Just read the EAA article in their monthly mag. Interesting story on design and set of circumstances around the design. Most interesting were the parts where they were testing various wing profiles and the top wing stalls first even inverted.
I am not a big fan of biplanes, but these are a real beauties.
[img]http://www.tasmanianaeromodellingacadem ... ts%201.jpg[/img]
[img]http://barrieaircraft.com/images/pitts- ... ial-05.jpg[/img]
70 years of Pitts
-
Napoleon So Low
- Posts: 49
- Joined: Thu May 28, 2015 8:58 pm
The rubber chicken is a nice touch. 8)
-
ScudRunner-d95
- Posts: 1349
- Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 5:08 pm
[quote author=Napoleon So Low link=topic=624.msg2396#msg2396 date=1439330503]
The rubber chicken is a nice touch. 8)
[/quote]
haha too funny
The rubber chicken is a nice touch. 8)
[/quote]
haha too funny
-
Colonel
- Posts: 3450
- Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2015 10:31 am
If you ever fly a Model 12 you may
conclude (as did I) that it's more
like a junior Stearman. It's really,
really big compared to the original
S1. It's really big even compared
to the certified two-seats, which
the purists already consider truck-
like.
[img][/img]
In my experience, plenty of aircraft
look like a Pitts, but none of them
fly like one. The control harmony
and response is outstanding.
They have been obsoleted by the
cantilever monoplanes, but like
many older machines, have a
subjective charm that either appeals
to you, or it doesn't.
I had the honour of meeting Curtis
a couple of times. He liked how
we flew.
[img][/img]
Not that I have anything against
monoplanes. I highly recommend
that everyone get a Viper L29. Much
easier to fly than a Pitts, and oh my
God, what fun!
conclude (as did I) that it's more
like a junior Stearman. It's really,
really big compared to the original
S1. It's really big even compared
to the certified two-seats, which
the purists already consider truck-
like.
[img][/img]
In my experience, plenty of aircraft
look like a Pitts, but none of them
fly like one. The control harmony
and response is outstanding.
They have been obsoleted by the
cantilever monoplanes, but like
many older machines, have a
subjective charm that either appeals
to you, or it doesn't.
I had the honour of meeting Curtis
a couple of times. He liked how
we flew.
[img][/img]
Not that I have anything against
monoplanes. I highly recommend
that everyone get a Viper L29. Much
easier to fly than a Pitts, and oh my
God, what fun!
-
David MacRay
- Posts: 1259
- Joined: Wed Jun 03, 2015 3:00 pm
That radial in the cut-away picture is reverse rotational too. Yes?
-
ScudRunner-d95
- Posts: 1349
- Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 5:08 pm
I believe you are right the Polish engines and this is not a slight at my Polish brethren rotate the "wrong" way. Actually I will look that up
[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vedeneyev_M14P]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vedeneyev_M14P[/url]
[quote]Unlike most Western aero-engines, which turn to the right (clockwise) when viewed from the cockpit, the M14P rotates to the left (counter-clockwise).[/quote]
So there ya go, be ready on the rudder pedals for the opposite yaw than your use to and with that thing I bet it kicks hard if your ham fisted on the throttle.
[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vedeneyev_M14P]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vedeneyev_M14P[/url]
[quote]Unlike most Western aero-engines, which turn to the right (clockwise) when viewed from the cockpit, the M14P rotates to the left (counter-clockwise).[/quote]
So there ya go, be ready on the rudder pedals for the opposite yaw than your use to and with that thing I bet it kicks hard if your ham fisted on the throttle.
-
Colonel
- Posts: 3450
- Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2015 10:31 am
[quote]reverse rotational[/quote]
Yup. I was worried the first time I flew one,
and I shouldn't have. Don't think, just look
outside and do what you need to do. Reminds
me of my first helicopter lesson - in a R22.
Hovering that cunt is like trying to stuff a
banana up a monkey's ass. And no PGI,
no pre-flight brief or anything, just jumped
in and tried to hover that bitch, closed loop.
Did ok, I guess.
We pilots are simple people. It is best
when we try not to think - just do.
Yup. I was worried the first time I flew one,
and I shouldn't have. Don't think, just look
outside and do what you need to do. Reminds
me of my first helicopter lesson - in a R22.
Hovering that cunt is like trying to stuff a
banana up a monkey's ass. And no PGI,
no pre-flight brief or anything, just jumped
in and tried to hover that bitch, closed loop.
Did ok, I guess.
We pilots are simple people. It is best
when we try not to think - just do.
-
David MacRay
- Posts: 1259
- Joined: Wed Jun 03, 2015 3:00 pm
I suspect I would initially do all sorts of over reacting fun stuff.
[list]
[li]bring the tail up too quick[/li]
[li]a little too much right rudder[/li][li]pull back a bit too quick[/li][li]a little too much left rudder[/li]
[/list]
[list]
[li]bring the tail up too quick[/li]
[li]a little too much right rudder[/li][li]pull back a bit too quick[/li][li]a little too much left rudder[/li]
[/list]
-
Colonel
- Posts: 3450
- Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2015 10:31 am
Actually, with a composite (or wooden!) blade
prop, most of that gyroscopic stuff goes away.
All you really have to worry about is the slipstream
contracting as you slow down.
[img][/img]
A short-fuselage S1 with a metal blade prop,
is going to be MUCH more of a rudder machine
than the huge model 12 with the 3-blade MT
prop, which I found to be something of gentle
old cow (hence the baby Stearman comment)
which sounded weirdly like a Russian tractor.
Blat blat blat blat blat ...
IMHO aircraft with the mixture reverse-rigged
are MUCH more dicey than simply having the
prop go the wrong way.
I gave some aerobatic instruction on a Yak-52
(after talking about it's spins to an airshow pilot
friend that flies a 'chang) and the reverse-rigged
mixture got my attention a lot more than the
"wrong" rudder pedal.
Not far from here, some very high-time pilots
crashed a $400,000 Cornell restoration, and I
was told it was the authentic reverse-rigged
mixture that got pushed forward. You know,
cutoff.
Sometimes a little less authenticity can be a
really good idea. A locking tailwheel is a great
example of this, too. Flying a taildragger with
a non-locking tailwheel on dry pavement can
be very scary. I know a guy who does it, but
he's a phenomenal stick (and a retired four-bars,
I might point out) but he was always in terrible
trouble with the union (ALPO) because he was
always flying on the side.
Sidebar: most tailwheels are auto-locking with
a detent, and pop out when the tailwheel yaw
angle becomes too great. A few taildraggers
have a manually-locking tailwheel (eg Pitts S1,
Beech 18, etc) but they are much less common.
prop, most of that gyroscopic stuff goes away.
All you really have to worry about is the slipstream
contracting as you slow down.
[img][/img]
A short-fuselage S1 with a metal blade prop,
is going to be MUCH more of a rudder machine
than the huge model 12 with the 3-blade MT
prop, which I found to be something of gentle
old cow (hence the baby Stearman comment)
which sounded weirdly like a Russian tractor.
Blat blat blat blat blat ...
IMHO aircraft with the mixture reverse-rigged
are MUCH more dicey than simply having the
prop go the wrong way.
I gave some aerobatic instruction on a Yak-52
(after talking about it's spins to an airshow pilot
friend that flies a 'chang) and the reverse-rigged
mixture got my attention a lot more than the
"wrong" rudder pedal.
Not far from here, some very high-time pilots
crashed a $400,000 Cornell restoration, and I
was told it was the authentic reverse-rigged
mixture that got pushed forward. You know,
cutoff.
Sometimes a little less authenticity can be a
really good idea. A locking tailwheel is a great
example of this, too. Flying a taildragger with
a non-locking tailwheel on dry pavement can
be very scary. I know a guy who does it, but
he's a phenomenal stick (and a retired four-bars,
I might point out) but he was always in terrible
trouble with the union (ALPO) because he was
always flying on the side.
Sidebar: most tailwheels are auto-locking with
a detent, and pop out when the tailwheel yaw
angle becomes too great. A few taildraggers
have a manually-locking tailwheel (eg Pitts S1,
Beech 18, etc) but they are much less common.
-
- Similar Topics
- Replies
- Views
- Last post
-
- 0 Replies
- 2699 Views
-
Last post by Colonel
-
- 1 Replies
- 888 Views
-
Last post by Rosco P Coltrane
-
- 1 Replies
- 1869 Views
-
Last post by Scudrunner
