Pitts Special! Now there's a name
that has more than its
share of mental images attached to it. More than any other
single airplane, it has been the omnipresent American aerobatic
machine for generations. In fact, it seems impossible that it
has been over half a century since the first of the little
pug-nosed acrobugs took to the air with 55 wheezing horses up
front. A lot of avgas has gone under the bridge since then, and
the Pitts clan has grown and prospered until the models and
variations take a score card to keep track of.
Equally as difficult to believe is that 2001 marks exactly 30
years since the first certificated Pitts Special was produced.
At that time it was a partnership between Curtis Pitts, Herb
Anderson, and Doyle Child, and they were building the 200-hp
S-2A under the name Aerotek in the old Callair manufacturing
facility in Afton, Wyoming. Then came the certificated S-1S
single-hole, the S-2S 260-hp single-place bird, and the S-1T
200-hp constant-speed one-holer. Then Frank Christensen burst on
the aerobatic scene with his Christen Eagle, and shortly
thereafter, he bought Aerotek and renamed it Christen
Industries. Almost immediately, he produced the 260-hp S-2B
two-place machine, which is probably the most recognized and
most common of the Pitts breed. It remained in production
through another ownership and name change to Aviat until only
two years ago. At that point, Stu Horn, the latest owner of
Aviat Aircraft (he bought Aviat from Malcolm White and renamed
the company) sought Curtis Pitts's advice and help in
redesigning the S-2B.
The
big Hartzell three-blade is standard equipment. Note the new
gear leg profile. It looks like spring gear but isn't.
The Master's Influence
Since selling his share of the company, Curtis has hardly been
sitting idle. One of his more significant design efforts has
been the Model 11 Super Stinker. It was on this airplane that he
introduced the innovative ailerons and wing that produced super
high roll rates (350 degrees/second plus) and low aileron
pressures while still maintaining a reasonable level of
break-out force so that it wasn't difficult to find neutral. And
he did all of this without spades! It was this so-called "Super
Stinker Technology" that he brought to Horn's S-2C project.
As with most of Curtis' work, the new ailerons are deceptively
simple, but wildly effective. Basically, they are nothing more
than symmetrical ailerons (about 16 percent thicker than the
wing at that point) hinged well back (about 23 percent), so they
present nothing radically new. However, he shaped the nose of
the ailerons in such a way that in the area of neutral, the
aileron gap is sizable, but as the ailerons are deflected, the
gap closes until they are effectively gap-sealed at full
deflection. Then, to make things even better, he squared off the
wingtips (much to the horror of Pitts aficionados) and ran the
ailerons out even further for more roll rate. Like I said
-deceptively simple and effective.
When Stu Horn and Aviat decided to do the Charley model, they
wanted to make a major change in the S-2B's basic handling
characteristics while staying within the constraints of the
original type certificate. This meant the changes had to be
extraordinarily effective while at the same time appearing
relatively minor when viewed through the eyes of the FAA's
certification guys.
Aviat's vice president of engineering, Ed Saurenmann, honchoed
the project and actually designed the tail surfaces himself to
go with Curtis' wing. As a long-time aerobatic pilot, Ed knew
what he wanted and designed the tail accordingly. He was going
for "square" handling-he wanted the tail to give the airplane
the same stick forces when outside as when inside. This has
always been a Pitts drawback-you could pull Gs relatively
easily, but it was real work to push the same numbers. In fact,
many pilots habitually slam the trim all the way down as they
enter outside loops and such.
Visible
Changes
It was with all of this information in mind that I approached a
friend's loaner S-2C. I spent some time circling the airplane,
reacquainting myself with the various changes, cosmetic and
otherwise. To anyone who has spent a lifetime around Pitts
Specials, the new rectilinear wingtips and tail surfaces are
something of a shock; however, now that the airplane has been
around for a couple of years, they're beginning to look normal.
These changes are obvious, but other subtle changes in the basic
lines aren't. The "banana bellyî lower fuselage line has been
brought up, which makes the airplane appear much leaner and
sleeker. The control system torque tube has always driven the
shape of the belly, but rather than changing the torque tube,
they housed it in a small streamlined fairing and brought the
rest of the belly up around it. At the same time, nearly the
entire belly became transparent, courtesy of a series of
Plexiglas panels, not unlike a pre-World War II fighter's
canopy, only on the bottom of the airplane.
The landing gear has been modified to look like a faired spring
gear, but it isn't. The only thing that changed was that the
rear of the gear leg has been bent forward for a cleaner
appearance. Herb Anderson designed it sometime back in the early
80s, but it was never put on an airplane. We'll come back to
this new gear later.
The front of the canopy has been greatly cleaned up, with the
formed windshield giving way to a flat wrap panel that lies back
at nearly 60 degrees, which contributes to a sleeker look as
well as lower drag.
One change that is obvious is the composite Hartzell prop. This
single change is responsible for nearly $25,000 of the price
differential between the B and Charley model.
When saddling
the airplane up, everything about the cockpit is still basically
like the B model. However, the fact it visually has no floor
because of the Plexiglas seems to make it like less of a deep
pit. Still, I scrounged up my own cushions to put me as close to
the canopy as possible while allowing room for some head stretch
during outside manoeuvres. The Pitts' visibility is greatly
affected by seating position, and landings depend on visibility.
The Pitts' two-place canopy has always been a controversial
subject because it absolutely has to be locked tight before
cranking it. So many canopies have been lost that most insurance
companies no longer cover them or, at the very least, have a
huge deductible on them. All sorts of locking schemes have been
developed by owners as a reminder to lock them.
Aviat has a brilliant new series of canopy options that are
bound to be popular with the troops. The new canopy slides right
into the same mounts as the original canopy; the only
modification is replacing the attaching screws on the front
windshield with Camloc fasteners and mounting small locking tabs
on the fuselage. The new canopy comes in two flavours: a
dedicated single-place version that is so sleek it increases the
top speed by a solid 12 mph (and is unbelievably sexy looking)
and a convertible version that uses the standard single-place
bubble but lets you fly with the front pit open by removing a
Camloc-fastened panel in the front and putting the front
windscreen back on. The double open cockpit arrangement is also
still available.
Lighting It
Up
If you've never lit the fire on an IO-540 in an airplane the
size of a Pitts, you've missed one of life's true thrills. As
the exhaust noise bubbles up between your feet and fills the
cockpit the airplane rocks in response to the torque, AND there
is simply no doubt in your mind that the airplane means
business.
The relatively direct steering makes taxiing the airplane dead
simple, almost Citabria-like, so long as you realize you can't
see anything for about a 60-degree arc ahead and have to
constantly S-turn. This is one of the big differences between
the Pitts and most monoplanes. At the same time, however, the
lack of visibility on the ground and during the approach is
simply something you work around and never becomes an
operational problem. This is one of the places where sitting
high really helps.
Lined up on the runway, it's a good idea to paint a picture in
your mind of the triangles on either side of the nose that are
formed by the sides of the runway, the nose, and the bottom
wings. It's those triangles that are going to tell you whether
the nose is moving right or left, and it is a sight picture you
must duplicate when you come back to land.
I lined her up and started the big barrel-shaped throttle
forward. The acceleration is unbelievable. Even after having
spent most of a lifetime in a Pitts, I still get goose bumps
when that seat starts urging me forward. The forward push is
directly proportional to the throttle movement, and the
acceleration doesn't let up until you've left the ground.
Although you can't see directly ahead without raising the tail
entirely too much, it doesn't make any difference because the
sides of the runway tell you all you need to know. Some guys
hoist the tail high so they can see and then yank the airplane
off when it's going fast enough, but that seems a little crude
to me. I prefer to watch those edges, holding a slightly
positive angle of attack until the airplane decides everything
is right and takes off itself. That just seems more organic and
in keeping with the airplane's thoroughbred spirit. It's an
airplane that really responds to being made love to, and yanking
it off the runway doesn't seem very sensuous to me.
Rudder movement during takeoff is minimal, depending on the
wind. If there's a left crosswind, you can leave your left foot
at home as all you'll need is a little pressure on the right
pedal. Otherwise, it's just a little pressure this way or that
way to keep the triangles on both sides of the nose equal.
The real surprise comes right after takeoff when you glance down
at the airspeed. Best rate of climb is somewhere in the mid-90
mph range, but it's nearly impossible to glance down before the
airplane has accelerated through that number. Just for the heck
of it, I pulled it up to best rate and had to laugh at the
ridiculous angle it assumed going up. No one needs to climb at
that steep of an angle, but it's nice to know you can when you
want to. At best rate I was clocking something well over 3,000
fpm, and dropping the nose to 115 mph still kept the needle
nudging the big three. This sucker really climbs!
Wringing It Out
The obvious comparison for the S-2C is going to be the S-2B, and
one of the absolute first differences anyone is going to notice
is the aileron feel. The B has a solid, sometimes hard feeling
to the ailerons, especially when you ask it for a lot of roll
rate. As I arched up away from the runway, I twitched my hand,
asking for a quick break out of the pattern, and the airplane
whipped into a tight bank as easily and cleanly as any monoplane
ever built. Not having a stick force gauge this is all
subjective, but the aileron forces in all flight regimes have to
be at least 30 to 40 percent lower than in a B, but they still
have just enough break-out force that you know where your hand
is. A lot of monoplanes have practically no break-out force, and
finding neutral is strictly a visual affair.
On the way out
to the practice area, I played with various power settings. I
had flown the prototype Charley enough to know it was a fair
amount faster than a B, but I hadn't flown any of the production
airplanes. Again, it's hard to get an apples-to-apples
comparison, but the airplane consistently indicates 7 to 8 mph
higher than the B in similar situations. That means a 75 percent
cruise of at least 175 mph is very real. According to the Shadin
fuel totaliser, I was doing that speed on about 13.5 gallons per
hour.
Out in the practice area, I had to grin because the first time I
had flown a Charley, I immediately racked it into an inside
rolling 360 and inadvertently slammed myself into the belts as I
hit the 45-degree point. I was used to using a bunch of pressure
every time the airplane went negative, but the Charley just
doesn't need it. So, this time, as I did the same manoeuvre, I
was loving the fact that pushing wasn't any more work than
pulling, and, for once, the nose tracked the horizon without the
rate changing. I rarely do that even in my own airplane.
I usually fly with just a hint of down trim so the stick lies in
my hand. As I rolled over on my back, I found that hint of trim
was exactly what was needed to hold the airplane dead level in
inverted flight, hands-off. What a hoot! When pushing up from
inverted, I had to remind myself not to drop my left hand and
slam the trim down.
As I pushed up over the top, I let the nose down to 45 degrees
and waited until it passed through 120 mph before attempting an
inside snap. I say attempting because on the first one I forgot
how much you have to unload the stick on both the Bravo and
Charley. The Charley is more tolerant of those kinds of
screw-ups, but on the Bravo it is really easy to bury the
airplane in a snap and wallow around rather than breaking
cleanly. Once I remembered, I could blur the horizon and stop it
where I wanted (more or less, anyway).
Vertical rolls have never been one of my strong points, and
there's no way I'm capable of accurately measuring how long
up-lines are. However, because of the increased roll rate of the
Charley, I was able to get virtually every single vertical roll
I tried to come out on line and on point. Double rolls, which
are always a gamble with me in a Bravo, happened equally as
effortlessly, but I wasn't holding the line as well. Guess some
practice and judging is called for.
Point rolls of any kind in the Charley are a kick. At first I'd
overshoot them, or ricochet back as I hit them, but I finally
got my touch lightened up and my sense attuned to the roll rate.
I soon found I could fire off eight-points like a machine gun.
I know a lot of folks think a Charley is a warmed over Bravo,
but while I was flopping around up there, I just couldn't
disagree more with that assessment. Of course, I suppose it
depends on your definition of warmed over, but to my taste, the
airplane was a truly different machine. The unbelievable
difference when transitioning inside to outside, as compared to
the older airplane (or almost any Pitts, for that matter),
borders on miraculous. Those of us who don't spend all our time
in Unlimited aerobatic birds aren't used to an airplane that
requires so little effort to play outside. The S-2C reduces the
workload so much that it makes outside work really enjoyable Oh
well, almost, anyway. I've always bragged that a Pitts doesn't
know inside from outside, but that isn't entirely true because
of the extra pressure required outside. With the Charley model,
my brag is absolutely true. It doesn't care which way your head
is pointing.
I'm certain
there are a lot of Advanced and Unlimited pilots reading this
who disagree with all or part of what I've said, but there are
many more Citabria and Decathlon pilots out there who are the
ones I'm actually talking to. By the time a pilot has climbed
the ladder to Advanced or Unlimited, they have lost the ability
to be amazed by great leaps in performance because everything
they fly falls into that ballpark. For the guy out there who is
bashing around in a Citabria, the first time in a Charley model
Pitts is going to make you think you've died and gone to acro
heaven. Also, one of the things that makes it such a good
airplane for even the low-time acroguy or gal can also be said
of almost any Pitts-they are probably the most forgiving
advanced aerobatic airplane in the world. Their spins are
totally predicable, and they let you know well in advance of any
upcoming surprise. As long as you get some spin training so you
recognize what you're in, this is a very hard airplane to get
yourself into trouble in (as long as you have altitude).
Coming Down
And then there's the landing. Okay, I'm going to say this one
time, as loudly as I can, and on this score, I AM qualified to
speak: The Pitts Special's reputation as a hard airplane to
land is about 95 percent BS. Yes, it is a damned hard
airplane to land and make look good, but it is NOT a hard
airplane to land and be safe. This again presupposes some proper
training. In my experience in my little Pitts checkout school, I
find most folks land the Pitts too fast and are afraid of them,
so they start fighting the airplane the second it touches the
ground. They also don't fly good approaches, which is where the
problems almost always begin. This goes for some Pitts
instructors, as well.
Landing a Pitts requires that you know when to leave the
airplane alone as well as when to do something. In every aspect
of its personality, the airplane will do only what you ask it to
do, and it will keep doing that until you ask it to do something
else (go back and reread the last sentence). So the key is
knowing exactly what you want the airplane to do. Yes, landing a
Pitts can be a challenge, but it is also one of those challenges
that anyone (I repeat, ANYONE) can conquer, and in so doing
experience a feeling of real accomplishment.
As I motored back to the airport, I decided to try a number of
different approach speeds and approaches. I came into the
pattern at about 15 inches of manifold pressure, which put me at
about 120 mph, with the cowl flaps open and the engine cooling
down. Then, as I came abeam the numbers, I closed the cowl flaps
and brought the power back to the stop. We didn't have much
wind, so I hesitated before turning in, which turned out to be a
mistake. As that big prop flattens out, the airplane practically
stops, and holding 100 mph put me more nose down than expected.
The result was that I needed a touch of power as I came around
to the runway, rather than needing my customary slip to a
landing. I always fly an angled approach to centreline, which
keeps the runway in sight all the way to touchdown (if you loose
sight of the runway for even a second, it's because you screwed
up the geometry). This worked out fine, but I wasn't happy with
the flat approach, so the instant the gear touched, I powered up
and literally leaped back into the air.
Back on downwind, I did the same thing, but this time I
tightened up the approach. This time, I had enough altitude to
use a nice little slip, which let me come over the numbers with
plenty of energy and low enough that the airplane settled into
that characteristic Pitts sweet spot in ground effect. Once a
Pitts is in that special spot, the landing will be a good one.
And it was. All three kissed the pavement, gave me a tiny little
hop, then settled down and rolled straight.
Any Pitts, if landed straight, will roll
straight until it goes down through about 50 to 60 mph, but the
Charley just kept rolling while my feet got ready to correct a
little foray one way or the other. But there was none. The
airplane must have been down around 35 mph before I had to tap
it a couple of times to keep it straight. This is the same way
the prototype was, and I thought that was a fluke, so it was
nice to see the production birds were just as straight. I wound
up shooting a half a dozen landings, each time letting the
airplane roll for a long, long way to see how it behaved, and
each time was better than the last. I messed with different
speeds over the fence and found this airplane was happiest just
on the high side of 95 mph, but 100 is probably a more practical
number as it gives a hint more float.
This last point, the way the Charley seems to track a little
straighter on the runway, makes absolutely no sense to me. Even
though the gear legs are a different shape, the geometry is
still the same. And touchdown is still around 70 mph, so there
is no logical reason for it to be more mannerly on the ground
than a Bravo. It doesn't land like a Citabria, but it is still
probably the best Pitts yet on ground handling. Incidentally, a
normal Pitts checkout for a pilot with a little tailwheel time
(15 to 20 hours) can generally be done in six to eight hours,
depending on the student's background. In the Charley, the time
might even be shorter.
There's a tendency to compare the Pitts to something like an
Extra 300 or Staudacher, which isn't really fair. The Pitts S-2C
is not an Unlimited category airplane, but it is still more
airplane than 90 percent of the pilots in the world actually
need. More important, it is absolutely superb and greatly
improved from the S-2B. To be honest, I've never loved Bravos
because they lack that certain "something" Curtis always put in
his airplanes. In the S-2C, however, it can honestly be said
that the hand of the master is back, and we are all benefiting
from it.
specifications
|
Engine make/model: |
Lycoming AEIO-540, 260 Hp |
Horsepower @ RPM @ altitude: |
185@2550@SL |
Horsepower for takeoff: |
260 |
TBO hours: |
1200 |
Fuel type: |
100LL |
Propeller make/type: |
Hartzell, constant speed, composite
three-blade |
Landing gear type: |
Fixed/Conv. |
Max ramp weight (lbs): |
1700 |
Gross weight (lbs): |
1700 |
Max landing weight (lbs): |
1700 |
Empty weight (lbs): |
1155 |
Useful Load (lbs): |
Normal 545 (aerobatic 470) |
Payload (full fuel) (lbs): |
371 |
Usable fuel (gals): |
28 (23 aerobatic) |
Oil capacity (qts): |
12 |
Wingspan: |
20 ft. |
Overall length: |
17 ft. 9 in. |
Height: |
6 ft. 5 in. |
Wing area (sq. ft.): |
127.5 |
Wing loading (lbs/sq. ft.): |
13.3 (12.7 aerobatic) |
Power loading (lbs/hp): |
6.59 (6.25 aerobatic) |
Wheel base: |
163 in. |
Wheel track: |
603/4 in. |
Wheel size (in): |
500X5 |
Cabin seats: |
2 |
Cabin width: |
2 ft. 4 in. |
Cabin length: |
6 ft. 11 in. |
Baggage capacity (lbs): |
20 |
performance
|
Cruise speed (knots):
75% power: |
157 |
65% power: |
150 |
55% power: |
147 |
Max range (with reserve) (nm): |
75% power: |
246 |
65% power: |
274 |
55% power: |
300 |
Fuel consumption (gph): |
75% power: |
13.5 |
65% power: |
12 |
55% power: |
11 |
|
Estimated endurance
(65% power w/1 hr reserve) (hrs) |
56 |
Best rate of climb (fpm): |
2900 |
Service ceiling (ft.) |
N/A |
Takeoff ground roll (ft.): |
554 |
Takeoff over 50-ft obstacle (ft.):
|
860 |
Landing ground roll (ft.): |
750 |
Landing over 50-ft obstacle (ft.): |
1200 factory specifications only |
|
|
|
|
|
|