100 Kts is way too fast in a Pitts even on long final. I use 100 mph (not knots) in the S-2A. In an S-1C this can be lower still. Touchdown is probably around 70 mph in the S-2A.
My mistake, based on me thinking in knots while talking with my Pitts owning friend who has been heard to say “I don’t ‘do’ knots”. Today I was doing some work with him and he said 105-110 mph on final and 100 mph over the fence for the S1-S, slower for the C he had before. Pretty much what you’ve said.
I soloed an S-2A with 68 hrs TT so you don’t need that much prior experience. (I did do my PPL on a tailwheel aircraft.) It does require determination and focus and a pilot who likes to fly by ‘feel’ instead of ‘numbers’. I’ve flown the S-2A/B/C and Extra 300L now but the best thing about the Pitts is that you get more feedback through the controls than the newer monoplanes. If you get the chance to fly an S-1 I wouldn’t hesitate.
68 hrs TT is pretty good for soloing a Pitts I did my Private in a tailwheel plane too. Part of me wishes I’d bought the S-1C mentioned above. It was a nice one, completely sorted out by my IA friend and his DAR hangar mate. Then it was sold to a guy who flew it home across the US. That guy somehow lost all the logs on the trip home. Then a couple of years later it was advertised for sale again minus logs, with price suitably reduced. $18K or 20K would’ve bought it and the logs could be largely recreated from computer records. I didn’t have hangar space for it and getting it back 2000 miles seemed like a big deal…
I flew an Extra 300 and came to the same conclusion. Great capability for some, but not my kind of thing.
I don’t think flying backseat in a Citabria will really help that much. Just go to Tutima in King City and Ben or Ken will sort you out in no time.
I don’t much enjoy flying the Citabria from the back (actually I don’t like the big mushy thing at all), so that’s good news 
Tutima is expensive but they have a good reputation. Another possibility is Budd Davisson and his S-2A, also fairly costly for dual in a $60K aircraft but what the heck, its probably worth it. 
Do you think it’s possible to run an IO-386 on mogas with 10-15% ethanol if the fuel lines can take it or are there any other problems?
The scope of the EAA effort to STC aircraft for auto fuel was pretty well publicized in the 80s, and it was a pretty big job. Alcohol was not a factor at that time and cannot now be used under the STCs. I think in principle you could build the engine to run on mogas if the compression is low enough, 7:1 or so like the Lycomings STC’d for auto fuel. The alcohol is a problem because the fuel scheduling needs to be richer, if first principles are to be followed. I’m sure that can be done too but it would take some development. I’d guess it would be a fairly large but doable project, and local regulations might affect your ability to experiment.
However landing at ~100 kts without forward view intimidates me a bit!
100 Kts is way too fast in a Pitts even on long final. I use 100 mph (not knots) in the S-2A. In an S-1C this can be lower still. Touchdown is probably around 70 mph in the S-2A. The lack of forward visibility isn’t a real problem either. You can either dip the nose from time to time or hold some sideslip until just before touchdown. The trickiest bit of landing a Pitts is to keep it running straight after touchdown without overcorrecting. The key here is to land without any drift.
While Pitts flying isn’t for everyone it is quite doable. I soloed an S-2A with 68 hrs TT so you don’t need that much prior experience. (I did do my PPL on a tailwheel aircraft.) It does require determination and focus and a pilot who likes to fly by ‘feel’ instead of ‘numbers’. I’ve flown the S-2A/B/C and Extra 300L now but the best thing about the Pitts is that you get more feedback through the controls than the newer monoplanes. If you get the chance to fly an S-1 I wouldn’t hesitate. I don’t think flying backseat in a Citabria will really help that much. Just go to Tutima in King City and Ben or Ken will sort you out in no time.
Do you think it’s possible to run an IO-386 on mogas with 10-15% ethanol if the fuel lines can take it or are there any other problems?
AEIO-540s making full power for aerobatics are expensive to run even without paying outrageous fuel tax.
Lower compression Lycoming variants like my O-320 run fine on auto fuel – my certified plane was STC’d for auto fuel years ago and run on it for a long time. In Europe you have the advantage of still being able to buy it without alcohol. Its certainly possible build similar non-certified engines from parts. A guy I know built an injected O-320 for under $15K using some new parts, some yellow tagged parts and some red tagged parts that had trivial non-conformances. He’s been flying it from about 7 years now, and the plane made the cover of one of the US national magazines. It shows every sign of going to TBO without issue.
Another friend has a S1S and keeps encouraging me to buy a $20K Experimental S1C so we can tear around in them together. However landing at ~100 kts without forward view intimidates me a bit! We go out in his Citabria every once in a while so I can practice flying from the back seat. I flew front seat in a S2C a while ago, did some rolls etc and it stands out as one of coolest things I’ve done. Its more fun to turn the horizon when your view is framed by the wings.
The people who will actually pay for the development, buying the parts with their own money, are flying $60K experimental category aircraft and aren’t interested in buying heavy, complex, vastly expensive new engines.
Funny you should mention that. I took a serious look at a share in a very nice Pitts S-2S last summer but the cost of operating a certified Pitts with an IO-540 in Holland is pretty horrific. I’ve been tempted since to price the components to build a WolfPro S1 Link. The only aircraft I might have enough interest in to spend my hard earned on an expensive aviation engine. The way I would do that is to buy a crankcase with a serviceable crankshaft and build the engine from components. With avgas at over 3 euros a litre over here to be able to run the engine on car fuel would be significant for me.
For every new Panthera there will probably be fifty Vans RV’s completed.
My guess would by 11,000 RVs flying to perhaps 50 Pantheras, five years from now.
The reason that Lycomings remain preeminent in GA, supported by Continentals that are perhaps a little less robust and 1980s Rotaxes for low power applications, is because buyers think they are the best tools for the job, in 2014. Knocking established players is a favorite activity of armchair engineers, but reality tends to continue unimpeded. The push rod Chevy V8 car engine introduced in 1955 works well in 2014 too, makes 460 HP while weighing very little, and works well in an appropriate application. Its one reason a new Corvette goes fast and costs Euro 37K. Link
I think there are many good reasons why Lycomings will be developed by the aviation community in a similar fashion, for similar reasons. The people who will actually pay for the development, buying the parts with their own money, are flying $60K experimental category aircraft and aren’t interested in buying heavy, complex, vastly expensive new engines.
This will probably never be certified.
You may well be right but not everyone needs or wants a certified engine. For every new Panthera there will probably be fifty Vans RV’s completed. I mentioned my car engine not to compare it to aircraft engines but to illustrate advancements in engine design. If this development leads to Lycoming based engines moving forward from 1950’s technolgy to 1990’s technology it’s still a big step forward.
Usually the way this kind of development works is that after the ‘first adopters’, air racers etc, work out most of the major bugs, the RV guys and their brethren adopt en mass. After about 10 years of that, certified customers get interested and an STC results. I have a friend who has done a number of component developments that way and now sells his stuff to airframe OEMs, certified aircraft owners by STC and amateur builders. I think Diamond was his first OEM customer, in about 1993. Its basically the intent of the FAA Experimental Category, and he makes a very good living out of it.
I see a strong analogy between Lycomings and US built V8 car engines. They’ve both ended up being timeless because the initial concept was right, they led the pack initially and everything else works out as more expensive. Detail development over time can and probably will improve them for many more decades, and a lot of it will be done by the aftermarket – the Experimental, STC and PMA systems mean that aircraft and engine development is not a centrally controlled activity.
Piston to cylinder clearances for aluminum air-cooled cylinders are about the same as a water cooled engine, i.e. very tight. Aluminum bored cylinders were a big advance in the 70s and 80s when introduced on motorcycles and in addition to the cylinder sealing improvement, bore wear with Nikasil dropped to approximately zero. The initial work by GM, BMW and others on water cooled car engines without iron sleeves had some significant problems, but when applied to air cooled cylinders there were no problems with Nikasil that I recall. It’ll be interesting to see how this hypereutectic Si-Al sleeve thing works out in comparison; its not blindingly clear to me why they went in that direction.
This will probably never be certified. Oil consumption isn’t a major issue and doesn’t justify a large R&D effort to improve it. More horsepower won’t work either because the crankcase, crankshaft, bearings etc. are not designed for more. Lycoming/Continental haven’t even managed to certify electronic ignition although that is fairly trivial and adds considerable value.
My car has a 1.6 liter diesel engine that even with 20.000 km service intervals has never needed a top up of engine oil.
Apart from being chimp technology, aero engines are air cooled whereas your diesel is liquid cooled. Air cooled engines operate in a much wider temperature range and see a much larger distribution of temperatures throughout the engine which requires much larger tolerances between parts. It doesn’t have to be as bad as with Lycoming and Continental which represent 1950s technology but it will always be a different animal than your liquid cooled car engine.
Aero diesels are more similar to car engines and have virtually no blow by. However, they also have the very open crankcases of gasoline aero engines which car engines do not have.
