aerobatic kit planes

"Kyle Boatright" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
...
What are the kit or plans built planes that people use for aerobatics?

What kind of aerobatics do you want to do? Simple loop/roll kind of
maneuvers? Harder stuff like gyroscopic maneuvers?

Do you need cross country ability (say 150 mph cruise with at least one
passenger and bags)?

There is a full spectrum of options out there. For a good compromise
aircraft that loops and rolls well and offers good cross country ability,
the RV series is hard to beat. If your need is more biased towards hard
acro, Pitts and One Designs are very capable. If you want to learn acro,
there are several good choices listed elsewhere in the thread.



Not to mention the question that I hope you have asked yourself - but many
don't.

Do you want to fly or do you want to build?

If you want to fly and save a few bucks, by a used homebuilt. If you _want_
to build, great. Forget that I said anything.
Finding a "project" can save you some time if you just want to do "some"
building. But remember - a project that is 90% complete still has about 50%
of the work left to do ;-)

--
Geoff
The Sea Hawk at Wow Way d0t Com
remove spaces and make the obvious substitutions to reply by mail
When immigration is outlawed, only outlaws will immigrate.

Without knowing your skill levels both flying wise and as a builder, and
assuming you might be at the novice end of the scale (no offense
implied; just picking the best scenario from which to advise you)

Novice, novice.

My recommendation would be to consult with EAA initially and possibly
consider building an AcroSport. Paul Poberezny designed this plane and
he did that with the novice builder in mind. The plans are written in
plain English and in easy to understand terms. A lot of beginning
builders have built the AcroSport and were happy with its performance.
I believe you can now build it with either the M6 or a symmetrical wing
if you like inverted stuff.

I will try all the permitted stuff in our club aerobat 152 before
deciding if I want to build an acrobatic aircraft or just buy
something like an aerobat. Of course an aerobat has only a limited
number of approved acrobatic maneuvers. Do people go nuts in those, or
do they stick to the approved only (which brings up the question of
what it is safe to do, say, in a well constructed acrosport that is
not a certificated plane ...)

I've been a lot more interested in monocoque aircraft for building,
particularly STOL -- a completely different kind of plane.

I'd have to practice a lot of welding with Richard Finch as a guide
and then get some EAA guy who's done that kind of aircraft advise me
the whole way through building the tube fuselage (and everything
else). Depending on that feedback I might hire a welder for the tube
stuff. That's just got to be perfect, and even if a weld looks good on
the outside it might not be so good on the inside. You don't want to
find out about that during a split S.

I've done a little welding but nothing my LIFE depended on!

There are several engine choices as well depending on your pocketbook.
This is just a general answer for you of course, and my suggestion to
contact EAA is a sound one. For someone considering building a plane of
any kind, EAA is a priceless resource whose value can't be calculated.
Lots of luck whatever you do.

I'm an EAA member. They keep reminding me to renew, renew,
renew ...

Do you want to fly or do you want to build?

Both, actually. But I'm so new to flying I'm still figuring out what
kind of flying I'm most interested in doing.

I like to build things.

I'm intimidated by tube and fabric, which, though it is of the
earliest aircraft technology, sounds really time consuming in the
extreme. Still I can imagine that it's very rewarding.

wrote:
Without knowing your skill levels both flying wise and as a builder, and
assuming you might be at the novice end of the scale (no offense
implied; just picking the best scenario from which to advise you)

Novice, novice.

My recommendation would be to consult with EAA initially and possibly
consider building an AcroSport. Paul Poberezny designed this plane and
he did that with the novice builder in mind. The plans are written in
plain English and in easy to understand terms. A lot of beginning
builders have built the AcroSport and were happy with its performance.
I believe you can now build it with either the M6 or a symmetrical wing
if you like inverted stuff.

I will try all the permitted stuff in our club aerobat 152 before
deciding if I want to build an acrobatic aircraft or just buy
something like an aerobat. Of course an aerobat has only a limited
number of approved acrobatic maneuvers. Do people go nuts in those, or
do they stick to the approved only (which brings up the question of
what it is safe to do, say, in a well constructed acrosport that is
not a certificated plane ...)

I've been a lot more interested in monocoque aircraft for building,
particularly STOL -- a completely different kind of plane.

I'd have to practice a lot of welding with Richard Finch as a guide
and then get some EAA guy who's done that kind of aircraft advise me
the whole way through building the tube fuselage (and everything
else). Depending on that feedback I might hire a welder for the tube
stuff. That's just got to be perfect, and even if a weld looks good on
the outside it might not be so good on the inside. You don't want to
find out about that during a split S.

I've done a little welding but nothing my LIFE depended on!

There are several engine choices as well depending on your pocketbook.
This is just a general answer for you of course, and my suggestion to
contact EAA is a sound one. For someone considering building a plane of
any kind, EAA is a priceless resource whose value can't be calculated.
Lots of luck whatever you do.

I'm an EAA member. They keep reminding me to renew, renew,
renew ...
You know, it's just a suggestion, but if you are a novice builder, I
would strongly suggest talking to EAA about what you would like to do
flying wise. They have a handle on just about every building project and
acro airplane for sale in the entire country.
Perhaps for someone like yourself, buying a well built already made
aircraft is a wise choice.
If there's a good buy out there, you can bet the farm that the EAA guys
will know about it and will steer you in the right direction.
This might be the best and least costly way for you to go.
As for the Aerobat; it's a 150 stressed for basic aerobatics as
placarded and little more. If all you want to do is see the world upside
down, the aerobat would be a perfect choice. God knows it will be a hell
of a lot less expensive than one of the higher performance birds.
I liked the bat for only one reason. If a student could do decent acro
in the bat, they could do it in anything :-)) It wallows, it slews, it
coughs up oil, but it's a safe little trainer for the basic stuff.
I will admidt it does a VERY nice snap roll, and spins are stable in the
Aerobat.
Anyway, it's a crap shoot until you nail down exactly what you want out
of an airplane and how much time and money you are willing to put into
getting there. So make those decisions first, then talk to EAA. Should
be a plan in there somewhere :-)

--
Dudley Henriques

"F. Baum" wrote in
:

On Dec 17, 3:42 pm, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Dudley Henriques wrote
:







Dudley Henriques wrote:
Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
john smith wrote in
:
Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
"F. Baum" wrote in
news:02bef7c5-1ee1-437d-a908-b9b6dcfcfdd9
@b1g2000pra.googlegroups.com:
On Dec 16, 8:18 pm, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
I see a lot of Acrosport IIs on Barnstormers for not a lot of
money. A low performance bipe like that makes a good first
aerobatic trainer because it will be easy enough to do the
manuevers, yet difficult enough to do them well, and a well
built
one should be just about unbreakable.
Bertie- Hide quoted text -

How does it compare to the ACA Decathelon ?

Never flown an Acrosport, but I did display in a Decathlon
years
ago.
the Decathlon is a good airplane, but for a beginner in
aerobatics it's probably not the best choice unless you're
under a steady
hand
during the initial, scary bits. The Decathlon is relatively
clean
an
the entry speeds for some
manuevers are fairly close to the redline. Biplanes are
inherently stronger ( unless the airplane is a piece of crap),
but th
eDecathlon
will do in a pinch! It's nto a kitplane or anything like one,
of course! Even a good second hand Decathlon wil set you back
over
fifty
grand. The Citabria even more so, but having said that they are
both
fine airplanes, providing their spars haven't been damaged.
Bertie, you forgot to mention if one's first Decathlon should be
a fixed-pitch or constant speed prop.

Don't really think it matters. It's not that big a deal to use
one. Are there any fixed pitch prop Decathlons? I don't think
I've ever seen one. Anyhow, with some decent instruction using a
CS prop on an aerobatic airplane is definitely a plus for a lot
of reasons. Better perfromance and better braking if you screw it
up! Bertie
I don't remember ever seeing a Decathlon with anything but a
constant speed Hartzel on it.

Come to think of it, I do recall seeing something about Decathlons
being
available with fixed pitch props but never ran across one. Ours had
the
Hartzel.

Yeah, Might have been an option that nearly everyone took up. I think
you could get a Citabria with one IIRC. They're making them again now
and they're slightly different spec to the old ones, I think

Bertie- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

IIRC in the early days there was a Decathlon with 150 HP fixed pitch
and then the Super Decathlon with C/S prop. There is a late 90s
Decathlon made by ACA that is for sale in my neiborhood for under 100.
I have checked and it will fit in the hangar with my other
plane............. Gonna make an offer after the holidays.


Brilliant! I really liked the Decathlon.
The small engined ones I flew all had CS props, though. I never flew the
180 HP version and I flew them from very early on.

Bertie

Dudley Henriques wrote in
:

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Dudley Henriques wrote in
:

Dudley Henriques wrote:
Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
john smith wrote in
:
Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
"F. Baum" wrote in
news:02bef7c5-1ee1-437d-a908-b9b6dcfcfdd9
@b1g2000pra.googlegroups.com:
On Dec 16, 8:18 pm, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
I see a lot of Acrosport IIs on Barnstormers for not a lot of
money. A low performance bipe like that makes a good first
aerobatic trainer because it will be easy enough to do the
manuevers, yet difficult enough to do them well, and a well
built
one should be just about unbreakable.
Bertie- Hide quoted text -

How does it compare to the ACA Decathelon ?

Never flown an Acrosport, but I did display in a Decathlon years
ago.
the Decathlon is a good airplane, but for a beginner in
aerobatics it's probably not the best choice unless you're under
a steady
hand
during the initial, scary bits. The Decathlon is relatively
clean
an
the entry speeds for some
manuevers are fairly close to the redline. Biplanes are
inherently stronger ( unless the airplane is a piece of crap),
but th
eDecathlon
will do in a pinch! It's nto a kitplane or anything like one, of
course! Even a good second hand Decathlon wil set you back over
fifty
grand. The Citabria even more so, but having said that they are
both
fine airplanes, providing their spars haven't been damaged.
Bertie, you forgot to mention if one's first Decathlon should be
a fixed-pitch or constant speed prop.

Don't really think it matters. It's not that big a deal to use
one. Are there any fixed pitch prop Decathlons? I don't think I've
ever seen one. Anyhow, with some decent instruction using a CS
prop on an aerobatic airplane is definitely a plus for a lot of
reasons. Better perfromance and better braking if you screw it up!
Bertie
I don't remember ever seeing a Decathlon with anything but a
constant speed Hartzel on it.

Come to think of it, I do recall seeing something about Decathlons
being
available with fixed pitch props but never ran across one. Ours had
the
Hartzel.



Yeah, Might have been an option that nearly everyone took up. I think
you could get a Citabria with one IIRC. They're making them again now
and they're slightly different spec to the old ones, I think

Bertie
I know I've seen and flown several and never seemed to come across one
with the fixed pitch prop but I'm sure there must have been a few out
there. We leased one back from a guy on the field to use for basic
acro introduction. If I remember right, there was a hefty AD issued on
the wing that cost a damn fortune for the owners.
I liked the airplane for what we did with it.


Yeah, the wing spar ad is a bit of a problem allright. You can put the
wings fromthe new ones on the old airplanes and they're not too
expensive, and there are several fixes for the spars, but if they're OK
then it just means cutting a few extra inspection holes in the wing to
check them out annually.
The problem with the spars is really down to damage from ground loops
going uninvestigated and compression failures in the spruce causing
further problems during aerobatics!
Only one has come apart this way, AFAIK, (7KCAB) and it should be the
last time since the remainder of the fleet is scrutinised to the nth
degree now.

Bertie

Doug Carter wrote in
:

On 2007-12-17, Dudley Henriques wrote:
I don't remember ever seeing a Decathlon with anything but a constant
speed Hartzel on it.

I had a '79 with 150HP and a fixed pitch prop.


Kay! Take your word for it!


Bertie

"Viperdoc" wrote in
:

The Super Decathlon had a 180hp with a CS, and the Decathlon had
150hp. The big ADs involved the lift strut attachment fittings on the
wood spars, and the other big one was to insure there was no cracking
on the seat backs.

The problem wasn't so much the wood spar, but hidden damage and
cracking.





Yes, there was a strut AD ('78), but there was a seperate AD that came out
in '97 in regards the wood spars. This covered all model 7 Aeroncas,
Champions and Bellancas as well as the Decathlon and the model 11 Chief.
A lot of wings got scrapped because of it. Probably a lot of airplanes too.

Bertie

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Dudley Henriques wrote in
:

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Dudley Henriques wrote in
:

Dudley Henriques wrote:
Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
john smith wrote in
:
Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
"F. Baum" wrote in
news:02bef7c5-1ee1-437d-a908-b9b6dcfcfdd9
@b1g2000pra.googlegroups.com:
On Dec 16, 8:18 pm, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
I see a lot of Acrosport IIs on Barnstormers for not a lot of
money. A low performance bipe like that makes a good first
aerobatic trainer because it will be easy enough to do the
manuevers, yet difficult enough to do them well, and a well
built
one should be just about unbreakable.
Bertie- Hide quoted text -

How does it compare to the ACA Decathelon ?

Never flown an Acrosport, but I did display in a Decathlon years
ago.
the Decathlon is a good airplane, but for a beginner in
aerobatics it's probably not the best choice unless you're under
a steady
hand
during the initial, scary bits. The Decathlon is relatively
clean
an
the entry speeds for some
manuevers are fairly close to the redline. Biplanes are
inherently stronger ( unless the airplane is a piece of crap),
but th
eDecathlon
will do in a pinch! It's nto a kitplane or anything like one, of
course! Even a good second hand Decathlon wil set you back over
fifty
grand. The Citabria even more so, but having said that they are
both
fine airplanes, providing their spars haven't been damaged.
Bertie, you forgot to mention if one's first Decathlon should be
a fixed-pitch or constant speed prop.

Don't really think it matters. It's not that big a deal to use
one. Are there any fixed pitch prop Decathlons? I don't think I've
ever seen one. Anyhow, with some decent instruction using a CS
prop on an aerobatic airplane is definitely a plus for a lot of
reasons. Better perfromance and better braking if you screw it up!
Bertie
I don't remember ever seeing a Decathlon with anything but a
constant speed Hartzel on it.

Come to think of it, I do recall seeing something about Decathlons
being
available with fixed pitch props but never ran across one. Ours had
the
Hartzel.


Yeah, Might have been an option that nearly everyone took up. I think
you could get a Citabria with one IIRC. They're making them again now
and they're slightly different spec to the old ones, I think

Bertie
I know I've seen and flown several and never seemed to come across one
with the fixed pitch prop but I'm sure there must have been a few out
there. We leased one back from a guy on the field to use for basic
acro introduction. If I remember right, there was a hefty AD issued on
the wing that cost a damn fortune for the owners.
I liked the airplane for what we did with it.


Yeah, the wing spar ad is a bit of a problem allright. You can put the
wings fromthe new ones on the old airplanes and they're not too
expensive, and there are several fixes for the spars, but if they're OK
then it just means cutting a few extra inspection holes in the wing to
check them out annually.
The problem with the spars is really down to damage from ground loops
going uninvestigated and compression failures in the spruce causing
further problems during aerobatics!
Only one has come apart this way, AFAIK, (7KCAB) and it should be the
last time since the remainder of the fleet is scrutinised to the nth
degree now.

Bertie

The guy who owned the one we leased back got a double hit in one day.
He landed on the grass on a field down near the Susquehanna River, tried
to wheel it on and had it nailed until he went over the mound in the
middle of the runway that he didn't know about. The main gear legs
compressed and he caught the prop tips bending the hell out of it.
The next day he called and said he had received the AD on the wing.
He was ONE unhappy camper!!


--
Dudley Henriques

wrote in news:45da95af-e490-4f41-aae7-
:

Do you want to fly or do you want to build?

Both, actually. But I'm so new to flying I'm still figuring out what
kind of flying I'm most interested in doing.

I like to build things.

I'm intimidated by tube and fabric, which, though it is of the
earliest aircraft technology, sounds really time consuming in the
extreme. Still I can imagine that it's very rewarding.

Well, you can find half built bipes all over the place. A quick visit to
Barnstormers or trade a plane will reveal dozens of projects for sale. Just
be sure you get a well built one.
It's not so hard. I learned to weld and it's the fastest way glue something
you ever saw! Just like buidling a stick and tissue model. Well, almost.


Bertie