gismo
Touchdown! Greaser!
jkaduk said:I've always liked the Starduster Too. It looks cool and I hear it flies great. I haven't had a chance to ride in one yet unfortunately. But I've found that what looks good, flies good.
I think the Pitts misses on # 6. I understand you have to stay sharp in that plane on landings.
I've got maybe 50 hours in a Starduster Too plus a few landings in a Pitts S-2 and IIRC there's not much difference in the skill needed to land either. They have about the same approach and stall speeds (80-90 and 55-58 mph respectively) and about the same (lack of) visibility from the rear (pilot's) seat. Touch down in either one with any drift on pavement and you'll leave tire marks all over the runway (BTDT). The SA300 we had couldn't be fully stalled in the 3 point attitude and that combined with the fairly stiff main gear meant it was awfully easy to bounce.
IOW, I don't think either an S-2 or an SA300 fits the "no effort to maintain proficiency" criteria very well and I'm certain that neither would fit in the "comfortable to sit in" category. After two hours in the 'Duster my back and legs were usually pretty sore.
I think a Citabria would cover most of the criteria except the romance part. I like Citabrias, but I don't think many of them will turn heads.
That said, unless the budget is pretty good, I'd go for a Citabria or Cub depending on your, ah, stature. A Citabria can handle a six foot 200+ lb pilot, but a J-3 was designed for a smaller generation.
And if you are thinking more along the lines of open cockpit biplanes, Waco's are nicer than Stearmans but I think they cost more. A Travel Air is another interesting biplane with room for two normal sized people in the front seat (or one very large one).