Good aerobatic airplane for under 90K?

[Vladimir Lenin]

I am 6'5" or so, bout 220,

are the Citabrias my only options?

 

[flywithastick]

The Yak-52 would be my choice. Only problem, is they have no range. Kinda fits with buying from the home team too, eh?

 

[Vladimir Lenin]

Kinda fits with buying from the home team too, eh?

har har,

no, seriously, though, the range on Yaks is like two hours or so, little bit more with fuel mods, and that radial is probably pretty expensive to fix if a jug takes a dump?

does high time=high stress on an aerobatic frame?

 

[Dan CFI/CFII]

They've made more Vendenev's than any other engine out there...

I don't think parts are too pricey for that M-14P.

If I had my druthers and just wanted to be able to do rolls, loops and other light stuff, I'd look at the CJ-6. Pretty close to the T-34 in that it's a fine aerobatic runabout, but can also make some decent time if you want to travel.

But RVs are awesome too.

Dan

 

[Vladimir Lenin]

there was a good discussion on vans last week, and seems as though the -8's a good bet

but how many people are willing to part with something that took them 3 or more years to built

that, and it was built in someone's garage,
I am not saying it's a bad idea, but there's a trust issue involved, this isn't a road going Shelby Cobra replica after all

 

[flywithastick]

there was a good discussion on vans last week, and seems as though the -8's a good bet

but how many people are willing to part with something that took them 3 or more years to built

Probably depends on how much money you've got and how bad you want it!

that, and it was built in someone's garage,
I am not saying it's a bad idea, but there's a trust issue involved, this isn't a road going Shelby Cobra replica after all [/B]

The biggest thing you need to look for is whether or not it was built per the plans (with supplied materials) and a general check on the workmanship. If these two are in place, odss are very good you'll have a plane that's as tough as it was designed.

But don't get an RV if you want anything more than introductory or beginner level acro (Cuban, reverse Cuban, loops, rolls, stall turns, etc). They'll break if you pull to hard, not strong enough to snap regularly/violently and speed up going downhill.

Second on most of Dan's comments. You can get Yak parts pretty reasonably easy and fairly priced based upon what I've found. The M-14 is still in production if I'm not mistaken. and the -50, 52, 55's are pretty tough. I believe I've read where some do near unlimited acro in them.

There's a spar mod to look for though on the -52. Some are even very new/low time. The Nanchangs (CJ-6's) are generally older and more of a cross country type (faster), IMO. You should take a look at both.

Don't forget about the clipped wing Cubs and Taylorcrafts.

 

[Neal]

Forgetting the most notable

You guys are forgetting the greatest aerobatic airplane out there.....in terms of time. The Pitts! At 6'5" and 220 the S1's might be out of the question but the S2A and S2B are perfect for that size and weight and can take you to the advanced level and not break. And can be purchased for under 80K easily.

Even the Christen Eagle is a good performer....not quite as good as the pitts but will do the job....is typically a tab bit more expensive than the Pitts.

Don't listen to anybody how Pitts are hard fly and land...that is a complete myth...after a few landings you have it all figure out...it's really no big deal at all.

 

[Vladimir Lenin]

Re: Forgetting the most notable

Don't listen to anybody how Pitts are hard fly and land...that is a complete myth...after a few landings you have it all figure out...it's really no big deal at all.

that's actually the only thing I heard about a Pitts, from a guy who flies a really neat, Vans-look-a-like fiberglass creation (forget it's name)
since his is sort of a one-off, and he didn't feel like learning to fly it from scratch, this guy took tailwheel lessons in a Pitts. Now he says that if you can land a Pitts, you can land anything

but back on topic, can you really fit a 6+ footer in a Pitts? some I've seen with tandem seats and some singles

 

[Neal]

I guess I'll have to repeat this again....

"The Pitts! At 6'5" and 220 the S1's might be out of the question but the S2A and S2B are perfect for that size and weight and can take you to the advanced level and not break. And can be purchased for under 80K easily.

Even the Christen Eagle is a good performer....not quite as good as the pitts but will do the job....is typically a tab bit more expensive than the Pitts."

 

[Vladimir Lenin]

I guess I'll have to repeat this again....

Little testy 2night, Mark? j/k, I am gonna do some research on them two-winged monsters

Just seems like this bi-plane business would create a lot more drag than lift

 

[Neal]

Dude, you need to read about aerobatics before you get involved in them. To do them effectively you need lots of power, lots of drag (keeps the down line from over speeding) and very manueverable. The pitts fits this bill perfectly.

 

[Vladimir Lenin]

interesting point about drag

but I'd also want at least SOME utility from a 90K toy, like maybe reasonable cruise speed and range

 

[Neal]

S2A 145 knot cruise 2 hour duration S2B slightly faster Christen Eagle...you'll have to look up as I have not flown cross country.

 

[flywithastick]

interesting point about drag

but I'd also want at least SOME utility from a 90K toy, like maybe reasonable cruise speed and range

As webmaster says, you might want to think about your intended mission. Now you're talking more like an RV with range and cruise being a major factor. But, as already mentioned, a slick airplane can cause big problems with (botched) acro via high airspeeds, high loads, rapid vertical descent/ground rising, etc. The biplanes and other draggy ones are nice from this perspective. Suggest you write yourself out one of those pros/cons lists and see where things all fall out.