What percentage of private pilots get into aerobatic flying?

W

wildb

Pre-Flight
Joined
Oct 26, 2014
Messages
47
Display Name
Display name:
wildb
What percentage of private pilots get into aerobatic flying?

I am just getting into flying, and aerobatic flying does not seem as popular as I thought it would be. I can only find one or 2 places around me to even rent an aerobatic plane.
 
wildb said:
What percentage of private pilots get into aerobatic flying?

I am just getting into flying, and aerobatic flying does not seem as popular as I thought it would be. I can only find one or 2 places around me to even rent an aerobatic plane.
Click to expand...

I don't know of any statistics on it, but there might be. If I had to guess, I'd say probably about the same percentage of car drivers who get into drag racing.
 
I think most people don't get into it much at all, say 60%. Some will take an introductory aero flight or occasionally rent an aerobatic airplane, say 25%. Some will take it up as a light hobby if they buy an aerobatic aircraft, say 10%. Few will make it important enough that they will only buy an aerobatic aircraft, say <5%. Fewer yet will buy a purpose built aero machine, much less than 5%.
 
I would say that fewer than 25% have ever taken an aerobatic lesson. I have taken several pilots for their first aerobatic ride. Most of the pilots I mknow have never done any aerobatics. Don
 
"Aerobatic flying" can be as lazy or as serious as you want. Way under 50% of pilots have been exposed to it, even once. A tiny percentage actually do any type of aerobatics on a regular basis. I'd guess fewer than 5% of pilots do. Of those (fewer than 5%) pilots who do any type of aerobatics at all, around 95% are not very serious and are just lazy "Sunday fun floppers", who just do the occasional loop, barrel roll, or spin without much effort associated with technique or precision. I really don't mean this in an insulting way. All that matters is that you're safe and enjoying yourself. By "serious", I don't mean that they're trying to make a living at it. That is virtually impossible. I mean that they have made an effort (and continue) to learn as much as possible about the art and subtleties of aerobatic flying, and truly work at constantly improving their skills and the ongoing process of learning to fly their airplane as well as it can be flown. 99% of aerobatic pilots don't come close to flying their aircraft to the limits of its capabilities, even in something like a Decathlon.

There are definitely fewer aerobatic pilots these days than there were 30 years ago. I think as there are fewer and fewer tailwheel airplanes like Citabrias and Decathlons available for training, there is less and less exposure to aerobatics among newer pilots. There are still good operators out there, but you may need to travel a bit to find them. I think all pilots should obtain good basic aerobatic and spin training, even if they do not continue involvement with this type of flying.
 
Last edited:
Intentionally get into it or by accident?
 
Get 'into' it? I'd say very few. You will also find very few aerobatic planes with more than 2 seats, but much of that is due to performance limitations. Personally I think everyone should get in a 10 hour course, or even 5, so they have a chance to learn the edges of the envelope and how to recover from falling off the edge.
 
whifferdill said:
"Aerobatic flying" can be as lazy or as serious as you want. Way under 50% of pilots have been exposed to it, even once. A tiny percentage actually do any type of aerobatics on a regular basis. I'd guess fewer than 5% of pilots do. Of those (fewer than 5%) pilots who do any type of aerobatics at all, around 95% are not very serious and are just lazy "Sunday fun floppers", who just do the occasional loop, barrel roll, or spin without much effort associated with technique or precision. I really don't mean this in an insulting way. All that matters is that you're safe and enjoying yourself. By "serious", I don't mean that they're trying to make a living at it. That is virtually impossible. I mean that they have made an effort (and continue) to learn as much as possible about the art and subtleties of aerobatic flying, and truly work at constantly improving their skills and the ongoing process of learning to fly their airplane as well as it can be flown. 99% of aerobatic pilots don't come close to flying their aircraft to the limits of its capabilities, even in something like a Decathlon.

There are definitely fewer aerobatic pilots these days than there were 30 years ago. I think as there are fewer and fewer tailwheel airplanes like Citabrias and Decathlons available for training, there is less and less exposure to aerobatics among newer pilots. There are still good operators out there, but you may need to travel a bit to find them. I think all pilots should obtain good basic aerobatic and spin training, even if they do not continue involvement with this type of flying.
Click to expand...

Pretty accurate synopsis. The most popular aerobatic type is almost certainly the RV family, with probably six or seven thousand RV-3's, 4's, 6's, 7's, and 8's flying, all of which are aerobatic capable and most of which see the occasional loop or roll (at least)...
 
I have known 2 aerobatic pilots. One crashed while renewing his low level card, the other wrecked on the interstate. Now I don't know any aerobatic pilots . . .

It looks like fun, but my plane is not approved for such. Many pilots are in the same boat. Even the FBO where I got my ticket had non-aero planes, and had I done something stupid and spun, it would have ruined the gyros (so I was told).
 
Not many at all it seems. I had the fortune of riding in a Pitts S2B and I loved it. I loved the precision and focus required, love high g forces tolerate the negative gs.

Sadly for me its just too expensive to pursue. No one close rents the planes, instructors charge big rates, if I could travel to rent a plane somewhere its still expensive and I doubt there is much out there to rent besides maybe a decathlon or citabria.

Me and the wife do okay financially for young newlyweds but even as laid back as she is I don't think she'd be fine with me dropping 200 bucks an hour to go play wannabe airshow pilot in a rented decathlon. I imagine me saying " I know we are saving for a down payment on house but do you mind if I spend 1500 bucks a month on a hobby you can't partake in" would not go in my favor.

So maybe in 20 years when Lord willing after a few promotions and the hypothetical house is paid off I can buy or partner up on that monowing +-10g aircraft
 
I think if you were to include those who maybe do an occasional aileron roll in an airplane that might, or might not be categorized as aerobatic the numbers would be greater but as far as how many really, seriously get into it - not that many.

I agree that, similar to spin training, it's a good idea to go up and get some experience. I think you'll know then if it's your cup of tea or not although it's a thing that your stomach might not like at first, you have to get acclimated to it. Bob Hoover admitted that he used to get sick every time he went up when he first started flying and taught himself aerobatics to overcome that.
 
Silvaire said:
I think if you were to include those who maybe do an occasional aileron roll in an airplane that might, or might not be categorized as aerobatic the numbers would be greater but as far as how many really, seriously get into it - not that many.

I agree that, similar to spin training, it's a good idea to go up and get some experience. I think you'll know then if it's your cup of tea or not although it's a thing that your stomach might not like at first, you have to get acclimated to it. Bob Hoover admitted that he used to get sick every time he went up when he first started flying and taught himself aerobatics to overcome that.
Click to expand...

Just watched The Bob Hoover Project DVD yesterday. Man has some awesome stories.
 
Unfortunately, US general aviation aircraft usually have very limited aerobatic capability. This compared to European aircraft which are generally aerobatic by default. I'm not sure why this is, but in my opinion a 2-3 seat aircraft is not truly enjoyable unless it can freely maneuver in all 3 dimensions, i.e. gentlemanly aerobatics.

Unfortunately I find Cherokees, 172's and the like extremely dull. RV's, T-34's, Falcos, SF260's, Decathlons, Citabrias are all aircraft I find truly enjoyable to fly. The large majority of pilots are sadly missing out, I feel.
 
falconkidding said:
Not many at all it seems. I had the fortune of riding in a Pitts S2B and I loved it. I loved the precision and focus required, love high g forces tolerate the negative gs.

Sadly for me its just too expensive to pursue. No one close rents the planes, instructors charge big rates, if I could travel to rent a plane somewhere its still expensive and I doubt there is much out there to rent besides maybe a decathlon or citabria.

Me and the wife do okay financially for young newlyweds but even as laid back as she is I don't think she'd be fine with me dropping 200 bucks an hour to go play wannabe airshow pilot in a rented decathlon. I imagine me saying " I know we are saving for a down payment on house but do you mind if I spend 1500 bucks a month on a hobby you can't partake in" would not go in my favor.

So maybe in 20 years when Lord willing after a few promotions and the hypothetical house is paid off I can buy or partner up on that monowing +-10g aircraft
Click to expand...

I'd imagine you wouldn't get very far with that approach. If I'm thirsty, and I have a pocket full of money and you have a case of individually wrapped bottles of water, how would you recommend that we exchange money for water?

That's how you approach your wife. She has the money, you have the water....so to speak.
 
RhinoDrvr said:
Unfortunately I find Cherokees, 172's and the like extremely dull.
Click to expand...
I do too. I also find my wife's toyota sequoi dull. When we are driving to the lake or flying to the beach with the family we don't need or want any excitement, we just want to get there. Sometimes the tool for the job is a sharp knife, other times it's a blunt screwdriver.
 
falconkidding said:
Sadly for me its just too expensive to pursue. No one close rents the planes, instructors charge big rates, if I could travel to rent a plane somewhere its still expensive and I doubt there is much out there to rent besides maybe a decathlon or citabria.
Click to expand...
price out a used RV3/4 or even a sonex. Find a partner. It might not cost much at all to keep that itch scratched.
 
Silvaire said:
I think if you were to include those who maybe do an occasional aileron roll in an airplane that might, or might not be categorized as aerobatic the numbers would be greater but as far as how many really, seriously get into it - not that many.

I agree that, similar to spin training, it's a good idea to go up and get some experience. I think you'll know then if it's your cup of tea or not although it's a thing that your stomach might not like at first, you have to get acclimated to it. Bob Hoover admitted that he used to get sick every time he went up when he first started flying and taught himself aerobatics to overcome that.
Click to expand...

I would venture that less than 25% of the pilots have never done even a roll or spin training for that matter. Don
 
yakdriver said:
I would venture that less than 25% of the pilots have never done even a roll or spin training for that matter. Don
Click to expand...

That's probably true but I learned to fly at a time when there were a lot of young kids doing it and in youth there was courage (or stupidity, however you want to look at it) So, like Bob Hoover we just did more and more aggressive wing-overs until finally one day you went all the way over but it wasn't an aerobatic plane and there wasn't any training.
 
JHW said:
I do too. I also find my wife's toyota sequoi dull. When we are driving to the lake or flying to the beach with the family we don't need or want any excitement, we just want to get there. Sometimes the tool for the job is a sharp knife, other times it's a blunt screwdriver.
Click to expand...

Yep, people are always, "It must be exciting to fly!" "Not if I'm doing it right.":lol:
 
I fly to be amused, not scared, but if it isn't dynamic I'm not interested. I can drive places in more comfort and less hassle then flying and if I want mellow fun transportation I'll go boating.
 
ClimbnSink said:
...if I want mellow fun transportation I'll go boating.
Click to expand...

Ha, ha you must not have done much boating. I've had more near death experiences out on the delta or a lake on hot July afternoons than either driving or flying. The boating world has an exponentially greater number of yahoos than just about any other recreational endeavor.
 
ClimbnSink said:
I fly to be amused, not scared, but if it isn't dynamic I'm not interested. I can drive places in more comfort and less hassle then flying and if I want mellow fun transportation I'll go boating.
Click to expand...

Seriously? I'm the exact opposite. If I want to relaxed mellow fun transportation, I fly. People pay me way better to drive their boat than to fly planes for a reason. When a plane is going to kill you, it'll be quick. A boat may beat you for days and weeks before it kills you.
 
Silvaire said:
Ha, ha you must not have done much boating. I've had more near death experiences out on the delta or a lake on hot July afternoons than either driving or flying. The boating world has an exponentially greater number of blind drunk yahoos than just about any other recreational endeavor.
Click to expand...

FTFY.;)
 
Yea you've got that but you also have the perfectly sober teenagers driving 450 hp Ski Nautiques and let's not even get into the jetskis. I'll admit I was into those for a number of years - the perfect vehicle to kill yourself on or, at the least, knock some of your teeth out.

Lotta fun though :)
 
You guys need to be more selective in picking your lakes.
 
Silvaire said:
Ha, ha you must not have done much boating. I've had more near death experiences out on the delta or a lake on hot July afternoons than either driving or flying. The boating world has an exponentially greater number of yahoos than just about any other recreational endeavor.
Click to expand...

That's because anyone who can buy a boat can put it in the water and drive it, no training required. I refuse to use the proper verb "conn" for those @ssh@ts.
 
JHW said:
I do too. I also find my wife's toyota sequoi dull. When we are driving to the lake or flying to the beach with the family we don't need or want any excitement, we just want to get there. Sometimes the tool for the job is a sharp knife, other times it's a blunt screwdriver.
Click to expand...

Your point is good, but unfortunately I can't see a 172 or Cherokee being terribly useful either? With a 100-105 kt cruise, you generally don't beat the car by a significant margin when you think of flight planning, preflight etc. My cutoff is ~150-160 knots for a cross country machine.

Things an aircraft needs to be for me;
1. Small and completely maneuverable for sport flying and short cross countries.
or
2. Fast and able to carry 4 real people and bags IFR for a true cross country.
or
3. Historical significance or nostalgia. (Cub, Stearman, etc)

I understand the need for a GA trainer, but I do think people are missing out on some of the joys of flying if they never move past a 172 or Warrior. It doesn't need to mean more expensive either. A Citabria fits the bill for me.

My ideal aircraft is a fast, two seat, aerobatic, cross country equipped machine. Currently that is most economically filled by an RV.

Fly a cub around at 200' with the door open, sometime, or do a slow, lazy barrel roll in a Citabria. It'll change your life ;-)
 
RhinoDrvr said:
Your point is good, but unfortunately I can't see a 172 or Cherokee being terribly useful either? With a 100-105 kt cruise, you generally don't beat the car by a significant margin when you think of flight planning, preflight etc. My cutoff is ~150-160 knots for a cross country machine.

Things an aircraft needs to be for me;
1. Small and completely maneuverable for sport flying and short cross countries.
or
2. Fast and able to carry 4 real people and bags IFR for a true cross country.
or
3. Historical significance or nostalgia. (Cub, Stearman, etc)

I understand the need for a GA trainer, but I do think people are missing out on some of the joys of flying if they never move past a 172 or Warrior. It doesn't need to mean more expensive either. A Citabria fits the bill for me.

My ideal aircraft is a fast, two seat, aerobatic, cross country equipped machine. Currently that is most economically filled by an RV.

Fly a cub around at 200' with the door open, sometime, or do a slow, lazy barrel roll in a Citabria. It'll change your life ;-)
Click to expand...

My plane at 140 knots is usually 1/3 of drive time, plus 10 mins to preflight. For a 10 hour drive, my flight time is ~2:30, which a 172 will do in 3+, still a significant savings against driving. This is for trips in the 350-400 nm range.

When I moved earlier this year, driving time varied 9-11 hours depending on traffic, and was 602 sm. the flight is 377 nm, and runs 3 to 3-1/2 hours. I think this beats driving by quite a bit, and would do so even in a 100-knot Skyhawk.
 
I flew for 19 years before regularly flying upside down. I regret waiting that long, but I didn't have a capable airplane until then.

I think EVERY pilot should learn gentlemen's aerobatics, for two reasons:

1. Turbulence. Turbulence was always uncomfortable, especially for my wife, who flies front seat half the time. Once you've done aerobatics, the bumps of turbulence are pretty tame.

2. Steep Turns. Mary HATED steep turns. Not anymore! :)

As with any kind of add-on training, it just makes one a better pilot.
 
RhinoDrvr said:
Your point is good, but unfortunately I can't see a 172 or Cherokee being terribly useful either? With a 100-105 kt cruise, you generally don't beat the car by a significant margin when you think of flight planning, preflight etc. My cutoff is ~150-160 knots for a cross country machine.

Things an aircraft needs to be for me;
1. Small and completely maneuverable for sport flying and short cross countries.
or
2. Fast and able to carry 4 real people and bags IFR for a true cross country.
or
3. Historical significance or nostalgia. (Cub, Stearman, etc)

I understand the need for a GA trainer, but I do think people are missing out on some of the joys of flying if they never move past a 172 or Warrior. It doesn't need to mean more expensive either. A Citabria fits the bill for me.

My ideal aircraft is a fast, two seat, aerobatic, cross country equipped machine. Currently that is most economically filled by an RV.

Fly a cub around at 200' with the door open, sometime, or do a slow, lazy barrel roll in a Citabria. It'll change your life ;-)
Click to expand...

How about a Focke Wulf 149D. Four place, aerobatic and was a military trainer. http://www.focke-wulf.com/FwP-149D/fwp-149d.htm Don
 
Henning said:
That is one that is on my list of planes to have for awhile.
Click to expand...

I agree, Just looks like it would fly well. I thought hard about getting one a few years ago when they were in the $40-50,000 range. They are more money now. The IAR 823 is another 4 place fully aerobatic military trainer from Romania. It has a Lycoming IO 540 for power. Kinda boxy looking though. I had a Nanchang CJ-6 for 5 years and that is a great flying airplane. Good cross country machine at 148kts burning 13gph. Don
 
yakdriver said:
I agree, Just looks like it would fly well. I thought hard about getting one a few years ago when they were in the $40-50,000 range. They are more money now. The IAR 823 is another 4 place fully aerobatic military trainer from Romania. It has a Lycoming IO 540 for power. Kinda boxy looking though. I had a Nanchang CJ-6 for 5 years and that is a great flying airplane. Good cross country machine at 148kts burning 13gph. Don
Click to expand...

It flys very nicely indeed, I got a ride in one way back. The interior is very Spartan, but with some good seat pads could be quite comfortable as well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top