Pitts S1 versus RV-3 (RV-4) Landing

Has anybody owned both planes (Pitts S1 and RV3) and can give me on some pointers on how the two compare in terms of ground handling and transition. Obviously, pitts would be more twitchy but wanted to get an idea as to what to expect.

I own a RV3 which I love and have been wanting to get a S1 for a while. My 3 is one of the lightest built and flies and lands nicely. I usually do a tail low wheelie - I do have a 3 blade catto prop on it right now. I can three point it as well however, it seems more precise with a wheelie.

I will be getting few pitts s2 hours but was curious to see if there was anybody might have some tips around landing a s1 (transitioning from a rv3). I have been practicing power off 180 degree landings in my 3 and so far they have been working well.

I have never flown a rv4 so not sure if it would be close in experience.

RV-4

Only have -4 time, and I might screw it up tomorrow, but it's a doll to land - checked the winds 30 miles out yesterday and they were 8kts about 30 degrees off. Didn't check it again, but fought a much stiffer wind than that all the way through rollout - pulled up ASOS taxiing in and it was 17g24 quartering headwind. She made me work, but was never difficult to control.
I suspect the shorter wheelbase of the Pitts would lead to quite different behavior, but am far from a tailwheel expert.
Patrick

RV-3 vs Pitts

I've flown both. Visibility is a major difference. Once the Pitt's flare begins you are peripheral vision only whereas the RV-3 vis is fantastic. (I'm 5'6")

Control harmony seemed similar but its been a long time ago. RV controls are wonderful and I've told many it was similar to a Pitts.

Good memory

RV4 250 hours and Pitts 2 hours.

With the Pitts, on downwind and abeam the numbers, memorize the position of the runway because you won't see it again until you are on the ground.

tectweaker said:

...Obviously, pitts would be more twitchy ...

Click to expand...

I haven't flown a Pitts but I know Curtis would object to your characterisation. They way I remember his quote, he would look mystified and say "I have never seen a twitchy airplane but I have seen twitchy pilots."

When people refer to my RV as "twitchy" or "sensitive" I usually tell them I think the term responsive is a much more accurate description of the handling.

I flew an RV-3 for about 400 hrs before buying the Pitts S-1S that I have now. About 600 hrs on the Pitts now. I've been fortunate to have flown eight different S-1 Pitts', including the S-1C, S-1D, S-1S (factory), S-1S/E, and S-1T. How they handle on the ground varies greatly depending on how they are set up. I've flown pretty much all combinations of landing gear - bungee, rod (Wittman), and spring gear, as well as various tailwheels including steerable (Maule and API) and locking on both rod and leaf springs (rod spring only for locking TW). The original bungee gear, leaf spring, steerable tailwheel Pitts S-1 is the king of sensitive airplanes on the ground. It's actually a bit shocking the first time you fly one. But it's totally honest - does what you ask. You just have to re-train your feet. It'll swerve lightning fast, but is very controllable on the ground. Put it down straight and learn to move your feet as little (but at the same time as quickly) as possible, and life is good. The Pitts S-2 is heavier, less sensitive, and more stable on the ground. It's worth doing transition training in one, and is as close as you can get with a 2-seater, but does not perfectly replicate the S-1 experience.

That being said, an S-1 Pitts can pretty much be made as friendly as an RV on the ground with spring or rod gear and/or a locking tailwheel. In this case, the main difference with the Pitts is the faster touchdown speed. I hate locking tailwheels, but they do remove a lot of drama, and protect newbie, hamfooted pilots from themselves. RVs of course, are very stable and friendly on the ground. I once broke a tailwheel chain clip on landing in the RV-3, and did not even notice until I was at a crawl on rollout. That's a good way to ground loop an S-1 unless you're on your toes. It goes without saying that the Pitts has a higher power off descent rate, more drag, and much worse visibility on approach/toudown. I actually prefer the drag and descent rate over the clean RV. The Pitts is the best slipping airplane ever built. You can drop it in from impossibly steep angles, and putting it where you want power off feels like cheating. You won't necessarily glide far in an engine out situation, but you can vary your glideslope significantly more than you can in an RV. You just won't appreciate how weak RVs are at slipping until you've done a full deflection power off slip in a Pitts.

Regarding 3-point vs. wheel landings, wheel landing the S-1 is absolutely pointless, and IMO more risky for newbie S-1 pilots. I do about one in a hundred in calm conditions just for the helluvit. I'm not anti-wheel landing other airplanes, BTW. The S-1 has a short wheel base, heavy tail, and surprisingly little rudder authority with the tail up. Wheel landings just chew up excessive runway for no reason. The S-1 has lots of aileron authority at 3-point touchdown speed, even in nasty x-winds. And unlike RV's, the Pitts is a pretty much a shopping cart after touching down 3-point....it just doesn't want to go flying again. I'll leave it at that on wheel landing these things unless you're interested in more detail.

The first video below illustrates why I recommend against early wheel landing attempts - especially with bungee gear. It's very stiff, and not easy to kiss the ground smoothly. The pilot here made the wise choice in straightening his left arm on the first landing attempt, and got it down smooth on the 2nd attempt, but came close to losing it as he was letting the tail down. Note my comment above about limited rudder authority. BTW, there is plenty of rudder authority in flight - even with the small original rudder. I have the double hammerhead video to prove it.

The second video is mine, and shows how I like to do it - power off, slipping turn, runway in sight the whole way, 3-point touchdown. I don't always drop it in this steep, but shows what you can do. No real headwind help that day. I think landing a Pitts is as much fun as acro, and I always do a few T&Gs at the end of each flight.

I still think the RV-3 is THE best all-around sport plane ever designed, but....there is just something magic about the little Pitts. Got carried away. PM me if you're interested in more info. Oh, and I do a little acro as well.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BVy_Q8luPxE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zERCozXB3Bo

Ive owned and flown both

I had a 180hp s1s small rudder, bungy gear big metal prop, non locking tailwheel.. requires above average pilot skills and if any RV challenges your skill level on landing you probably should improve your skills before doing the pitts.

The hot shot that bought mine claimed he could fly anything but promptly lost it on his first landing attempt and drug a,wing tip and ran off the runway..

Cm

sandifer said:

I flew an RV-3 for about 400 hrs before buying the Pitts S-1S that I have now. About 600 hrs on the Pitts now. I've been fortunate to have flown eight different S-1 Pitts', including the S-1C, S-1D, S-1S (factory), S-1S/E, and S-1T. How they handle on the ground varies greatly depending on how they are set up. I've flown pretty much all combinations of landing gear - bungee, rod (Wittman), and spring gear, as well as various tailwheels including steerable (Maule and API) and locking on both rod and leaf springs (rod spring only for locking TW). The original bungee gear, leaf spring, steerable tailwheel Pitts S-1 is the king of sensitive airplanes on the ground. It's actually a bit shocking the first time you fly one. But it's totally honest - does what you ask. You just have to re-train your feet. It'll swerve lightning fast, but is very controllable on the ground. Put it down straight and learn to move your feet as little as possible, and life is good. The Pitts S-2 is heavier, less sensitive, and more stable on the ground. It's worth doing transition training in one, and is as close as you can get with a 2-seater, but does not perfectly replicate the S-1 experience.

That being said, an S-1 Pitts can pretty much be made as friendly as an RV on the ground with spring or rod gear and/or a locking tailwheel. In this case, the main difference with the Pitts is the faster touchdown speed. I hate locking tailwheels, but they do remove a lot of drama, and protect newbie, hamfooted pilots from themselves. RVs of course, are very stable and friendly on the ground. I once broke a tailwheel chain clip on landing in the RV-3, and did not even notice until I was at a crawl on rollout. That's a good way to ground loop an S-1 unless you're on your toes. It goes without saying that the Pitts has a higher power off descent rate, more drag, and much worse visibility on approach/toudown. I actually prefer the drag and descent rate over the clean RV. The Pitts is the best slipping airplane ever built. You can drop it in from impossibly steep angles, and putting it where you want power off feels like cheating. You won't necessarily glide far in an engine out situation, but you can vary your glideslope significantly more than you can in an RV. You just won't appreciate how weak RVs are at slipping until you've done a full deflection power off slip in a Pitts.

Regarding 3-point vs. wheel landings, wheel landing the S-1 is absolutely pointless, and IMO more risky for newbie S-1 pilots. I do about one in a hundred in calm conditions just for the helluvit. I'm not anti-wheel landing other airplanes, BTW. The S-1 has a short wheel base, heavy tail, and surprisingly little rudder authority with the tail up. Wheel landings just chew up excessive runway for no reason. The S-1 has lots of aileron authority at 3-point touchdown speed, even in nasty x-winds. And unlike RV's, the Pitts is a pretty much a shopping cart after touching down 3-point....it just doesn't want to go flying again. I'll leave it at that on wheel landing these things unless you're interested in more detail.

The first video below illustrates why I recommend against early wheel landing attempts - especially with bungee gear. It's very stiff, and not easy to kiss the ground smoothly. The pilot here made the wise choice in straightening his left arm on the first landing attempt, and got it down smooth on the 2nd attempt, but came close to losing it as he was letting the tail down. Note my comment above about limited rudder authority. BTW, there is plenty of rudder authority in flight - even with the small original rudder. I have the double hammerhead video to prove it.

The second video is mine, and shows how I like to do it - power off, slipping turn, runway in sight the whole way, 3-point touchdown. I don't always drop it in this steep, but shows what you can do. No real headwind help that day. I think landing a Pitts is as much fun as acro, and I always do a few T&Gs at the end of each flight.

I still think the RV-3 is THE best all-around sport plane ever designed, but....there is just something magic about the little Pitts. Got carried away. PM me if you're interested in more info. Oh, and I do a little acro as well.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BVy_Q8luPxE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zERCozXB3Bo

Click to expand...

Great write up! First video...holy porpoise Mary. Second video...smooth Larry!

I currently own an RV-3B and am in a 5-way partnership in a Pitts S1C with larger rudder, original bungee gear and O-290 engine.



I totally agree with sandifer's statement that a Pitts is a very honest airplane. It acts exactly how an airplane is supposed to. No quirks. 100% textbook taildragger. Just very quick and super responsive to any control input, especially rudder on landing. I think the poor 3-point visibility combined with instantaneous and light rudder response is part what gives the airplane a bit of a "reputation" to the uninitiated. It has zero tolerance to sloppy. That same instantaneous rudder response, once understood, is one of the endearing qualities savored by the experienced Pitts pilot.

The engine-out best glide profile is easy to determine. Throw a brick out and follow it. The visibility on landing, as mentioned, is purely peripheral vision in the flare. You basically stare at the fuel filler cap in front of the canopy and try to make sure the bushes on either side of the runway whizzing past are of similar size in each eye's peripheral. And then play a game of "hold it off". 3-ponters are the order of the day for a Pitts.

The slipping carrier-type approach is a fantastic way to keep the runway in sight until the very round out. This is the type of approach Pitts pilots naturally gravitate towards with experience.

For large airport runways a Space Shuttle approach works good coming down final at approximately 120mph so you can see over the nose. The Pitts has such a high drag profile that even dropping down final at cruise speed isn't too big a deal as the round-out presents the biplane's drag bucket in all it's glory. You will instantly decelerate to landing speed once the nose is raised. Lots of fun.

Based on your previous experience, in my opinion I would think the following would be ideal steps to take to successfully transition to a single-seat Pitts:

1.) Get a little Luscombe time even if only in the right seat. The Luscombe has wonderfully light rudder pressures and is super responsive. Similar to the Pitts a Luscombe does exactly what you tell it to without delay. Here again that trait is part of the unfounded reputation the Luscombe has in ground handling. Put a Champ pilot in a Luscombe and when he starts stomping and clomping the rudder pedals waiting for a response like an Aeronca he is in for a big surprise. He should have breathed on the pedals, not stomped. Plenty of instantaneous rudder response with plenty to spare in a Luscombe. One of the reasons I would take a Luscombe in a gusty crosswind landing any day over any of it's contemporary designs.

2.) Get some dual in an S2B or S2A. Flying from the front cockpit. The reason for the front position is that it is very blind and close to the CG of the aircraft. If you get consistent 3-point landings from the front pit of an S2 you should be able to do even better in an S-1 since you will have slightly better visibility and seat of the pants coordination feel being behind the CG.

I know the two steps above would be ideal to find but something similar would work too. Just don't go it alone. A Pitts is not an RV-3.

One of the things that can really help is concentrating on centerline and drift control. Any aircraft, especially a Pitts, is easier to land and maintain in a straight controllable line if it's located right in the center of the runway, then maintaining the centerline through elimination of any side drift. Once again like any airplane it's all about the stabilized approach long before touching down. When you are equi-distance to both runway edges you are in a peripheral sweet spot without having to deal with much in the way of correction one settled onto the pavement. Again this is where a Luscombe can be a great "whet stone" as it subtlety makes its pilot razor sharp on centerline and drift corrections. Like any good teacher a Luscombe will make you learn without you even realizing it. The same 5 guys in my Pitts partnership have been in a Luscombe partnership for years. When we did our Pitts transition training with Bruce Bohannon he said he had never met a more eclectic group who, to a person, had excellent centerline and drift control right out of the box. As a Pitts instructor who meets all kinds of newbies he found that refreshing and made his life much easier. During each of our training flights we all responded to Bruce through the intercom, "Luscombe" without even realizing all the other partners told him the same thing.

I have found the Pitts less susceptible to torque factor on takeoff than most conventional aircraft, even the 260hp S-2B. Bruce went through a technical geometrical treatise springled with gyroscopiic forces and gear position to explain it. I was blown away about how the S2-B could be firewalled very quickly with the tail going up at the same time and not have it dart to the left.

The Pitts S-1's diminutive size and short length also make it less affected by crosswinds. I really did not see that one coming. Prior to my owning a Pitts I would have called BS on that one. But if you think about it the geometry of a Pitts is the antithesis of a U2 (a notorious ground looper in crosswinds).

I am not saying that the Pitts isn't demanding on the ground. It is not for the novice. Rather it if for the pilot who enjoys a challenge and is willing to go get appropriate traiing. With the S1, even in a seemingly good smooth landing (thanks centerline and drift control) I never let my guard down and stay on top of it. I won't slide open the canopy for air or reply to a radio call while still on the runway. Kind of funny how pressing the PTT on the stick during roll-out breaks my concentration just enough to turn me into a passenger in a single-seat airplane. Everything and everyone including tower can wait until after I turn off the runway.

I dearly enjoy the escape of Pitts flying and landings. I never daydream or worry about work or home life. You will be zoned into controlling the airplane and forget everyday all else.

Lastly. No serious acro until you get some inverted flat spin training. Period.

Less tangible ownership benefits include that shallow swagger you invariably get at the FBO parking next to a row of spam can pilots who ignorantly think you're nuts. On your "A Game" for sure. But flat out nuts.

Jim

Good post Jim. This is mine - just a classic '76 factory 180 HP S-1S, stock except for the Catto prop (Exp/Exhibition recert).

My only other advice to the OP regarding transitioning from the RV-3 is to start practicing curved and/or slipping power off approaches to a 3-pointer such that you keep the view of the runway to the side of the nose all the way to the point of roundout and straightening out. Straight in shallow approaches are not the best idea in a Pitts. Does not require extreme maneuvering or bank angles near the ground if done right. Really concentrate on precise alignment and drift control. As mentioned, a bungee gear Pitts is very unforgiving of slop here, whereas the RV rod gear will soak up a good bit of it.

Check with your insurance company on training requirements. They seem to have relaxed a bit for the Pitts in the last 7 years. Since you are already current (and I assume competent) in the RV-3, a little S-2 time should prepare you for the S-1. Like I said before, the S-1 is a unique animal and just be prepared to keep the inputs quick and small on the ground. You have to remove a correction just as fast as you apply it...very quickly. Always be spring-loaded to add full power and go around as soon as you don't like something on the landing roll. The engine will rip you back into the air and out of trouble very quickly.

Get a feel for proper airspeed on final. It's natural to fly them a little hot at first, but there's no reason to fly these airplanes more than 85-90 mph (assuming accurate ASI) on final. I usually fly power off, about 85 mph. I indicate 62 mph at the stall, right where the book says it should. Lots of folks fly these airplanes 95-100+ on final, which just causes a lot of float...yes a Pitts will float a bit if you come in too fast. Fast on final just makes you more prone to ballooning as you're trying to find the runway. And it's better to err on the side of a slight tailwheel first landing than a mains first landing. Just very slightly tailwheel first is actually the best way to do it anyway. Good luck.

Budd Davisson gives Pitts S2-A instruction in Phoenix. I've flown with him and he's really good.

Thank you all for the informative replies.

Power off landings that are curved actually have been fun in the rv3 - gives me lot more appreciation of the plane and its handling as well.

Not as experienced as Eric, and he gave me a bit of an email block of instruction before I got my Pitts.

That being said, I had an epiphany just last weekend. Look, I am not going to lie to you and tell you that a Pitts is *easy* to land... But I am also not going to lie and tell you that it is difficult. I think 99% of the Pitts reputation for being difficult is pilots that are trying to make others think they are some fantastic pilot, and those people tell others and BAM! You have a plane with a reputation. I see this all the time, some guy asks me which plane is mine and I say the S1 Pitts and they comment something like, "Oh a REAL tailwheel Pilot!" After I let them buy me a few beers and bask in my glory, I tell them the truth.

The plane is not difficult, you just can't be a guy that stomps the rudders, have to be preloaded to go around, and just have to accept that once you flare, you are not going to see anything in front of you.

The trick for me was to accept that last one....That in the flare I was not going to see much. I have to use "the force" to know where the runway is/was/will be. So before final, I draw a little runway in my minds eye and orient it with a bunch of other references and when those other references move, I move the little runway in my head.

The epiphany? Well, after 130 hours in the Pitts, I PREFER it to the RV6 I am flying. In the Pitts I can't see in front of me, but I can see all around me. The engine blocks my view down the runway, but I can see all around the engine and honestly once you accept that is all you are going to see.... Well, it is a lot. When I fly the RV, I can't see anything out of the right side! Its annoying!

The biggest hint is to PICK YOUR DAYS! At first I would not fly unless it was no wind, or wind basically down the runway. I slowly extended that to direct 90* XW, then added gusty conditions. I STILL will not fly if the WX is XW and gusty above.... Well, some number that feels right for that day.

1. Accept you are not going to see a lot.
2. Don't stomp the rudders.
3. Preload to go around... "If you need to asses the situation - Do it at full power".
4. Pick your days and slowly expand your conditions.

If I can land a Pitts... Anyone can.

As Eric said, a locking TW makes it almost a non-event. It removes your stupid feet from the control loop. I found my S1 with a locking TW to be easier to land than an S2 A or B with steerable TW's. Never landed an S1 with a steerable TW so I can't comment on it.

I hope at some point to let Eric fly my Pitts to get feedback on it.

I am fortunate to have had Rob Holland as my aerobatic instructor, with about 55 hours of dual in the Pitts S2C. Like others have mentioned, it is not twitchy at all, but responds even to the lightest inputs. The Pitts requires consistency and attention in the landing phase, but like the RVs, once you know what to expect, it is a straight forward procedure. Keep in mind that you have 4 ailerons out there that are "alive" until a very low airspeed, so keep flying the plane until it is tied down.
Get some dual, and get comfortable, then have a blast flying in one of the coolest airplanes ever.

Pitts

JohnInReno said:

RV4 250 hours and Pitts 2 hours.

With the Pitts, on downwind and abeam the numbers, memorize the position of the runway because you won't see it again until you are on the ground.

Click to expand...

Nonsense; a curving approach all the way to very short final, then a gentle slip to keep the runway in sight all the way until the nose comes up in the flare.
at that point you will be transitioning to looking left/right at the edges of the runway as far ahead as possible.
Pitts controls are very responsive on elevator and ailerons, a bit more responsive on rudder depending on size of rudder. Cassutt and Tailwind are far more sensitive on elevator and rudder than Pitts.
No two Pitts S1's are the same. Perfect landing gear alignment is critical. Zero toe is recommended, some prefer 1/2 degree toe out.
The lighter weight S1's are much more pleasant to fly than the heavier ones.
2 seat Pitts is best trainer for S1. Fly the S2 from the front seat, the visual picture is much the same as S1.
Spring gear makes the S1 easier on directional control as does the locking tailwheel. I personally prefer the Aviation Products tailwheel with 4" tire. No Maule for me.

Does Christian Eagle count?

I don't have Pitts time, but I have flown a lot of tailwheels including a Christian Eagle and I have 400hrs of RV-3 and about the same RV-4.

If the Pitts is like the Christian... While the Christian was very responsive and agile, it was a pussy cat if respected as such. I suspect the Pitts is like that. All planes handle well on the ground at taxi speed with "Champ"-like handling. The RV-3/4 are similar in that they are very easy to taxi. By far the biggest difference is that the RV-3/4's spring gear are not forgiving, bouncing is the norm. Many pilots (myself included) prefer the 2-point-fly-on landing because I can more consistently produce great landing. Also RV-3/4 do not stall at 3-point attitude as most conventional aircaft do, it can easily land heavily on the tail first and that has a whole other realm of weird.

The one area the RV has over the Pitts is obvious... I can see the runway easily the entire approach and even landing. So that is a big plus.

If someone has Pitts time and can fill in my gaps, go for it!

BruceMe said:

If the Pitts is like the Christian... While the Christian was very responsive and agile, it was a pussy cat if respected as such. I suspect the Pitts is like that.

Click to expand...

Well, this thread is about the Pitts S-1, which is a different airplane from the S-2. Though the Christen Eagle is S-2 sized, it's different from both Pitts' in that it has wide, soft spring gear as opposed to the stiff, narrower bungee gear of a stock Pitts. As far as ground handling goes, the Eagle has more in common with a Citabria than a stock S-1. Put spring gear on a Pitts S-1 and you've just made it a very different handling airplane...much more stable, slower to swerve, with the sensitivity significantly damped. The S-2 is an order of magnitude more stable and less sensitive on the ground than a stock S-1. So the Eagle is like putting spring gear on an S-2, which moves it another order of magnitude into Citabria/Decathlon, or true pussy cat territory. So no, the Eagle doesn't count. Not trying to propagate BS Pitts lore, just trying to give an honest comparison.

In training

I'm currently doing Pitts check out training with Bill Finagin so I can be at the top of my landing game when I solo the MustangII I'm building (which is shorter than the -3 by half a foot).

I have no RV time so cant speak to that (Ok I know thats the point of this thread, sorry). Theres a lot of great advice here, and I love reading it; but its talk. Go get dual time in a Pitts. Seriously. Theres no "I get it" until you do it - no guessing is this like that etc etc. Youll know and knowing is what youre looking for. Its worth every penny, maybe even a steal at any price.

Ok so, heres my add to the talk part of the thread: "the Pitts controls are sensitive". Yeah they are, but what does that mean?. For me right now, as I'm learning it, thats a half millimeter movement. 1/2mm. Wicked hard to get used to. If I wiggle my toes, just to relax them for a sec, the S2C waggles about enough to make me sick if I do it enough. Sick. BUT I love it. Absolutely Every Minute.

Go do it. Its tops.

Enough said.