Aerobatics -Which would you choose?
 

I am narrowing down learning Aero's in either a Bulldog 1210, or a T67C Slingsby Firefly.
I have kind of ruled out the Cessna Aerobat - having done almost my whole PPL in that last year, it doesnt feel like it has much grunt.

I would choose the one which comes with the best instructor.

Agreed, but all else being equal the Bulldog - which is a proper military trainer. A T67M260 or M200 would also be, but the T67C is an underpowered fudge of an aeroplane not as well sorted.

It's true, the 150 Aerobat has poor performance. I have not been lucky enough to fly the other two types, but I am confident that those aircraft are easier to fly aerobatics.

However, I learned limited aerobatics in the Aerobat. I learned to coax the most from the meager power. Consider the skills you might gain mastering aerobatics (well, in fairness, limited aerobatics) in an underpowered, rather sluggish aircraft.

Presuming equally competent instruction in whichever type you choose, perhaps start your training in the aerobat, (and get a few more hours per cost), then transition to the more capable types, when your skills have shown you the shortcomings of the Aerobat. The skill to nurse an underpowered aircraft through decent aerobatics will be less learned, when you can power your way through them instead.

In any case, well done pursuing this aspect of flight, you'll always be a better and more competent pilot for it!

Aerobatics -Which would you choose?
 

I have personal experience of flying/instructing aerobatics in both types. I would prefer the Bulldog. However if you are planning to invest a reasonable amount of money in a proper aerobatics course I would suggest a trip in both types to see which one YOU enjoy most. Despite it's shortcomings compared to some other types the Firefly is lovely compared to a C150. Weight and C of G can also be an issue when aerobatting a firefly so have a look at that too.

Or start your aerobatics course in a chipmunk and do the tailwheel conversion at the same time, once you have the basics then move on to the bulldog or firefly.

learn in something with no grunt. Learn how to manage your energy properly. Then when you transition to something that you can aerobat endlessly without eating altitude you will really appreciate it, and you will have some great skills behind you.

The T67M mkII that I fly has an aerobatic capability about the same as the Bulldog, perhaps a little better. Not quite as nice to fly as a Bulldog though, and less powerful, so slower to climb etc. Better instrumentation, no fatigue meter and an average fuel burn of around 30 ltrs per hour swing the choice toward the T67M for me.

The T67C is less capable since it has no inverted systems. With a free choice, I would choose the Bulldog. However, if the Bulldog has a high fatigue index it will deter you from finding the outer edges of the envelope. I know of one Bulldog used by a school in the south where the instructors are limited to 3 1/2 g maximum. This allows Sunday afternoon aeros to be taught, but is quite restrictive. The firefly is a robust airframe and there are no fatigue issues.

For basic aeros instruction either will do. As others have said, the instructor / school / condition of the aircraft will be more important... and nothing to stop you swapping between the 2 at will.

Once you have grasped the basics of 3 or 4 manoeuvres, and got spinning / visual UPs totally sorted, then you can determine where and how far you want your aerobatics to go e.g. towards an Extra, or back to an Aerobat etc.

you might get more hours, but much of that will be climbing back up between manoeuvres! If you want to enjoy your aeros then avoid the Cessna, Bulldog is a good compromise on handling and ability for learning the basics- not too easy but with an engine that will not stop in a slow roll and enough power not to have to climb back up every other manoeuvre.

All good advice but definitely some of the best has come from AerocatS2A.
This will also make you aware of your engine/prop limitations early on.
Work out a schedule along those lines.
Main thing - take it easy at first but, most importantly, enjoy it. :ok:

thanks all - good advice as always.

Problem is I had some flight experiences in an Extra 300 last year and got totally hooked in the power, G-force etc... so know i need to expect a dramatic reduction in impressiveness but also know am only just learning and £500 an hour to learn is a waste and also want to learn on something more realistic and one that will help me learn in terms of handling low power, limitations etc..

I think that Genghis is a little harsh on the delightful handling T67c here, but he is right that this mark of Slingsby is a compromise, in that it has no inverted fuel or oil systems, or a constant speed prop. It's aerobatics are therefore limited to the same manoeuvers as the C150 Aerobat.

It has more power that the Cessna, so can just about maintain height in a series of manoeuvers, but it is not able to do this as easilly as the Bulldog, or climb to height as fast.

On balance, the Bulldog is easilly the winner in terms of aerobatic performance, and the basic manoeuvers are relatively easy, but, rather like the Cessna, you have to work harder in the Slingsby to get the best out of it, and I think that, of the two, it will teach you more as a basic aerobatic trainer.

How long would it take to get to Cambridgeshire? there are 2 extra 200's one at bourn with Adrian Willis and one at Cambridge.

cost about £255 per hour which probably not a lot more than a bulldog.

As for managing energy, Adrian tends to fly at 2300/23" which teaches you what you need to know and in fact you can do the intermediate sequence at 2300/23" 2 up without horrendous height loss.

Don't be shy, lets face it Michael Pickin who probably the best young aerobatic Pilot in the UK was flying a cap 232 when studying for A levels!

Pilatus B-4 glider is ideal for this.

I'll go along with CISTRS on that. Or watch a Bob Hoover video on You tube.

I fly a 150A on occasion and find it quite a nice a/c. It's a bit like a Yorkshire Terrier, not actually capable of much but it's willing.

Lots have been said here about the perceived benefit of learning aerobatics in a low powered aircraft. If you want to fly lower powered aerobatic aircraft then I would agree. If you want to fly more modern ones such as Pitts or Extras then I don't think its that helpful.

The biggest problem is the time taken to climb for more energy after a few manoeuvres. I have flown a C150 Aerobat, many figures needed a dive for speed first and then a significant amount of time to climb afterwards, particularly two up with an instructor.

The situation is better in a Bulldog or T67, but still not as good as a Pitts or Extra 200.

So, a sortie of 10 practice figures will take much less time in an Extra or Pitts and therefore despite the hourly rate will probably cost similar.

Depending on where you want to go next should influence your decision. If its competition or display aerobatics then the Pitts/Extra route is better. If its just loops and rolls on a Sunday afternoon with friends, then train on the aircraft you will be using.

Having flown most of the aircraft mentioned above I can see no merit in starting aerobatic training on a high powered aircraft, things happen too quickly for the tyro to observe and digest, the aircraft don't help much with understanding energy management, this will all slow the learning progress while turning lots of AVGAS into noise.

My advice would be to start on the DHC-1 (preferably), T67 or Bulldog, once you have got to grips with the sport move on to the Extra or other high powered aircraft.

Do you need any power at all?.... I saw a K21 glider perform 22 consecutive loops straight from an aero-tow to 3000ft, and he still had over a thousand feet left, for a few other manoeuvres.

That would have been 22 loops under a large thumping thermal or in strong ridge lift.

A 3000' release in still air would normally restrict you to around 10 gently flown figures in a K21. Unless you want to land at the bottom of the last loop..

Having done both I would heartily recommend the OP sticks with the power route, it is ultimately cheaper and much better for training because the tempo is more flexible and repeating figures is obvioulsy more feasible. A tow to 4000' costs £40-£50 and gives you 6-8 mins of actual aerobatic time - about double the cost of a Pitts S2A!

That said, a few power aero pilots have been know to experience the joy of soaring a Pilatus B4, throwing in the odd loop and roll between climbs!