Originally Posted by
n5296s
4. Very difficult to land. (My instructor, who was a U2 pilot, says the U2 is the only thing harder to land, or to teach to land - and that the space shuttle is a piece of cake by comparison, he did fly the sim though not the real thing). The difference between starting to level off too soon (stall in from 10 feet) and too late (crash onto the runway) is about a quarter of a second, literally. Also there is no forward visibility at all during touchdown, everything is done with peripheral vision. You have to be completely on top of it. When I used to fly the Pitts several times a month, it was still a challenge.
Also very poor glide ratio, so if the engine stops, you are pretty much going to have to bail. (I know someone who didn't, he survived unhurt, but the plane was wrecked - he was very lucky to have someone come by immediately and turn it the right way up).
I disagree. I see you were flying it only "several times a month", so that may be where your misconception is coming from. When you are properly current on it, it is perfectly fine to land. It does exactly what you tell it to do, so tell it do the right things and you will be in good shape. When I was flying one regularly (several times a day for five years), I would much rather handle a strongish crosswind in the Pitts than in a C172. Like I say, tell it to do the right things and it just does them, great control authority.
Now you might say "but hang on, you were flying it several times a day, of course you found it easy." Well, yes I was, but I also had the odd month off here and there and it was no trouble going back to it. I think the key is, if you are going to fly something with a bit of character, to get absolutely in tune with it for a period of time. Once you've done that, you can afford to go away from it for a while.
Engine out landings were fine as well. I used to do them regularly for fun/practice and it wasn't a problem.