Eagle and Pitts
Sat Jan 19, 2008 12:16 pm
Has anyone had much experience flying both Pitts and an Eagle? I just got one brief Eagle flight and wonder how they compare. I have never flown in a Pitts.
Sat Jan 19, 2008 1:07 pm
Eagles are great airplanes and are generally comparable to a Pitts S-2A, performance wise. The S-2B & C has a bunch more horsepower, which equals more performance. Eagles certainly have more room inside and tend to be more comfortable with a touch more visibility. An Eagle built with weight savings in mind and with a "pumped up" engine, can easily outperform an S-2A, but only rarely would I think they could perform like an S-2B or C model.
Just my opinion, of course.
Gary
Just my opinion, of course.
Gary
Sat Jan 19, 2008 3:14 pm
Bill: you might pop over to airbum.com and check Budd's pireps. I would bet that he has flown both. I know he teaches in a Pitts.
Sat Jan 19, 2008 11:20 pm
Bill:
I have owned an Eagle, an S1s, an S2a, and a B.
Now I have an S1S again.
As mentioned the best comparison is an S2A vs the Eagle, as that is the airplane Frank designed the Eagle to beat, once he could not buy the factory, ( which he subsequently did anyway)
The airfoil is essentially the same, same basic wings between the S2A and the Eagle. and essentially the eagle is the same in construction as the A. Where they differ most is in the cockpit, gear, cowling, well the entire fuselage.
The Eagle has the very large side opening double canopy, allowing excellent access to the cockpit, as well as better visibility, and potentially egress, ( never tried!)
The Eagle has spring gear as opposed to the A`s bungee setup, and the Eagle sits much flatter in 3 point. The result is the eagle will almost always touch tailwheel first if you try and three point it, the A will 3 point, but both are easy enough to wheel anyway.
The eagle has the Angle valve IO360 - 200HP lycoming, the early A`s the parallel valve 180 HP, later versions the 200HP. I did hear somewhere the stock Eagle exhaust system robbed some power, but it is easy to add a 4-1 system.In terms of flight, the Eagle has a much lighter tail, with dual servo tabs and a slightly more aft CG, it can be very light, and with two heavy people it is borderline limits. They roll the same, and the Eagle is noticeably faster, due the more streamlined items, such as cowl, gear, wheelpants.
The Eagle is a great airplane, and for a two place machine it is better for rides, people seemed to enjoy the spacious cockpit, as opposed to the almost dungeon like front seat of an A. You only have the one instrument panel in the Eagle, so with a large pax you are flying to an extent by feel, but again it is no issue with the airplane, as it is very very easy to fly.
I like the overall look of the Eagle better, with the cleaned up cowl, better wheelpants, spring gear, different shaped tail, and Franks great paint scheme it is a more "modern" looking airplane.
The kits were fantastic, although I bought my Eagle done, but later dismantled and rebuilt it. I found a number of wear points, and such, but nothing major, and it had held up well, it now has well over 2000 hours on it, and still going strong as far as I know.
Cheers!
I have owned an Eagle, an S1s, an S2a, and a B.
Now I have an S1S again.
As mentioned the best comparison is an S2A vs the Eagle, as that is the airplane Frank designed the Eagle to beat, once he could not buy the factory, ( which he subsequently did anyway)
The airfoil is essentially the same, same basic wings between the S2A and the Eagle. and essentially the eagle is the same in construction as the A. Where they differ most is in the cockpit, gear, cowling, well the entire fuselage.
The Eagle has the very large side opening double canopy, allowing excellent access to the cockpit, as well as better visibility, and potentially egress, ( never tried!)
The Eagle has spring gear as opposed to the A`s bungee setup, and the Eagle sits much flatter in 3 point. The result is the eagle will almost always touch tailwheel first if you try and three point it, the A will 3 point, but both are easy enough to wheel anyway.
The eagle has the Angle valve IO360 - 200HP lycoming, the early A`s the parallel valve 180 HP, later versions the 200HP. I did hear somewhere the stock Eagle exhaust system robbed some power, but it is easy to add a 4-1 system.In terms of flight, the Eagle has a much lighter tail, with dual servo tabs and a slightly more aft CG, it can be very light, and with two heavy people it is borderline limits. They roll the same, and the Eagle is noticeably faster, due the more streamlined items, such as cowl, gear, wheelpants.
The Eagle is a great airplane, and for a two place machine it is better for rides, people seemed to enjoy the spacious cockpit, as opposed to the almost dungeon like front seat of an A. You only have the one instrument panel in the Eagle, so with a large pax you are flying to an extent by feel, but again it is no issue with the airplane, as it is very very easy to fly.
I like the overall look of the Eagle better, with the cleaned up cowl, better wheelpants, spring gear, different shaped tail, and Franks great paint scheme it is a more "modern" looking airplane.
The kits were fantastic, although I bought my Eagle done, but later dismantled and rebuilt it. I found a number of wear points, and such, but nothing major, and it had held up well, it now has well over 2000 hours on it, and still going strong as far as I know.
Cheers!
Pitts
Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:29 pm
Thanks for the good input. I had only the brief 20 min flight in the Eagle. It was indicating 140mph level at 7000 feet, (about 150 true I'd guess) so it is fairly fast. The ailerons were of course quick, positive, and fairly light. The rudder seemed kind of heavy and it took a lot of rudder for turns. It seemed to me that it wasn't very stable in yaw, very short coupled, but with lot's of control. I was told it was really noisy, but didn't find it so with a headset. I have very little to compare it to. I used to own a small aerobatic biplane, a Rose Parrakeet, but it was some years ago.
Sun Jan 20, 2008 10:24 pm
A Rose Parakeet?!? Really??? Was it a real one or a "later" model? I was fortunate enough to fly an original 1939 Rose Parakeet (serial number 7) quite a bit. What a great little airplane that is!!!
And of course the Eagle didn't seem "very stable," it IS built for aerobatics after all.
Gary
And of course the Eagle didn't seem "very stable," it IS built for aerobatics after all.
Gary
Rose
Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm
Gary, I got a chance to fly an original Parakeet that was based at Boulder some years ago. Boy was it small, and a nimble little thing!
Mine was a replica, looked mostly the same, but had a 150 hp Lycoming as I remember. It would go about 150 mph, getting to red line with the fixed pitch prop. I seem to recall trying to touch down around 50mph, not sure, and it was hard to slow down with no flaps. I bought it from Albuquerque, and sold it some years ago to a man from West Texas, I think Pampa or possible Hereford, can't remember exactly.
Mine was a replica, looked mostly the same, but had a 150 hp Lycoming as I remember. It would go about 150 mph, getting to red line with the fixed pitch prop. I seem to recall trying to touch down around 50mph, not sure, and it was hard to slow down with no flaps. I bought it from Albuquerque, and sold it some years ago to a man from West Texas, I think Pampa or possible Hereford, can't remember exactly.
Thu Jan 31, 2008 7:00 pm
Bill,
A friend of mine who has owned an S2A for many years, ferried an Eagle from Florida to California. He said the airplanes felt basically the same, but that the Pitts felt a little more balanced (control surfaces). He did say maybe it was just because he had so much more time in the Pitts, or maybe from some difference in the particular construction of the one Eagle he flew. Everything I've ever heard is the same things stated by lotus49. I've flown the Pitts A, B, and C models, but never an Eagle. I guess it really just comes down to Experimental vs. Certified. How do you want to use the airplane?
Here's my question- was the short flight enough to make you want to have one? I know my first flight in the Pitts many years ago ruined me for most other airplanes. (then again, I haven't been in a Spitfire, Corsair, Mustang, etc yet!)
A friend of mine who has owned an S2A for many years, ferried an Eagle from Florida to California. He said the airplanes felt basically the same, but that the Pitts felt a little more balanced (control surfaces). He did say maybe it was just because he had so much more time in the Pitts, or maybe from some difference in the particular construction of the one Eagle he flew. Everything I've ever heard is the same things stated by lotus49. I've flown the Pitts A, B, and C models, but never an Eagle. I guess it really just comes down to Experimental vs. Certified. How do you want to use the airplane?
Here's my question- was the short flight enough to make you want to have one? I know my first flight in the Pitts many years ago ruined me for most other airplanes. (then again, I haven't been in a Spitfire, Corsair, Mustang, etc yet!)
Pitts
Sun Feb 03, 2008 7:39 pm
I better get some Pitts time before I even think of comparing. I really don't have much time in the quick, jerky type of acro. I do lot's of rolls, some loops in the Spitfire, 4or 5gs , but not a lot else. Same pretty much in P-51 or T-6. Acro in these is more of the sweeping or swooping type.I get a little woosy if I keep at it, and I've never been in a Extra, Sukoi etc. I really like the classic antique type biplanes like a Waco or Travelair , Stearman etc.to sightsee. But they aren't too good to go cross country, or in colder weather. It would great to have one of each.