I love biplanes and warbirds, as I'm making progress with my trainer, would a bipe be good for a second plane? or still take the next step with something smaller?

Looking at Hangar 9's Sopwith...

Thanks

Most biplanes are a pretty big jump from your basic high wing trainer.

Biplanes tend to have short fuselages and they pitch and roll much faster than typical monoplanes. Unlike your trainer, which can easily be dead-stick landed as it glides in as easily as most sailplanes, biplanes tend to float like a rock. Two wings create twice as much drag, and biplanes have to be landed under power or they normally go "splat."

Biplanes are also more challenging from a building/assembly standpoint. Wing incidences need to be set up properly and balancing the CG is trickier. Many biplanes can be a considerable amount of work simply in the transporting of them and then attaching the wing assembly at the field.

I would highly recommend you try something like a T-34 Mentor or AT-6 Texan ARF before attempting your first biplane. This would give you a chance to fly an aerobatic low-wing trainer and get used to things like engine cowlings and landing under power before trying your first biplane.

Bipes are definitely not a good second plane. They require a few more flying skills than you are going to get from just your trainer. The biggest difference is that with a biplane you can't just "float" it in for a landing like you did on a trainer. Most everybody learns to line up their trainer with the runway and then chop the power off, and simply glide the plane down to a landing. If you do this with a biplane you are probably going to be picking up pieces of the plane after it stalls on approach. When landing a biplane you really need to fly the plane all the way down to the runway in order to prevent a stall on landing. One trick I give to people to prepare for a biplane is to take their second plane (Sig 4-star or Goldberg Tiger II are excellant for this) and practice landing with power. Bring the plane in to land but never chop the power completely, but rather reduce the throttle to 3 or 4 clicks above idle (you can also raise your throttle trim so it idles fast). Now bring the plane in to land it. Now you will need to fly the plane down to set down on the runway with the engine still pulling the plane along.

There are other differences as well, but this one is the one that usually bites most people when they get started in a biplane. I tell people that a biplane should be left for a 3rd plane, or more often a 4th plane. Get some skills built up first or you'll be bringing the plane home in a bag.

Hope this helps

Ken

No. Biplanes are cool but they have characteristics that make them less than ideal as a second plane. Progress with something like a 4-Star or Tiger-2.

I recommended the T-34 or AT-6 as good options because they are available as sport/scale ARFs, which might appeal more to the original poster's interest in warbirds.

True, the WM T-34 does fly nice.

Any and all of the H9 warbird arfs fly nicely, have no bad tendencies, and are good sport models. However, their retracts leave a bit to be desired.
From what I have seen (I've seen the P40, corsair, T6, and I own the P51) they all fly basically alike, so pick the one you think is the coolest.

Does anybody know how a bipe would compare to a Cub, Cessna, or Citabria? If an engine goes out, is it still possible to land the bipe safely if the nose is kept down to maintain airspeed?

NorfolkSouthern

Yes, you can deadstick a bipe, but you have to keep the nose down to maintain airspeed. It might include having to land downwind if you are up-range when the engine goes out. Also, one needs to be very comfortable using the rudder for turns and applying SLIGHT opposite aileron to keep the wings level during deadstick course corrections. This is the biggest mistake I see made with deadstickspeople gettting close to the ground, airspeed is decreasing steadily, and they want to make course corrections with the aileronswrong!!! too much drag and a sure way to stall. These are all things that can be learned with a second airplane like a tiger, four star, or (possibly) cub.
The ultimate series bipes are not very short coupled like cubs, so ground handleing is much better. However, some bipes are short coupled, and ground control can be very difficult.

It really depends on the bipe. In general though, they aren't best for anyone close to being a beginner. I used to have a .40 sized Ultimate Biplane long before I was ready for it. I was fine with it in the air but landing was always scary. Something about keeping power on when bringing it down to the ground just seemed unnatural for me at the time. I could handle it now as long as I reminded myself to keep the airspeed up on landing. Also, when it stalled, it didn't just drop the nose gently and fly out of it like a lot of sport planes. It would stop flying and immediately fall like a brick.

WOAH, hahahaha, good thing I asked!!! thanks before i decided, just getting used to everything, but just thought I'd start looking a couple months down the line, i do like the at-6 as well as the p-40, Thanks again,

I love this forum!!!

I am not saying go get a bipe at all, but I would say go with a Super SkyBolt some day when you look at them. I have only had and flown two bipes so far and my first one was the 60 Tiger Moth. I did not like it because it did fly just like my Cub. Just not my style of flying. My second bipe was the SkyBolt ARF. I just love it and couldn't say a single bad thing about them. Just real fun to have and fly.

I forgot all about my Tiger Moth but yes, it did fly like my Cub. That's the only one I can remember that floated around like A trainer. I have and have had A bunch of Bipes and none of them would be A good second plane, more like A forth or fifth plane really. I have never had any problems dead stick landing one but I had A lot of stick time on other planes before I flew my first Bipe.
The killer was scratch building A nice Krier Kraft, took 8 or 9 months then spent all the summer getting it in perfect trim. I was showing off with it one day and had it over on it's side going to drop into the landing strip, went just A little too slow and it went into A snap spin. It spun for 200 feet before it hit, I had to watch it all while I was trying to get it to recover.
I do love my bipes though, just A real pain to haul to the field so these days they stay home A lot. [)]

I agree with all the above. Biplanes do have a poor glide ratio compared to monoplanes, that is, biplanes loose altitude faster. Biplanes also present a more confusing visual image in the air. Most pilots find it easier to lose orientation when flying a biplane. Biplanes also tend to be less stable than monoplanes. I have a Tiger 2 that tracks like it is on rails. and almost flies itself. I have a GP Ultimate Bipe 40 that requires I stay on top of it every second.

Dead sticks in a biplane are no problem once you get used to them, you just need to maintain airspeed by keeping the nose down.

My Balsa USA Phaeton 90 Bipe flies and lands every bit as nice if not better than my GP Cub. It just floats in nice and slow with a little power on and slightly nose down for landings. Very, very nice landing plane.

*shrug*

Here's a shock to those who know me...I'm going to speak against "conventional wisdom" about bipes. *heh* (Although, I'll certainly grant, conventional wisdom is conventional for a reason. ))

First of all...a bipe as a second airplane is, imo absolutely no different from any other second airplane in the sense that IT'S NOT A TRAINER. it will not do things the same way your trainer does, it will do some things better (like rolls for example) and some things worse (like "floating" for example).

Like any other "new" airplane, the best approach, imo, is to spend some time on a sim, ask around, and watch...do what you can to learn what unique characteristics your new plane will have...and then fly within the limitations set by them.

Keep in mind that most of what you're reading above falls in 1 of 2 categories: Either it's conjecture presented as fact (Most pilots find it easier to lose orientation when flying a biplane? Huh? ) or it's someone's opinion of what's normally true, applied to ALL bipes.

The bit about bipes not "floating" well is STRICTLY a function of design and intent. heck no, a Pitts doesn't float well...it's pretty much an overpowered brick. The only reason they HAVE wings is we need something to hang the ailerons off of. of course, it's not SUPPOSED to "float"...who the **** goes to an airshow to watch a guy 'float' by? They're hard-core aerobatic airplanes...and they fly like it.

On the flip side, I'll put a well built Sig Hog Bipe up against any "low wing trainer" you want to name in a timed glide or deadstick glide. Your 4-star will be back at the pits looking for fuel by the time that thing settles down. Remember, the extra wings do indeed add drag, but they lower wing loading too. Again, it's all about the trades the designers choose to make.

You'll hear people say they DEMAND rudder...can't be flown without it, they'll scream. Bah. While I'm generally of the opinion that ALL planes "need" to be flown with rudder, the mere presence of a extra wing doesn't make that any more or less true. Again...it's about design and intent. I can bank-n-yank the 33% Pitts all day long, and it's quite happy...on the other side of the fence, a Beech Staggerwing might as well not even HAVE ailerons for all the good they do.

The whole point here is this: Biplanes are like anything else in this hobby. Some are designed for a particular purpose, others to be more "general"...each has its own traits and characteristics, some of which may be quite unsutiable for any GIVEN pilot at a particular time, others may not. Is it truth that many biplanes share certain characteristics as a result of their additional wing? Sure. But those traist don't make them "bad second planes"...they just mean they require different skills than a trainer...you know, like any OTHER "second plane" out there.

If ya want a bipe as your second plane, knock yourself out. Ask around, find out which ones are particularly nasty in their "bipey-ness" (Pitts, some ultimates, that sort of thing), find out which ones have certain "bad" characteristics (Wacos tend to build heavy in inexperienced hands, Stearmans are frequently underpowered, etc), and find out which ones have characteristics traditionally considered to be more friendly (the Hog Bipe, for example).

heck...go out to the field and ask someone to buddy box you on a bipe...talk to them...sim some.

Don't just write them off because they don't fit in somebody's "plan" for progression. Just be aware they have their own personalities, and do the work necessary to decide if you want to tackle them, and if so, how to do it.

/I'm a bipe flyer and I approve this message.

I wouldn't call it poor, just not as shallow...

However this can be a good thing. I find it easier to get a Biplane down quickly as a result.

I don't buy this. Try flying a midwing racer, sometime.

What????

How so?

My Skybolt tracks like it's on rails.

My Ultimates are far more "stable" than my Giles, the latter snaps hard due to the swept back wings.

It depends, I think, on how one defines "stability". If we define it as "the tendency to go where you last told it to go" I'll put a Pitts up against anything you want to name. If we define it as "the tendency to return to straight and level flight" then the Pitts won't even show up to watch that competition, much less participate.

Perhaps, instead, we define it as "the lack of nasty surprises"...say, the tendency (or lack of it) to snap in certain situations. The Pitts can be a snappy little freak....I say frequently about mine that it's "snap rate" is greater than its roll rate"...but at the same time, my Giant Aeromaster won't snap if you hang a cinder block from one wing. *shrug*

Again...it really all gets back to design, intent, and build....and, of course, the pilot.

Exactly.

It's not the fact that it's a biplane, rather what or how it was designed, that determines how it will behave.

The Aeromaster is a "stable" great flying plane, and it's a Biplane...



It's not fair to compare a straight winger to a high dihedral trainer... the two were designed for different purposes.

While it may be useful to the newbie, the tendancy to return to upright level flight is something is not as big of a deal for a second or third plane.

And it's a downright annoyance for aerobatics. *heh*

Well the high and low points have been hit but to sum it up:

No a biplane is not a good second or third airplane-

The "tail moment" which is the distance between the wing and the tail is short- meaning these aircraft are "pitch sensitive". Get too low on air-speed and you will stall and spin into the ground

Having said that I have seen folks fly an Ultimate-40 or P-51 Mustang as their 2nd airplanes successfully, but going against all reason and advice from us These guys flew almost every day though and put a lot of hours on their trainers!

Good luck and keep us posted!

James

I've been looking into an Ultimate 40 as a 5th plane. I'm not sure how accurate RealFlight 3.5 is, but the one on that simulator doesn't seem difficult to fly at all. Of course, I have a habit of using the rudder and landing under power anyway. My take on it is that even a Tiger 2 will auger in if forced to do things it wasn't designed to. Been there, done that.

NorfolkSouthern

It's not difficult at all.

The G3.5/G4 Ultimates are all pretty close to the real deals.

No, not all biplanes are good second or third airplanes for all pilots. Then again, not all of them are poor choices for all pilots either.

A reasonably accurate statement...except that it has precisely 0 to do with the presence or absence of a 2nd wing. A Sig Hog Bipe, Beech Staggerwing, Giant Aeromaster...all of these are examples of bipes with tail moments comparable to similar sized monowing airplanes.

Inaccurate AND not topical.

A) An airplane stalls because it exceeds its critical angle of attack...something it can do at ANY airspeed....not because it "got too slow"

B) This behaviour is in no way unique to biplanes.

This happens, of course, because some are capable of separating "reason" and "advice from us".

================

To sum up the summation:

Lots of people will tell you something can't or shouldn't be done, simply because it's not common or likely in their experience.

The FACT of the matter, however, is that airplanes...and pilots...are all unique and different. There's absolutely no reason not to fly ANY airplane as a second, third, first, or eleventy-ninth airplane, IF you understand the plane's behaviour, and that behaviour meets your skills.

Once again:

Ask, study, buddy box, and sim...and then fly what you want.

I would also add that how well a plane handles a deadstick, and even how well it flies, or floats, depends on the wing loading. if you've got a big gasser in front of it, it'll take a lot more speed to keep it in the air. If you've got a two-stroker or a big 4-stroke like a Saito or something, it'll handle a lot more shallow rate of descent. Build light!