Pitts: aeros capability / why low price?

[Zonkor]

When people ask for an affordable yet capable aeros aircraft, the Pitts (S-1 or S-2) is often mentioned first thing. That made me quite curious about and brought up the following questions:

1. What can a Pitts (with an IO-360) do in aeros for a single person, for instance compared to a Vans RV4? Is it mostly for "gentleman aerobatics", or is it suitable for aggressive aerobatics such as tail slides, torque rolls, snap rolls, and even tumbles?

2. Why are Pitts available at such a low price relative to their capability (and coolness ? I see many recent ones on the market for EUR 60-80k. Are maintenance costs comparable to a Vans RV with similar engine?

3. Do you think the Pitts is a pure aeros aircraft, or is it reasonable to use for cross-country flying?

4. Any disadvantages of this type? (It seems they are challenging to land and need some runway ahead. Anything else ...?)

[foxmoth]

Pitts will do a few more than the RV and a lot will depend on the exact version, but certainly OK for things like tail slides and inverted spins, as for cost, yes the S1 is cheap, as are many single seaters, because most people like to be able to take a mate up, not so sure you will find a two holer so cheap!
Pitts is not that practical for Xcountry, not so economical and limited in bag space. rv is much better here.
Difficult to land? Just a case of proper training and does not really need that much runway - depends what you compare it with!

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

I've heard they are a bit small for comp judges to see the manouvres well which was affecting scores, so comp pilots moved to the bigger monoplanes.

[youngman1]

Had my share in a home Built Pitts S1 for nearly a year now.

i'll try to answer your questions based on my experiences so far.

1) The Pitts i fly (basically an S1T with aftermarket wings) can be and is being flown competitively up to Advanced level. well above what would be considered 'Gentlemans aerobatics' Tail slides, torques, snaps it laps up with ease. A few minutes on Youtube will give a good idea of what a Pitts Can do both S1 and S2 standard machines and modified.

2)Purchase cost... especially when looking at S1s i'd guess that due to them being far more 'focussed' aerobatics machines the market is simply smaller. If the demand is low costs will follow. Especially when compared with RVs which are newer, more versatile and more popular. Maintenance for ours on an LAA permit seems reasonable (although i have nothing to compare it to).

3) Really depends what you are looking at exactly. the S1 isn't particularly great for cross country but flying to competitions in it isn't unpleasant. It's fast enough, could do with more range and more baggage space but i'd happily take that compromise for the performance. I did my PPl in a Pitts S2C which is a different beast entirely. Doesn't actually make a bad touring machine as it's allot bigger/heavier with a bit more range. but can still be flown respectably through an Advanced sequence.

4) Disadvantages... visibility isn't great but if you weave and clear the blind spots you can manage the risk and maintain a good lookout. They can be challenging to land when compared to a Spamcan. But manageable with good technique. A greaser in a Pitts is really really satisfying! Can be landed short, again with good technique.

Plenty more to say on the type but hopefully this answers a few of your questions.

Personally i love them, after flying one i wanted to fly nothing else! (hence the PPL in one!) They are challenging and rewarding machines with real character.

Not for everyone though but i'd recommend trying one.

[n5296s]

+1 for everything youngman1 said.

1. The Pitts is a superb aerobatic machine and will do anything (except hang on the prop, with the IO360). (I've only flown an S2 but I think this all applies to the S1). It will do tumbles of all kinds (I have had the bruises to prove it), tailslides, snaps... anything. It is an absolute delight to fly, except that every flight has to end with a landing (see below).

2. No idea. Probably because they are really exclusively aerobatic machines (see below), so have a very limited market.

3. Really not a cross-country machine. Very limited range, no baggage capacity. I knew someone who owned one and flew it from San Francisco to Canada, but I think it was just to prove he could. The awful engine-out capability (glide range comparable to a helicopter, just about impossible to land without a runway) doesn't help either.

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).

If you JUST want to fly acro, it is a wonderful machine. If you want to do other things as well, it is probably not for you.

[abgd]

To look at it another way, why is it just about the most expensive homebuilt wooden single-seat aircraft you can get? I'm sure there are exceptions, but they're at least 3 x the price of some of the Taylor Titches that I've looked at in the past.

[AerocatS2A]

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.

[n5296s]

I disagree. I see you were flying it only "several times a month", so that may be where your misconception is coming from.

I noticed a slight tremor on my willy-waving-o-meter when I read this. For most people "several times a month" is a lot more than they have a chance to do. And I always did at least three landings at the end of every flight. I could land it with no problem, when I was flying it often, and still can after the first couple. But I rest my case that if you need to land it a dozen times a month to feel comfortable landing it, it is hard to land. Or as a Pitts owner I knew once said, "It was only after the first couple of hundred landings that after every takeoff I didn't say 'Oh sh*t, now I have to land it.' ".

Engine out landings were fine as well. I used to do them regularly for fun/practice and it wasn't a problem.

I've never done anything BUT engine off landings - it was how I was taught. Otherwise you can't see the runway. But these are engine out landings to a runway, which is a whole different matter than trying to land on a road or in a field, or worse. I rest my case that if the engine stops, and you don't conveniently have a runway within the (very short) gliding range, your best bet is to bail.

If you do decide to buy an S1, you need to find someone with an S2 who will teach you to land in it. Taking an S1 up without plenty of prior Pitts landing experience is likely to end very badly.

[AerocatS2A]

All right, I'll put it this way then. I was a hell of a lot better at landing a Pitts nicely when I was flying it regularly than I was at landing a Dash 8 when I was flying it regularly, yet I don't hear people going on about how a Dash 8 is hard to land. In my opinion the "hard to land" reputation is undeserved. I was never worried about landing it. Now I've never been worried about landing aircraft either but I have had to work harder to land other aircraft.

Are we talking past each other? Are you meaning "hard to land" as in it takes more than the usual amount of training to get it right? What I'm saying is that once you've been trained and got comfortable with it, it is physically and mentally undemanding to land.

[abgd]

A conversation between one of my ex-flying instructors and a new Pitts owner of allegedly limited ability and insight:

'So you haven't flown your new Pitts yet.'
'No, [confused] how do you know?'
'You're still alive'

[air18150]

The question about the relative low price of Pitts a/c is a good one. The first thing to remember is that a lot of the single seaters are homebuilt from either plans / factory kits or a mixture of parts sources. The quality of the aeroplanes is extremely variable. Some homebuilts are better than the factory machines, others shame their builders. There are not many dogs about in the UK but there are some. The Pitts is a tough little machine, but it is covered with fabric. The fabric does not last for ever and replacing it is painful in terms of effort /money and downtime, then you have to consider the paint. Many had 2 pack car type paint put on in an effort to get a wetlook show machine finish, this is not desirable because it is very hard to repair cracks when they appear. The fabric and paint on a Pitts are in decline from day one, the worse it is the cheaper the aeroplane will need to be to attract an informed buyer. Some aircraft can look great at 10 paces, but to the trained eye up close they may turn out to be very tired indeed.
Lots of Pitts aircraft (and I mean MOST) have been in some type of damaging incident during their lives, often as a result of a poor landing or on the 2 seaters the canopy falling off. The quality of repair has an impact on price. But on the plus side they can almost always be repaired to a high standard - its just that this does not always happen. In comparison to other dedicated aerobatic machines they require more maintenance. The flying wires, fabric inspection covers, undercarriage (if on correct bungee spring gear) and inumerable self tapping (also self undoing) screws need frequent attention. Most Pitts owners do a lot of this work themselves & with good reason - it saves a lot of money and means they know what they are flying / spot problems early. An RV is a lot less work per hour aloft. Given the choice I would rather be in a Pitts than an RV for anything other than an A to B transit, a well sorted Pitts has way more soul and character. For competition flying the Pitts is at a disadvantage compared to more modern machinery like the Extras / Edges / Cap 232 and Sbach a/c because of its relatively slow roll rate and the drag induced by rolling. Roll rate is not a judging criteria...but fitting an 8 point roll into the box and following it with a half loop up with some snap and rolling combination on the top is hard in a Pitts. The aeroplane will do it - but during the 8 point roll you will use a lot of space and slow down making it hard to have enough energy at the top of the 1/2 loop up for the snap / roll fraction combo. A pilot in a carbon winged monoplane or even an extra 230 or DR107 One Design will have an easier job. The result is that the Pitts pilot must fly his machine very very hard to be competitive at all above intermediate level. Those of us who have done that and seen others do it KNOW that the fabric and paint deteriorate fairly rapidly with such use.
The tricky landing characteristics are exagerated in my view. Get propper training / stay current and its amazing how they will cope with big crosswinds and short runways. If you can buy a good one they are a delight - (espcially the single seaters) and represent great value in aeroplane terms. Engines - dont foret that the engine in a dedicated aeros machine has a particulary hard life which is invariably a shorter life than a comperable engine in an RV could expect. An RV is not a dedicated aeros machine - its a characterful and efficient tourer with a little aeros capabiluty for sunday afternoon fun. They are both great at what they were designed to do but thats about the only similarity!