PAGE THREE
 |
| Eagles sit even flatter than a Pitts does. |
This flight was part of a brain-buster day in which I leave Jersey
in the morning, fly and photo my butt off and then return that night.
I get a lot done but, unfortunately, it also means I don't get to spend
the time with the airplanes that I like. In the case of the Eagle,
I didn't really explore the outside envelope and you can't truly say
you've flown an Eagle until you at least do an advanced sequence with
plenty of negative Gs. Time was short and I had to launch for home.
Besides, this was my first flight after a long winter's lay off and
I was in the akro box right over St. Augustine where everybody could
see me. Why embarrass myself more than I already had?
As I turned final, I received two definite surprises. The first was
that the airplane was so clean that it was going to glide right past
the numbers where my trusty Pitts wouldn't have even made the airport
and the second was that the Eagle was at least as blind as the Pitts.
That was a real surprise. The nose and fuselage covered everything—and
I do mean every-thing! When you have approach speed of 85 mph, you
are already at three-point attitude and you don't see diddly!
My first landing was awful! I rounded out high—trying to guess
where the runway was—and had to nurse the plane down with power.
The second was better but, as I had been warned, I got the tailwheel
first because the airplane sits so flat on its gear that you can't
really hold off in a full stall . . . at least with my lack of experience
I couldn't do it. My third landing was the best but it was still a
tail wheel first arrival, which I'm told is usual in the airplane.
If I have a single complaint about the Eagle, it's that the plane needs
to sit at a higher deck angle on the ground. Practically all the hot
little biplanes have the same problem. It was only in the last couple
years of S-2A production that the problem was solved by extending the
gear and increasing the deck angle from 9 degrees to 12 degrees. How
can you full stall an airplane if the tailwheel's already on the ground?
On roll-out the Eagle showed how civilized it could be. The soft gear
absorbed any bounce, making my abrupt arrivals appear silky and we
tracked nearly straight ahead with only minimal pilot input. This was
a far departure from my Pitts in which you skip and hop around the
runway, constantly watching for the airplane to head for the bushes.
So how do they stack up? My general impression of the two airplanes
is that the Pitts is a little "denser." Jim Moser at Aero
Sport coined the term and it's a good one. The Eagle has a quick, dainty
feel while the Pitts is solid, as if the controls are cutting divits
out of the air. It's, well, DENSER. You know, what I mean!
In reality, the Eagle is a much easier airplane to fly, if only because
of its ground handling. A Great Lakes or Citabria pilot (once he got
over being blind) could fly the airplane cold. Not so the Pitts. Compared
to a Lakes or Citabrick, the Pitts feels like you're flying the space
shuttle with a bucket over your head.
Which do I prefer? Erich Hartmann, the German ace, once told me (yes,
I am name dropping) that your favorite airplane is always the one you've
flown the most. That's probably the case here. I like the Pitts better,
but I'm a little surprised at that because the S-2A has so many shortcomings.
However, in the important ones, like visibility, the Eagle didn't improve
on it much, if at all. But, given the chance, I'd be happy to fly either.
For
lots more pilot reports like this one go to PILOT
REPORTS
|
