The best aerobatic aircraft?

I get them confused also; however, the FAA calls it “acrobatic” see title for part 23

Part 23 – AIRWORTHINESS STANDARDS: NORMAL, UTILITY, ACROBATIC, AND COMMUTER CATEGORY AIRPLANES

Maybe they think they’re great at doing flic-flacks, or dangling from rings? Weren’t they used to assist in The Great Escape – wasn’t that a low flying brick they put over the hole?

well, one of the most successful or the most successful aerobatic aicrafts are from Zlin Trenér family and we can mention Zlin Z-50LS/LA/LX/L/M as well

My choice: Sukhoi SU-26M2 flown by Will Curtis or Extra 330 flown by Mark Jefferies!

BTW. Anybody else think that in the adverts Red Bull air racing looks great and a hugely exciting event yet when you sit down and watch it, its errm well………..not.

Yes. it’s the same with some car racing. Somehow in the editing for the tv shows there is no build up. Its just showing clips which do not capture the atmoshere. They throw the interest out with the editing.
bee jay

I have just seen another thread about the red bull air racing.

Supermarine Spitfire 😉

There is some great footage in some of the Flying Legends videos. One shows Pete Kynsey displaying the Cosmic Wid and another showing him displaying the much missed Tigercat inc cockpit footage.

BTW. Anybody else think that in the adverts Red Bull air racing looks great and a hugely exciting event yet when you sit down and watch it, its errm well………..not.

I was at the Red Bull Air Race at Longleat in 2005 and when you are actually there it is something quite spectacular. A lot different from TV I guess it would be the same as going to the F1 or sitting in the house watching it or even Goodwood or maybe even watching the Bluebird doing its post restoration run on Coniston being there or watch it on TV very different.

Oh and Caspix you are joking about nothing special right. The Red Bull aircraft are at the very peak of aerobatics. they have been specially built to withstand the high G moves and can turn in a very tight space. The races themselves limit the aircraft to these particular moves but they are capable of so much more.

I think the general point made here is that it is a lot to do with what the pilot can do with his machine.

An aircraft can tick all the boxes on specification but if the pilot can not fly the aircraft then there is no point at all.

So there are a number of very capable aircraft out there and it seems to be personal preference rather than the perfect machine that can make the difference.

Everyone has their favourites.

i meant wich is the best by its maneuverability? they in red bull air race acctually don’t do much…just few lupings, knife flight, and cuban maneuver…..noting special…

There is some great footage in some of the Flying Legends videos. One shows Pete Kynsey displaying the Cosmic Wid and another showing him displaying the much missed Tigercat inc cockpit footage.

BTW. Anybody else think that in the adverts Red Bull air racing looks great and a hugely exciting event yet when you sit down and watch it, its errm well………..not.

Quite possibly Pete Kinsey… very talented pilot.!

I am sure you will find that although refined for air racing the aircraft they use are very capable of any aerobatic schedule you could throw at them..

Like I said, I´ve never flown any of the Red Bull air racers. But, and it is a big but, at least some of them have special race wings. Race wings do not go hand in hand with good aerobatic capability. A good aerobatic wing is totally symmetrical, but that is way to draggy for an all out air race. The SU-26 (or -31 can´t at the mo remember which it was) was totally outclassed because of it´s draggy symmetrical wing. So the Hungarian pilot (forgot his name), had to change to a western design with a race wing to have a chance.
I might be talking out of my a*se here, but this is how I remember it.

True, all of these machines will be capable of more aerobatics with their race wings on, than I´ll ever be capable of, but in the hands of a world class pilots, I think the wings might become the limiting factor.

I for example know of a Starduster Too pilot who does very graceful slow aerobatics far superior to any full aerobatic machine. So shall we say there are a lot of factors to consider.

I totally agree. It is all down to the pilot, not the machine! The most beautiful aerobatic display I´ve ever watched was not even at an airshow. It was at Headcorn aerodrome in early spring 1998 when I watched a Bucher Jungman doing a practice run over the aerodrome. Such class, such style! I can never hope to replicate it! I´ve since learned that the pilot was most probably one Peter Kinsley (Spelling??). I´ve watched a lot of displays since then, all the big names in high powered dynamic aeros, but nothing will ever touch this non-display for style and elegance!

Forgive me changing your thread title but ‘aerobatic’ is a better word than acrobatic.

Moggy

I get them confused also; however, the FAA calls it “acrobatic” see title for part 23

Part 23 – AIRWORTHINESS STANDARDS: NORMAL, UTILITY, ACROBATIC, AND COMMUTER CATEGORY AIRPLANES

Galdri,

I am sure you will find that although refined for air racing the aircraft they use are very capable of any aerobatic schedule you could throw at them.

I would suggest as others have it is the skill of the pilot and the use of the aircraft that determines the aircraft to be used.

I for example know of a Starduster Too pilot who does very graceful slow aerobatics far superior to any full aerobatic machine. So shall we say there are a lot of factors to consider.

EK764,
My thoughts exactly! It all depends on what you are going to use it for! Learning basic aeros on an MX-2 is maybe possible, but it is certainly not the best tool for the job.

And please do not confuse Red Bull racers and pure aerobatic aircraft. Yes, all of the are derived from aerobatic aircraft, but they are a breed apart. They are highly modified as racers, some of them even have special race wings. Most of them would probably do poorly in an all out aerobatic unlimited competition, but I´ve never flown any of them, so I could not possibly comment ;):D

For the job in hand:
Training: CAP-10 (I´m biased :eek:), Decathlon
Advanced: SU-26 / Extra 300 / MX-2
Unlimited competition: Extra 330SC
Airshow work: Pitts S-12 Monster (for share presence!)

Also depends what for: training, Red Bull, air display, competition etc. For example, Pitts are great but don’t present well for judges. 😉

Forgive me changing your thread title but ‘aerobatic’ is a better word than acrobatic.

Moggy

Having spent a couple of days at the World Aerobatic Championships at Silverstone, it was apparent that there is very little to choose from between the various aircraft types which were all represented at that level of competition. It was very definitely down to the skills of the pilot.

What did surprise me was that the French team were using Extra 330SCs rather than CAP232s. As they won everything, the Extra must be regarded as the top dog at the moment.

I’d still say the Su-31. Purely personal choice, though.

Little OT, but a crazy and sad story: There is a girl in Russia, Svetlana Kapanina, who has been multiple times best female aerobatics pilot-esse of the world. And now she can’t even afford the fuel to train, let alone go abroad for competitions. Despite that Putin and others saying that they will take care of it. Great way to motivate people!!!

Its all down to personal preference but the Blades use the Extra 300 aircraft or variation of.

But the leading edge in technology has got to be the Edge 540. This is what most of the Red Bull Air Race pilots use.

But Sukhoi or Yak aircraft have their plus points too. Pitts aircraft are more than capable to especially the Pitts python or stinker. Both muscle machines.

So it all comes down to what would you like to fly really.

hey! i’d like to know what u think that is the best acrobatic aircraft? is it maybe some yak, or sukhoi?

p.s., sorry for my bad english, i’m from croatia…

see ya

Whatever it is the “Blades” use. Or a Zlin.