Popularity (or lack thereof) of Sport Planes

CC268 said:
I wasn’t referring to performance, but rather the comfort of a twin when over nasty terrain like that. Personally, it’s over my risk tolerance. At least at this point. I guess it depends on where your at in the Rockies and your route
Click to expand...

Just curious, would you view flying over the Rockies VFR in a piston single more risky then flying IFR in a piston single?
 
idahoflier said:
Just curious, would you view flying over the Rockies VFR in a piston single more risky then flying IFR in a piston single?
Click to expand...

Hmm...I don't know...hard to make that comparison since it depends on where your flying IFR, what the actual conditions are, etc...
 
I’ve flown over the Rockies several times in my piston single. But I only do it in daytime, nice weather, and I do have turbocharging (Can fly up to FL250) and a parachute. In fact I’ll be hopping over them next weekend when @Tantalum and I fly to Oshkosh (from San Diego)
 
RudyP said:
I’ve flown over the Rockies several times in my piston single. But I only do it in daytime, nice weather, and I do have turbocharging (Can fly up to FL250) and a parachute. In fact I’ll be hopping over them next weekend when @Tantalum and I fly to Oshkosh (from San Diego)
Click to expand...

Yea maybe I shouldn’t have painted it with a broad stroke. The Cirrus would certainly be a nice option or JCranfords turbo 210, etc. something where you can get to altitude
 
denverpilot said:
I think plenty of people are interested and migrate that direction if that’s what they want.

1. An awful lot of flight instruction these days isn’t about really flying in three dimensions. It’s about systems management and cockpit gadgetry.

See: FAA changing the Commercial certificate regs to dump retracts and add “Technically Advanced Aircraft”.

2. And removing (a long time ago) spins and things that would get the aircraft into attitudes other than normal turns, climbs, and descents.

3. For better or worse, pilots starting out today have to actively seek stuff that’ll truly utilize
three dimensional flight. And many don’t care to do it.

I asked someone the other day, “Have you ever even seen a Commercial step turn demonstrated at 60 degrees?” Answer was no. Not that they wouldn’t have minded seeing one and doing one, just nobody ever said “Give this a try...”

That person has flown safely for more decades than I have been old enough to fly. So there’s nothing “wrong” with the approach of keeping well inside the edges of the envelope. But I think you’ll find a LOT of pilots have never been much past 45 degrees of bank and maybe 10 degrees nose down, in their entire aviation life.

I don’t see much of a trend of that going the other way, either.
Click to expand...

I had a great time in the Cub today, (that was a public service announcement :D ).

When I got back I ran head-on into Denverpilot's #2 point in his post. One of the 4 or 5 young (under 30) pilots\student pilots sitting in the office asked me what I was out doing in the Cub.
I mentioned that I was doing slow flight (extreme, on the other side of the power curve), steep turns, stalls and spins.
The room went silent.
One guy asked "Is that even allowed?"
A second popped in with "Absolutely not. The FAA doesn't allow spins anymore. It's even worse because that's a 77 year old antique airplane. Totally unsafe. Are you suicidal?"
When I finally recovered, first from shock, then laughing so hard I almost stopped breathing, I explained that I practice spins in everything I fly unless expressly prohibited by the POH.
The discussing devolved dramatically after that. I eventually went behind the counter and grabbed an AIM/FAR and handed it to Mr. Safety For All and asked him to show me where it's forbidden. I even explained that when I got my ticket back in the mid-1960's spins were a required maneuver for a PPL. They didn't believe me, of course.
Finally, another old timer came in and sided with me.
I'm not sure they were completely convinced, and seriously, I don't think any of them had any interest in pursuing spin training. They all want to be bus drivers when they grow up.
 
No way will I ever go near those rocks IFR. I'm almost too chicken$hit to do it VFR.
 
steingar said:
No way will I ever go near those rocks IFR. I'm almost too chicken$hit to do it VFR.
Click to expand...

@steingar, You can't really go near them IFR... The minimum altitudes are quite high in those areas. On my recent trip to Jackson Hole, I actually had to use both Victor Airways (shudder) *and* oxygen! Had to be at 14,000 until I got onto the approach, at which point I had 26nm to drop from 14,000 down to field elevation of about 6500. Fun! :D

But even VFR, take a mountain flying course first, and do it in an airplane that's very familiar to you.
 
RudyP said:
In fact I’ll be hopping over them next weekend when @Tantalum and I fly to Oshkosh (from San Diego)
Click to expand...
True story! Looking forward to that trip!!

Truthfully, unless you live near open flat prairies, then most terrain underneath you is not that hospitable. Most of the flying around here involves some mountainous terrain, and very dense urban areas. Really have not a lot of options in general. I think mountains looks scary, but it's kind of like you can drown in 8 feet of water and 8,000 feet of water.. but somehow the 8,000 foot water depth sounds a lot scarier

Over water fights make me a lot more anxious than over mountains.. most of the pilots I've met have no problem cruising direct from SEE out to Catalina in a club Cherokee at 1,500 ft to look for whales and watch "the beautiful ocean" . NO. THANK. YOU.
 
^yes, I know weather is a much bigger wild card over mountains. But if the weather is nice, then they don't have to be as scary as many people make them seem
 
Timbeck2 said:
I've been watching a lot of Trent Palmer videos on YouTube and the more I watch, the more I want to build a Kitfox.
Click to expand...

Such an awesome YouTube channel! I really think its convinced me to build one.. even though they can be found used for a lot less than the cost of a build.
 
Two reasons for me building a Kitfox. One, I need the experience to get my A&P license and two, I want the repairman's certificate so I can do my own annuals.
 
I've got the A&P and I work for an aircraft manufacturer. I can't see myself buying someone else's experimental build.
 
skier said:
Slow? Poor cross-country machines? You just haven't met the right Biplane.

https://disciplesofflight.com/wp-co..._Beechcraft_Model_17_Staggerwing_aircraft.jpg
Dual_Beechcraft_Model_17_Staggerwing_aircraft.jpg
Click to expand...
One of the Top 5 most beautiful airplanes ever.
 
steingar said:
If you say so. Sorry, I can't help but think of them as posers. The folks doing this on the gravel banks in Alaska are the real deal.
Click to expand...

LOL. Couldn't disagree more. What you are saying is the same as saying only Indy Car and F1 drivers are the "real deal". Or only those competing in the World Aerobatic championships are the "real deal".

There's plenty of folks enjoying the challenges of backcountry flying, amateur track racing and local aerobatics that are anything but "posers".

As for the OP, every single pilot at my airport that I know flying a lot of aerobatics has a dedicated plane to do that. From 10 people with shares in a Super Decathalon to the guy two hangars down from me with an Extra 300 (his point-to-point is a Meridian). And in between are Pitts and Christen Eagles and few others.

Personally, I don't think good aerobatic airplanes make good, stable cross country fliers, just like a really nimble, agile sports car doesn't make a good station wagon.
 
Last edited:
What about those of us who've never done any of those things? Replace the P with an L? :(
 
Shepherd said:
I had a great time in the Cub today, (that was a public service announcement :D ).

When I got back I ran head-on into Denverpilot's #2 point in his post. One of the 4 or 5 young (under 30) pilots\student pilots sitting in the office asked me what I was out doing in the Cub.
I mentioned that I was doing slow flight (extreme, on the other side of the power curve), steep turns, stalls and spins.
The room went silent.
One guy asked "Is that even allowed?"
A second popped in with "Absolutely not. The FAA doesn't allow spins anymore. It's even worse because that's a 77 year old antique airplane. Totally unsafe. Are you suicidal?"
When I finally recovered, first from shock, then laughing so hard I almost stopped breathing, I explained that I practice spins in everything I fly unless expressly prohibited by the POH.
The discussing devolved dramatically after that. I eventually went behind the counter and grabbed an AIM/FAR and handed it to Mr. Safety For All and asked him to show me where it's forbidden. I even explained that when I got my ticket back in the mid-1960's spins were a required maneuver for a PPL. They didn't believe me, of course.
Finally, another old timer came in and sided with me.
I'm not sure they were completely convinced, and seriously, I don't think any of them had any interest in pursuing spin training. They all want to be bus drivers when they grow up.
Click to expand...

You need to introduce them to your neighbor. By the time she is done with them they will be seeking a real bus driving job. Firmly on the ground. With Greyhound. ;)
 
Get one of these. 4-seat aerobatic tourer. Yak 18T.

18T.jpg
 
Timbeck2 said:
Two reasons for me building a Kitfox. One, I need the experience to get my A&P license and two, I want the repairman's certificate so I can do my own annuals.
Click to expand...

If you have the A&P, there is no need to worry about a repairman’s certificate.
 
Timbeck2 said:
I think you may have missed my point.
Click to expand...

Maybe? I can't tell. Do you believe you need the repairman certificate to do the condition inspection even if you have a mechanic certificate?

I understand the idea of wanting the time spent building, because it should count toward the experience required to take the A&P practical test.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
The Aerobatic Bonanza and the Siai Marchetti SF260 come to mind as the best examples of four-place, cross country + aerobatic aircraft.

There's multiple reasons why there aren't more, though:

1) Certification costs
2) Useful load. That extra structure for the higher G loads is going to reduce it.
3) Operating costs. Aerobatic engines usually have a TBO of 1000 hours (or less).
4) Not enough people interested in aerobatics, which makes it harder to recoup (1). And harder to sell with lower (2) and higher (3).

Also, up until recently, the mechanical spinny gyros used for IFR in most planes would be damaged by aerobatics. Glass panels are helpful here... So maybe this will go somewhere. Unfortunately, the GA market is too darn small. The GARA got us a few new entrants into the market (Cirrus, Diamond, Lancair/Columbia) but I don't think there have been any other new GA traveling planes since. Hopefully Pipistrel's Panthera makes it. And I hope it's aerobatic. ;)
Click to expand...
Yes to all of these, and you also need to think about issues like wing loading and stability. A good cross country plane is going to have higher wing loading to smooth out bumps. A good aerobatic plane is going to have lower wing loading to make handling crisper. A good cross country plane is going to have positive static and dynamic stability. (Oscillations and diversions smooth out on their own.) A good aerobatic plane will tend toward neutral stability, and even cross over to negative stability in some cases.

An aerobatic cross country airplane is a set of compromises most people just are not interested in. Flying a Pitts 1400 nm in 2 days is NOT something I would recommend to anyone I liked.

I also think it's compounded by the fact that a LOT of pilots who are interested in aerobatics go through a few rides and puke a few times, and then abandon the quest rather than working through that common initial nausea phase.
 
GRG55 said:
Personally, I don't think good aerobatic airplanes make good, stable cross country fliers, just like a really nimble, agile sports car doesn't make a good station wagon.
Click to expand...

Well, you're either hand flying, or you're using an AP. Acro planes don't typically have AP's, but even a well-rigged Pitts will fly hands off the stick in smooth air for as long as you like. Mine did. You can stay on perfect heading with minute rudder pressure. It's no more work than hand flying a Bonanza XC. Some acro planes kinda suck for XC flying, but it's not at all because of stability or effort issues - it's comfort.
 
When I flew the Pitts I thought it was super comfortable. I was actually amazed at how roomy it was once I was in it. The Great Lakes is super cramped in comparison.
 
Can't wait to buy my KitFox. Posers only.

kitfox-x300-sand-2000x1200.jpg
 
Ken Ibold said:
Yes to all of these, and you also need to think about issues like wing loading and stability. A good cross country plane is going to have higher wing loading to smooth out bumps. A good aerobatic plane is going to have lower wing loading to make handling crisper. A good cross country plane is going to have positive static and dynamic stability. (Oscillations and diversions smooth out on their own.) A good aerobatic plane will tend toward neutral stability, and even cross over to negative stability in some cases.

An aerobatic cross country airplane is a set of compromises most people just are not interested in. Flying a Pitts 1400 nm in 2 days is NOT something I would recommend to anyone I liked.
Click to expand...

I’m surprised it took until page 3 for someone to mention that good aerobatic airplane qualities are not really synonymous with good cross country airplane qualities.

Personally, I believe this is the primary reason we don’t see more dual capability airplanes. The dedicated aerobatic pilots would just go buy a real aerobatic airplane and the cross country guys will do the same thing.
 
Truth be told, a well trained pilot could do what most consider aerobatics (loops, rolls) safely in just about any airplane especially in the Utility category.
 
CC268 said:
When I flew the Pitts I thought it was super comfortable. I was actually amazed at how roomy it was once I was in it. The Great Lakes is super cramped in comparison.
Click to expand...

If you fly one straight and level for 3 hrs and still say super comfortable, that will be a first. :D
 
Id love something in between a decathlon and extra. Probably end up with an rv.
I think people just dont like acro enough to justify a market for anything beyond extras.
 
A lot of Clydes have came into GA in the last couple of decades. . .I understand we all can't afford an acro machine, or have easy access to one, but if you've been flying for years and never spun, looped, or rolled an airplane, then you're a poser - I fly a humble 172, but found ways to get at least some time in airplanes where I can do that stuff. . .
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top