Pitts or Citabria/Decathlon

[Flyfishingpilot]

Which plane is better to learn basic aerobatics?

 

[Ken Ibold]

There are two schools of thought, here. First is that in the lower performance aircraft each maneuver will take longer, magnifying the flaws in your technique and making it easier to find and fix them. If you subscribe to this, the Pitts will not work as well because the maneuver will be over before your errors become obvious.

The second is that training in a Pitts will make you the master of the machine and you will know its nuances better than if you train in something else and then transition. This school also holds that the lower performance machines will also hinder your progress because they cannot do some of the things you will want to do.

In my opinion, it boils down to why you want to learn aerobatics. (First, however, I will stipulate that I am removing cost from the equation. If cost is an issue, train in the Citabria/Decathlon.) If you intend to do competition, then learn in the Pitts. The Citabria/Decathlon have a significant shortcoming in that snap rolls trash them. I personally would not allow snap rolls in the Citabria I used to have in leaseback for intro acro. If you didn't know, snap rolls are approved in the Citabria/Decathlon, but they crack the fuel tanks and the ribs to which the fuel tanks attach. If you just want to do gentleman's acro and don't care about snap rolls, then the lower-performance airplanes will do just fine.

I have owned both a Citabria and a Pitts. Both are nice airplanes, but have very different personalities. A Citabria is a sports coupe, a Pitts is a Porsche.

Bottom line is that your goals and your budget will determine the right answer for you.

 

[Flyfishingpilot]

Thanks for the great write-up, Ken.

I've flown the Citabria and had fun with it. The instructor was the barking type and after the first lesson, I decided to look for another one. This other instructor has a Pitts. I've never flown Pitts, just heard that the landings are "interesting".

My goal is simply to become instinctively familiar with recovery procedures, and have a deeper understanding of actions and consequences.

At this point I don't think I want to buy an aerobatic plane, but if I would it ,would be the more versatile Citabria...

 

[Ken Ibold]

At this point I don't think I want to buy an aerobatic plane, but if I would it ,would be the more versatile Citabria...

Think of the Citabria is a nice taildragger that happens to be able to do acro, rather than being an "aerobatic airplane," if you understand the distinction. The Decathlon is kind of in the middle.

In the circumstance you describe, go for the better instructor, as the airplane itself is less of an issue given your motivations. And because you won't be soloing the Pitts (for a while, anyway, if at all), don't worry about the landings.

 

[docmirror]

I will opine that the Super-Deke is a different wing than the 115 or 150HP Citabria. It is reinforced a bit better. Modern ones with the Al spar would handle snap rolls fine. It also has fair vertical energy to do some more acro than the more docile Citabria.

Neither have the energy of most any Pitts S2. The Pitts will give you more freedom to express the style of acro you want, but for the basics, The super-Deke will do fine, and the Citabrias are suitable, but you'll outgrow them soon.

 

[CJones]

There was a Pitts at the local RV Fly-In this past Saturday. I had always heard how squirrelly the Pitts can on the ground. I never realized just how narrow that gear is until I saw it sitting next to an RV-4. Holy buckets! A good gust of wind could blow that thing over sideways!

It suuuuuure looks like fun, though.

 

[Ken Ibold]

I will opine that the Super-Deke is a different wing than the 115 or 150HP Citabria. It is reinforced a bit better. Modern ones with the Al spar would handle snap rolls fine.

Yikes! I know many Super-D owners who would disagree wholeheartedly on this one. When I was editing Sport Aerobatics, one guy sent in a photo series showing just how damaged his late-model Super D became from his attempts to fly the snap rolls in Sportsman competitions with it. Predictably, he absolutely insisted he never attempted a snap roll at too high a speed or a too great a weight.

The issue is not the spar -- and yes, the Citabria MAIN spar is the Super D REAR spar -- but the snap roll, being a horizontal spin, puts stress on the fuselage and makes it flex in such a way that it puts pressure on the "squareness" of the wing.

 

[docmirror]

Yikes! I know many Super-D owners who would disagree wholeheartedly on this one. When I was editing Sport Aerobatics, one guy sent in a photo series showing just how damaged his late-model Super D became from his attempts to fly the snap rolls in Sportsman competitions with it. Predictably, he absolutely insisted he never attempted a snap roll at too high a speed or a too great a weight.

The issue is not the spar -- and yes, the Citabria MAIN spar is the Super D REAR spar -- but the snap roll, being a horizontal spin, puts stress on the fuselage and makes it flex in such a way that it puts pressure on the "squareness" of the wing.

Thank you, I stand corrected. I had heard differently from a seller of a Decathlon.

 

[Everskyward]

I took about 10 hours of acro lessons last summer. My CFI started me off in a Decathlon for a few lessons then let me try the Pitts. I agree that it's more apparent whether or not you are using the correct control inputs in the Decathlon. In the Pitts everything happens so quickly that it seems to cover up some bad technique. In my case my slow rolls were not all that great in the Decathlon but they seemed easy in the Pitts. For the next few lessons I would learn the maneuvers in the Decathlon then switch to the Pitts. Towards the end of the 10 hours I decided that I wanted to use the Pitts rather than the Decathlon. Although the Decathlon was less expensive per hour it seemed to take quite a bit of time to climb back to altitude so the cost savings ended up being pretty much a wash. Besides, it was my fun summer experience so I didn't even look when I wrote the checks.

I was at the point of learning the sportsman sequence when other things took my attention away from acro last winter and this spring. I would like to get back to it when I have the time and my schedule gets back into some sort of order.

 

[flyersfan31]

How do some of the homebuilts, like Baby Great Lakes, etc, match up?

 

[gibbons]

Pitts. Case closed.

 

[Bill1200]

Have been doing acro for almost 2 years now. Trained in SuperD, just recently transitioned to Pitts. Since your question was, better of the two planes for learning BASIC aerobatics, I'd go with the SuperD. The Pitts is incredible to fly, no question,so don't forget the fun factor, but IMO the SuperD will give you what your looking for as an intro, because there is a lot to learn.

 

[Anthony]

Have been doing acro for almost 2 years now. Trained in SuperD, just recently transitioned to Pitts. Since your question was, better of the two planes for learning BASIC aerobatics, I'd go with the SuperD. The Pitts is incredible to fly, no question,so don't forget the fun factor, but IMO the SuperD will give you what your looking for as an intro, because there is a lot to learn.

X2. Spot on.

 

[Hiperbiper]

How do some of the homebuilts, like Baby Great Lakes, etc, match up?

One of the three best Hiperbipes ever built (N776HB ) just went up for sale for $48K. S2A performance in a Homebuilt that is also a nice cross-country criuser.

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]HiperBipe[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]

[/FONT]​

HIPERBIPE • $48,000 • DON'T MISS OUT • The last HiperBipe built by Sorrell Aviation. 450 hrs on IO360 engine, prop and airframe. New stile hub. Christian inverted system with smoke, mode C, Icom 760. This plane is as pretty as the pictures. If you are looking for a show stopper this is it. Cruise 150, so why buy an old Citabria for more money? No Tire Kickers. • Contact David P. Godwin, Owner - located Mountain Home, ID USA • Telephone: 208-573-0156 . 208-587-4371 • Posted June 12, 2008 •

 

[PittsDriver]

There was a Pitts at the local RV Fly-In this past Saturday. I had always heard how squirrelly the Pitts can on the ground. I never realized just how narrow that gear is until I saw it sitting next to an RV-4. Holy buckets! A good gust of wind could blow that thing over sideways!

A Super D is a fine machine and I too know a few owners that absolutely will not snap them. As for a Pitts being squirrelly - no way. Pitts is the most honest airplane ever built without, IMO, a single flaw. It'll recover from any upset you can throw at it with the simplest of inputs and owing to it's considerable control authority is capable of handling a whole lotta crosswind on landing. What it won't do is fly or land itself nor would you want it to - you'd be giving up too much performance to design a plane that way. It just requires that you actually fly it properly until it stops moving. I've used the analogy before that it's like a very well trained guard dog. It'll do exactly what you tell it to do with a great deal of talent and effectiveness but if you turn your back on it and forget it's there, it just might sink it's teeth into your backside. If you're going to fly acro, wouldn't you want a machine that'll do exactly what you tell it to, take all the punishment you can dish at it, and make it easy to recover from all your inevitable screw ups? Yeah, it actually requires you to fly it properly to land it - but hey, you're a pilot, right? And finally, when's the last time you saw anyone crowding around a Citabria or Super D making ohhhh & ahhhhh sounds.

Shiny red bi-planes or nothin'

 

[BruceAir]

Do keep in mind that just because a Pitts (or, for example, an Extra) can do maneuvers much more briskly than a Decathlon, it's not necessary to fly every maneuver like Sean D. Tucker or Patty Wagstaff.

You can fly a Pitts or an Extra gracefully and smoothly, slowing down rolls and loops so that you can see the effects of control inputs. Given the better visibility from an aircraft like a Pitt or (especially) an Extra, it's also sometimes easier to get the big picture.

The more generous envelope of an airplane like a Pitts or Extra allows a student more room to err and correct mistakes. And the performance available from such an airplane makes training more efficient (but not necessarily less expensive).

Finally, don't focus on landings. If your goal is to start learning or develop aerobatic skills, being checked out for and flying solo isn't necessary (or often even an option).

 

[Dudley Henriques]

Have been doing acro for almost 2 years now. Trained in SuperD, just recently transitioned to Pitts. Since your question was, better of the two planes for learning BASIC aerobatics, I'd go with the SuperD. The Pitts is incredible to fly, no question,so don't forget the fun factor, but IMO the SuperD will give you what your looking for as an intro, because there is a lot to learn.

I lean toward agreeing with this analysis. We used Citabrias and Decathlons at different times for basic acro training. Of the two we favored the Decathlon for various reasons.
Actually, from a pure aerodynamic standpoint, it's actually harder to fly accurate acro in the Citabria due to it's lack of performance, especially in roll.
I've always told my students that if they could fly acro in the Citabria with a degree of precision, they would have no trouble with a higher performance airplane.
I've had pilots transition into the Pitts and CAP10 from basic training in Decathlons with no issues.
Bruce is correct that both the Pitts and the Extra can be slowed down control rate wise acrobatically to be great platforms for learning aerobatics. There is no specific reason why a lesser performance airplane has to be used for basics if the instructor is on the ball.
We didn't have an Extra on our line but we used an S2 with a great amount of success in training basic students.
In other words, I would rate the Citabria as a decent choice for basics if the pilot's intent is REALLY simply to learn basics. As a cost factor AND as a wonderful all around introduction to acro on both sides I highly recommend the Decathlon.
If the pilot has the coin and wants either just basics or to move onward with their acro, there is absolutely no reason that either the Decathlon or a top line high performance airplane can't be used from day one.

 

[john smith]

first aerobatic airplane: 115 hp Citabria second aerobatic airplane: 150 hp fixed-pitch Decathlon third aerobatic airplane: 180 hp Super Decathlon fourth aerobatic airplane: whatever can can afford This progression will allow you to progressively improve your skills with successively higher performance aircraft while maintaining familiarity within the aircraft family.

 

[Greg Koontz]

Ken,

If you know many SD owners and worked at Sport Aerobatics you should know that there are NO snap rolls in the Sportsman Category aerobatic contest.

I have been familiar with the types since 1970. Probably have as much experience as anyone in Decathlons. I have owned a great many of them, have two right now. I've competed in them and have more than 350 airshows in them where I most always SNAP ROLL! I have never even seen a problem. But, i do not snap real fast and I NEVER do so with more than 18 gallons of fuel on board, almost always less. If taken care of, these planes a rugged and capable. Don't spread rumors. This business has enough of them now.

 

[Jimmy cooper]

Super decathlon. Airline pilot at airport has one, flys it often, 16 year old son is quite good with it too. Great looking-performing airplane. Ed Shipley started in one, then to T-6 , then to P51. If I were just doing a loop and a few standard things I would opt for the less expensive 150 Citabria. I flew one quite a bit, nice all round taildragger. Pitts, way out of my league.

 

[whifferdill]

Ken,

If you know many SD owners and worked at Sport Aerobatics you should know that there are NO snap rolls in the Sportsman Category aerobatic contest.

This is an ancient thread, and Ken may be dating himself, since there were snaps in Sportsman way back. Welcome Greg!

 

[ChitDisturber]

For LEARNING aerobatics.


WHICH EVER IS THE CHEAPEST

You dont need something expensive and fancy like Extra 300 or something with a million HP to learn the basic building blocks

Just go find a GOOD aerobatic instructor (one who has competed and placed well) and use the cheapest aerobatic plane you can find.

 

[whifferdill]

While we're necroposting, this is a repost on this subject that I wrote elsewhere -


I think there's a bit of BS about the idea that you can only learn good fundamental aerobatic skills in some slow, low-powered, slow-rolling type of airplane with gobs of adverse yaw. You can learn good skills in lots of aircraft types, but generally the monoplanes roll so fast and have so little adverse yaw that the airplane doesn't slap you in the face if you haven't developed good rolling technique using properly coordinated and timed rudder and elevator inputs. It's just too easy to miss the sublety. IMO, a Pitts is about at the limit of the amount of performance an airplane should have for training purposes. It still has a little adverse yaw and rolls slow enough that to do a good roll, you must use proper technique.

Some will say that a Pitts will cover up rudder errors....but rather I think it just makes them less obvious compared to something like a Decathlon. Barrel and dish a roll in a Pitts, and it will probably deviate less (and hence look better) than messed up roll in a Decathlon, but it is still just as bad. The Decathlon and lower performing airplanes just slap you in the face harder and make it more obvious when you don't do something right. But doing a perfect roll or loop in a Pitts takes the same level of skill it takes to do the same in any other lower-performing airplane. The Decathlon will just make it feel harder because of the higher control forces, increased time it takes, and more control deflection required. But the precision timing, measured inputs, and mental game are all the same.

The lower performing the airplane, the more critical entry airspeeds become, whereas with a higher performing, higher powered airplane, the basic level maneuvers can be done across a broader range of entry airspeeds. When it comes to precision aerobatics, a high performance airplane won't do it for you. Performance doesn't help you make a loop perfectly round, stop a spin perfectly on heading, draw perfect 45 and vertical lines, time a perfect hammer pivot, snap the airplane crisply with a perfect stop, do a perfect non-barreled vertical roll with a perfect stop, prevent your points on rolls from bobbling, stay on heading, center your rolls on a line, maintain situational awareness, etc., etc. About the only exception to this is basic aileron rolls, where a monoplane rolls so fast that you can do a decent roll with no rudder and maybe just a quick bump of the stick through inverted. But any airplane can be slowed down, and a Pitts will still force good technique.

Anyone who says a Pitts does not have engergy management issues and will just blast through maneuvers with no need for energy management or sublety has not attempted to fly an Advanced or Unlimited sequence in one. There's a slight bit of truth to this at the very basic levels, but everything changes as you increase the complexity of the maneuvers. It's all a continuum. But "energy management" mostly means having the right airspeed to get through a maneuver, which is just a number on the airspeed indicator. You just might have to dive to get there in a lower powered, slow airplane. It is true that you need to be careful how you expend the energy you have, ie. not pulling too hard into a loop, but this is true of most airplanes.

But on the other hand, in some other ways a higher-performing/powered airplane will stress certain things that a low-powered airplane will not make so obvious. I think a perfect hammerhead in a Pitts, especially with a metal prop, is a more subtle maneuver, and requires a more delicate and precise control of the forces at work than in something like a Cub/Stearman/Citabria type. Higher powered airplanes produce a lot of torque, slipstream, and gyroscopic effects that are not nearly as noticeable in lower powered/performing airplanes. Most of these effects work against you, and they need to be countered by more attention to (especially rudder) inputs than lower powered trainer types. But bottom line, I think the quality of instruction is much more important than the airplane used.

 

[ChitDisturber]

While we're necroposting, this is a repost on this subject that I wrote elsewhere -


I think there's a bit of BS about the idea that you can only learn good fundamental aerobatic skills in some slow, low-powered, slow-rolling type of airplane with gobs of adverse yaw. You can learn good skills in lots of aircraft types, but generally the monoplanes roll so fast and have so little adverse yaw that the airplane doesn't slap you in the face if you haven't developed good rolling technique using properly coordinated and timed rudder and elevator inputs. It's just too easy to miss the sublety. IMO, a Pitts is about at the limit of the amount of performance an airplane should have for training purposes. It still has a little adverse yaw and rolls slow enough that to do a good roll, you must use proper technique.

Some will say that a Pitts will cover up rudder errors....but rather I think it just makes them less obvious compared to something like a Decathlon. Barrel and dish a roll in a Pitts, and it will probably deviate less (and hence look better) than messed up roll in a Decathlon, but it is still just as bad. The Decathlon and lower performing airplanes just slap you in the face harder and make it more obvious when you don't do something right. But doing a perfect roll or loop in a Pitts takes the same level of skill it takes to do the same in any other lower-performing airplane. The Decathlon will just make it feel harder because of the higher control forces, increased time it takes, and more control deflection required. But the precision timing, measured inputs, and mental game are all the same.

The lower performing the airplane, the more critical entry airspeeds become, whereas with a higher performing, higher powered airplane, the basic level maneuvers can be done across a broader range of entry airspeeds. When it comes to precision aerobatics, a high performance airplane won't do it for you. Performance doesn't help you make a loop perfectly round, stop a spin perfectly on heading, draw perfect 45 and vertical lines, time a perfect hammer pivot, snap the airplane crisply with a perfect stop, do a perfect non-barreled vertical roll with a perfect stop, prevent your points on rolls from bobbling, stay on heading, center your rolls on a line, maintain situational awareness, etc., etc. About the only exception to this is basic aileron rolls, where a monoplane rolls so fast that you can do a decent roll with no rudder and maybe just a quick bump of the stick through inverted. But any airplane can be slowed down, and a Pitts will still force good technique.

Anyone who says a Pitts does not have engergy management issues and will just blast through maneuvers with no need for energy management or sublety has not attempted to fly an Advanced or Unlimited sequence in one. There's a slight bit of truth to this at the very basic levels, but everything changes as you increase the complexity of the maneuvers. It's all a continuum. But "energy management" mostly means having the right airspeed to get through a maneuver, which is just a number on the airspeed indicator. You just might have to dive to get there in a lower powered, slow airplane. It is true that you need to be careful how you expend the energy you have, ie. not pulling too hard into a loop, but this is true of most airplanes.

But on the other hand, in some other ways a higher-performing/powered airplane will stress certain things that a low-powered airplane will not make so obvious. I think a perfect hammerhead in a Pitts, especially with a metal prop, is a more subtle maneuver, and requires a more delicate and precise control of the forces at work than in something like a Cub/Stearman/Citabria type. Higher powered airplanes produce a lot of torque, slipstream, and gyroscopic effects that are not nearly as noticeable in lower powered/performing airplanes. Most of these effects work against you, and they need to be countered by more attention to (especially rudder) inputs than lower powered trainer types. But bottom line, I think the quality of instruction is much more important than the airplane used.

However for the same $2,000 how many hours can I get in a Pitts S2 or Extra 300L vs a 150hp 7ECA?

It's the hours that are going to make the better pilot not the frikin plane right!

So which ever will get you the most hours for the money is the best plane.






It's like the rich morons who fly a cirrus and go spend 5k to do basic "upset" training in a Extra 300L

Now later, after you master the basic aerobatic aircraft like a 7ECA, if you want to start doing some competitive stuff, THEN look at a fancy saddle.

 

[FastEddieB]

Wow - I just saw that this was a zombie thread!

Anyway, I've owned and instructed basic aerobatics in two Citabrias over the years - a 7ECA (115hp) and a 7GCBC (150hp w/flaps). Either would be a fine choice, as would any other Citabria or Decathalon.

When I bought my 7ECA, I remember reading a review that compared it to a singing dog - the amazing thing about a singing dog is not that it sings well, but that it can sing at all!

I've actually never flown a high performance aerobatic plane, so I can't compare those. I'm sure they're a hoot and take aerobatics to a whole 'nother level. But the lower performance and slow roll rate of the Citabrias make them good training platforms because things happen relatively slowly and predictably most of the time. And costs are lower without bigger engines and constant-speed props and the like. So, more flying for the same bucks, if that's a factor at all.

And they're great little planes for just sightseeing, or even cross countries if one is not in a huge hurry.

 

[whifferdill]

However for the same $2,000 how many hours can I get in a Pitts S2 or Extra 300L vs a 150hp 7ECA?

It's the hours that are going to make the better pilot not the frikin plane right!

So which ever will get you the most hours for the money is the best plane.

Most 7ECAs are 108/115hp. If that session in a 7ECA includes spins, most of the lesson will be spent on the slow climb back to altitude. Same thing after you've had to dive for airspeed for a few maneuvers. And I'm not sure if you're an aerobatic person, but the 7ECA is fairly limited in the aerobatics that can be taught. Lots of people who go for "aerobatic" training are really there just to do very basic upset training, and really don't have the inclination to seriously continue learning aerobatics. Many will do a one-flight upset training session and that's it. The Citabria would be OK for that. But if you have real interest in learning aerobatics, the Citabria will quickly limit your options, since it has no inverted systems. It does not take hours to learn how to do a basic positive G roll, an egg-shaped loop, and spin. If all a pilot wants to do is learn to do a basic flopped loop, roll, and spin without killing themselves, a Citabria is fine. If they have real aerobatic interest, I would suggest starting in a Decathlon, since you can quickly get exposed to inverted flight, and one of the most basic aerobatic skills - rolling the airplane without deviating from heading and altitude.

It's like the rich morons who fly a cirrus and go spend 5k to do basic "upset" training in a Extra 300L

That's a pretty trollish comment. They are morons why? I would not suggest initial aerobatic training in an Extra, but it's not a bad upset training airplane. It's extremely strong, and you can pack a lot of training in a session due to its ability to climb back to altitude quickly.

 

[Ken Ibold]

Ken,

If you know many SD owners and worked at Sport Aerobatics you should know that there are NO snap rolls in the Sportsman Category aerobatic contest.

I have been familiar with the types since 1970. Probably have as much experience as anyone in Decathlons. I have owned a great many of them, have two right now. I've competed in them and have more than 350 airshows in them where I most always SNAP ROLL! I have never even seen a problem. But, i do not snap real fast and I NEVER do so with more than 18 gallons of fuel on board, almost always less. If taken care of, these planes a rugged and capable. Don't spread rumors. This business has enough of them now.

Hey Greg, Check the posting date from that competition snap roll comment. It was from 2008, and there were then.

As for the question of snap rolls in the Decathlon/Super D, there are many, many well-documented cases of fuel tank cracks in examples (both Bellanca and ACA built) where it can be reasonably guessed that the snap roll is the culprit. Cause-effect? Maybe, maybe not, but a strong correlation. You have not experienced it. That is good news. But this is far more than a rumor.

 

[whifferdill]

Hey Greg, Check the posting date from that competition snap roll comment. It was from 2008, and there were then.

Actually, snaps were eliminated from Sportsman way before '08. The Knowns are only archived back to '95, and snaps in Sportsman had disappeared by then. I think we're talking early 80's era. But would be curious. It's interesting seeing those old sequences and how they've changed over the years.

As for snaps in the Decathlon, if you snap with very little airspeed, as in immediately after a hammer pivot, as I've seen Greg do many times, and are low on fuel, maybe the tank issues are mitigated. But there is a real history of fuel tank problems associated with snaps. Flight schools that run Decathlons are well aware of the issues, and I don't blame anyone who chooses not to snap a Decathlon, as repairs are very expensive. I've seen the pain friends have gone through with these airplanes.

 

[RyanB]

I personally do not know much about the Pitts, however, I recommend the Decathlon/Citabria. Excellent visibility, compared to what looks like not so much in the Pitts. Basic Aero is loads of fun in the Decathlon, I have done loops, barrel rolls, and spins and I found the aerobatics to be quite enjoyable while flying in the Decathlon. Seemed to be very forgiving and especially very responsive. If you are looking to get into basic aerobatics for a reasonably low cost the Decathlon would be my pick.

 

[Jeanie]

A super D works very nicely up through sportsman... It's also very good for upset recovery which I think the guy was kind of talking about originally in this thread. I liked my super D a lot, very versatile... Good for aerobatics good for XC trips.
I like my new (to me) Eagle too... Different kind of platform for aerobatics and not as good for XC....

In my experience starting out in the super D made the most sense.

 

[Jimmy cooper]

I am not an acrobatic pilot. I did own an eca but sold it quite quickly. It was in nice shape but I thought it was underpowered. I had flown a GCBC quite a bit before this and really liked it. Got off very well, climbed well, easy to fly. Wife liked it for flying to get a burger. Nice all round airplane. The extra HP made a big difference I thought. However, if money was no object and I was younger, Super Decathlon for sure.

 

[somorris]

I think it is interesting and worth considering that Rich Stowell went with a Super D when he bought. Greg Koontz also flies Super D's as mentioned here. I think for those of us that can only afford one airplane, the Super D makes a lot of sense. It can fly acro and is also decent for XC. But, even the Super D is a little rich for my blood .

 

[stearmann4]

While we're necroposting, this is a repost on this subject that I wrote elsewhere -

But bottom line, I think the quality of instruction is much more important than the airplane used.

I'll jump in on the "dead post" with Whiff; first as for Pitts landings being interesting, this comment makes me nutty, "interesting or squirrelly" is always used by pilots who have trouble precisely flying whatever they're in. a 65HP J-3 will bite you just the same as a Pitts, it just happens faster. In fact a Pitts with it's high wing loading is easier to land because when it's planted it's a shopping cart, it ain't going anywhere except where your feet tell it to go. With some wind a Cub will be all over the place with that big set of wings.

As for acro, big lower powered biplanes don't teach you more, they just go a lot slower and force you to consider energy management before each maneuver. A screwed up 45 up line or dished out roll has the same set up no matter what you're flying. In short, practice with whatever is cheapest or best fits the types of maneuvers you're wanting to fly.

Mike-