Scudrunners

Hello everyone,

I've been thinking for a while about this and have decided to take step one towards my idea...

I'm thinking about getting a nice tail dragger to learn some aerobatics and eventually (read: once I think I won't kill myself) get into an Aerobatic FI rating and start giving tail dragger and aerobatic instruction. What would be a nice airplane to go about with this in mind? I am presently at least a year or so away from the purchase of the aircraft, let alone everything else in this pipe dream of mine. But I thought I could start the seed in my preparation in this direction.

I don't have an awful lot of time in tail draggers.... I have about 15-20 hours in a 7ECA including about 2 hours acro from during my CPL training some 7-8 years ago. It really taught me how to use those little movable foot rests on the floor of the airplane. This experience does make me lean a little towards a 7ECA or even a 7/8KCAB with the inverted oil system.

But I'm looking for some suggestions from the venerable members of this forum including but not limited to the Colonel, SSU and Chuck...

Choosing an airplane for basic aerobatics is more an exercise in personal likes rather than real differences in the airplane.

First off if it must be certified for aerobatics that is the most important issue.

When I last had training airplanes in Kanada I had a Cessna Aerobat that I converted to a Texas Taildragger with the extended gear.

It was perfect for my training airplane as it not only looked good it was functional.

Affordable and did the job......remember energy conservation makes for a real smooth aerobatic pilot.....anyone can use excessive power to drive the thing through the various maneuvers.

Airplanes are like sexual preferences it is in the eye of the beholder, some like big tits....some like lots of power.

[quote author=Chuck Ellsworth link=topic=560.msg2071#msg2071 date=1438129759]
Choosing an airplane for basic aerobatics is more an exercise in personal likes rather than real differences in the airplane.
[/quote]

Just so I'm not too clouded in my opinion, what airplanes could I consider. The Citabria/Decathlon/Super Decathlon comes to mind besides the Cessna Aerobat. I've heard RVs are good too, but since it is kit built, I'm not sure if I am able to put it on a Commercial/FTU OC? Any others?

SuperD.  You can't beat this:

- metal wing
- constant speed prop (reduces workload)
- inverted fuel + oil systems
- sorta-symmetrical wing
- easy to land
- hard to do acro in

It has a heavy stick.  I've never seen spades
help much on Citabria/Decathlon but people
put them on.

Constant speed prop makes your life a whole
lot easier.  Acro with fixed pitch prop on certified,
you spend all the time fucking with the throttle
to keep it under redline.  However, with a
homebuilt, it stays forward and you will see
3300-3400 RPM.

SuperD is so easy and docile to land, you can
use it as a tailwheel trainer, too.

I really don't like the wood wing (Champ)
of the Citabria and Decathlon.  Look at all
the inspection panels around the spar!!

BTW, don't snap the Citabria/Decathlon.  It's
terribly hard on the airframe.  You can snap
or tumble the SuperD but you will be changing
gas tanks regularly.

[img][/img]

That's Greg Koontz, the master of the SuperD
at an airshow we did together some years back
at NAS Meridian, MS.  TC phoned down to the
airshow organizers and told them that we were
BAD PEOPLE and to not let us fly, but the USN
ignored them.

Greg knows what he is doing in the SuperD.
Go and see him in Alabama if you want to teach
acro on one.  Funny note:  Greg has stents, which
TC thinks is disqualifying for acro.  Too funny.


Bill Kershner use to have a Cessna Aerobat
for spin training and basic acro.  It lacks
many things including roll rate, vertical
penetration, constant speed prop, inverted
systems and symmetrical wing.  You have
to be Bob Hoover to do decent acro on it,
but Bill was that good.  He even wrote a
book about it:  http://amzn.com/1560276177

Cessnas are good at one thing, and that's
descending.  They demonstrate gravity
superbly.  Here's one of Bill's students:



RV's are old-man acro airplanes.  Loops
and rolls.  They are NOT good trainers
because they do not forgive mistakes
well.  Easy to tear the wings off.  I tell
people flying the RV's, they can go fast,
and they can pull G, but for God's sake
don't do both at the same time.  Think
of a real taper on the Vg diagram, IMHO.

   
[quote]
Re: Ab-initio Aerobatic Trainer


SuperD.  You can't beat this:


- easy to land[/quote]

We had a Super D in Wings over Holland and it is so easy to land I would be leery of using one as a tail wheel trainer just because it is so idiot proof when landing.

My reason for using the Aerobat for training was I had one in the training fleet and by buying the Kit and the STC and doing the conversion myself it was really cheap compared to buying a real aerobatic trainer.

And it made for an excellent tail wheel trainer as it is about half way between a Citabria and a Pitts for directional control on landing.

And it makes a Cessna 150 look like an airplane.  :)

[quote]Super D ... it is so easy to land[/quote]

I know.  Amazingly, some people still struggle
landing them.  Seriously.

A flight school near me has a comprehensive
course, for people to learn tailwheel on one.

Rvs are great rolling airplnes but the stall at full aileron is kinda interesting:)  just dont pull through I guess.

The Decathlon is indeed a very easy to land plane, for some reason its easier than the Citabria, guess the higher wing loading helps ? Less time skittering before the weight is well distributed probably helps.

I like the idea of the 150 Aerobat with Texas tail dragger, sounds like a good  inexpensive training plane that could survive outside. Is there an STC for that or was it a 337 that was accepted on import?

STC.

Note that not everyone was able to tame
the fearsome fire-breathing dragon that
is the texas taildragger buck fifty:

[img][/img]

There was a ferocious 7 knots wind at 45 degrees.