regardless, is it a significant step up in overall acro capability from the RV or more of a baby step?

they seem to be well priced.
Click to expand...

Go to an IAC contest and watch pilots flog their Pitts. Things you wouldn't dream of doing in an RV. Incredibly agile, light, and strong.

Pitts do have a steep learning curve for landing and spins. IMO that is part of the appeal.
 
Ed Haywood said:
What are your thoughts on S vs T?
Click to expand...

A stock T is a lot heavier. The 200hp angle valve motor is basically 30 lbs of extra dead weight and the CS prop is also a lot of extra weight. The symmetrical T ailerons do roll faster than S ailerons. I've flown a stock T and you can feel the weight compared to the S-1S. T performance is good, but I prefer a light FP prop S-1S. Better yet is a light 180HP FP S-1 with T ailerons. And best of all is one with Wolf wings.
 
Grum.Man said:
IAC is making an effort to make the routines more RV friendly as they know that is the key to keeping their organization alive.
Click to expand...

Is that why the Sportsman this year does not have a spin? Back when I was competing regularly, there was always a spin at that level, usually for wind correction. Also 3 Cubans and no reverse Cubans ... same logic, more RV friendly?

The guy in the hangar next to me just sold his beautiful RV-8 and bought an S2E, mostly out of frustration with the challenges of competing in an RV. Didn't hurt that he made a ton of money on the sale.
 
Ed Haywood said:
Is that why the Sportsman this year does not have a spin? Back when I was competing regularly, there was always a spin at that level, usually for wind correction. Also 3 Cubans and no reverse Cubans ... same logic, more RV friendly?

The guy in the hangar next to me just sold his beautiful RV-8 and bought an S2E, mostly out of frustration with the challenges of competing in an RV. Didn't hurt that he made a ton of money on the sale.
Click to expand...
I don’t think anyone has explicitly stated it but they have been discussing ways to draw the RV crowds into the sport. Routines change every year but the whispers of drawing in the thousands of RV pilots to competition has to weigh heavy on the planners.
 
Grum.Man said:
I don’t think anyone has explicitly stated it but they have been discussing ways to draw the RV crowds into the sport. Routines change every year but the whispers of drawing in the thousands of RV pilots to competition has to weigh heavy on the planners.
Click to expand...

Thing is you can't really make it a whole lot easier for them than it already is. Those who really want to participate will do it. No amount of coddling those lukewarm on the idea of competing will significantly increase participation.
 
RoscoeT said:
Thing is you can't really make it a whole lot easier for them than it already is. Those who really want to participate will do it. No amount of coddling those lukewarm on the idea of competing will significantly increase participation.
Click to expand...
Agreed. The thought process I believe is that removing things that they perceive as hard on the airplane (such as snaps) or procedures that the airplane doesn't excel at (such as spins) will lure them in. The reality is people don't want to compete if they don't feel competitive. This has really been the downfall of IAC in general as well as all forms of competition. The more wealthy you are the better your competitive edge. Put one pilot in an Extra and another of similar skill in a Decathlon and the Extra pilot will likely fair better. Ever since expensive monoplanes came on the scene the attendance has dwindled as the affordable biplane crowd felt uncompetitive. They almost need to break the entries further by type and not just difficulty level.
 
Grum.Man said:
The reality is people don't want to compete if they don't feel competitive. This has really been the downfall of IAC in general as well as all forms of competition.
Click to expand...

I see it differently. It's a catch 22 perception issue. People without experience don't understand the category structure. Those who do understand don't need to be catered to. Every airplane has its limitations. The highest performance biplane in the world won't stand a chance against top monoplane pilots in Unlimited. Doesn't mean Pitts pilots don't bother getting involved because they don't feel competitive. Like RVs, Super D's aren't ideal for Intermediate and beyond either. Plenty of Super D's involved, and multiple Sportsman Nats wins by one pilot. An RV-4 w/ inverted systems placed 2nd at Nats in Sportsman a few years back, so those who don't participate are blocked by their perceptions and beliefs more so than reality. But that's the way most people are in general...facts are no match for strong beliefs. ;)
 
The guy in the hangar next to me spent 5 years competing in his RV-8. He's a retired Navy F14 pilot. Never saw him fly but he expressed frustration when we spoke about it. He just bought an S2E last week. I'm sure he'll be at Sebring.

All the RV owners I have talked acro with express great apprehension at the thought of full power in a vertical down line. Most military guys have never flown a hammerhead, and they are incredulous at the idea of leaving the power in after the pivot. Same for spin recovery.

That's one reason I'm happy with my lowly Decathlon. Not hard to stay in the green arc. Though I do aspire to step up to a Pitts when the time is right. Not because it is more competitive, but because it is more challenging.
 
Ed Haywood said:
All the RV owners I have talked acro with express great apprehension at the thought of full power in a vertical down line.
Click to expand...

Yep, and most of them who have had limited training and coaching want to pull power to idle at the top of a loop as well, even though it's bad technique and completely unnecessary. A little training, practice, and awareness is all that's needed to get past these mental hurdles. It's really not hard to fly an RV through a Sportsman sequence well under Vne. Lines only need to be long enough to be seen, and those super low aspect ratio RV wings create tons of drag at high AOA, so just putting moderate G load on the plane also works to control exit airspeed on those downlines.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top