Talk:Pitts Special

Untitled
Only the first line is questionably from another source: "From 1944 to now, the Curtiss Pitts-designed Pitts Special has racked-up more aerobatic victories than any other type of aircraft." (I suspect that they may likely have borrowed this phrase from someplace else...) The rest of the article was written and/or corrected and expounded upon by myself, and is thus original material. As I'm the webmaster for the Steen Aero Lab website, I can assure you that Wiki has permission to post all of the rest of the material (at least as of 2005-04-27.)

Mike Whaley www.steenaero.com

Uploaded image to right if it is any use to anyone - haven't added to the page as there seemed to be a surplus of photos already. Passing note- the Yak 50 link does not go where I think teh author expected it to. Winstonwolfe 23:06, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I've had a go at tidying this article up a bit, added an infobox etc. The specifications are available from the Aviat website if someone has the time to put them in, cheers. Nimbus227 19:04, 3 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Specs added - the early bits still read like an advert though.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:25, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Nigel, we probably will need a rewrite as I found the Internet site that the original article was "cribbed from" (a nicer way of saying copied). FWiW Bzuk (talk) 00:22, 8 August 2008 (UTC).

Reference source
(Edit conflict)This link to the UK 'Flight' magazine's online PDF archive might well be useful: Happy reading. Nimbus (talk) 00:24, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

First Flight
Airlife's General Aviation gives the first flight as 1943 (it was originally designed, built and flown by Curtis Pitts in 1943) which is different to the article ? - perhaps it wasnt a special! MilborneOne (talk) 19:55, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Steen's history, which is attributed to Budd Davisson (aka "Mr. Pitts Special") says it was 1945. Actually 1945 logically makes more sense as steel and aluminum were not available to be used on non-combat aircraft until 1945. See Schweizer SGS 2-12 - Ahunt (talk) 20:04, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Article has September 1944 !! MilborneOne (talk) 20:07, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * And the ref for that seems to be "Taylor 1980, p. 899". Can anyone confirm that that book says that? - Ahunt (talk) 20:39, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Jane's All the World's Aircraft 88 and 76 both say construction began in 1944 and first flew in September. Jane's Encyclop-edia of Avaition also says Sept '44. The Encyclopedia of World Aircraft says 1947, but attributes it to "Lil' Stinker" which was the second aircraft built.  The Encyclopedia of Civil Aircraft says  design started in 42, taking three years to complete, first flying with a 55hp engine (and proving underpowered) before being rebuilt with a 90 hp engine abd crashing shortly after being sold.  Take your pick!Nigel Ish (talk) 20:43, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

That has always been the problem with "first flights" - often the question is "first flight of what?" The first non-conforming prototype, first conforming prototype, first production aircraft, first customer aircraft, first high-speed taxi that got into the air by mistake when the aircraft didn't have an airworthiness cert, etc. In this case I would go with Janes, of course. It does throw into doubt the other refs, though. - Ahunt (talk) 20:51, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Taylor says September 1944 and is based on the first Pitts prototype. Just checked. Bzuk (talk) 20:54, 8 August 2008 (UTC).

Move discussion?
Can I ask where the article move discussion is please? Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)    10:19, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * As far as I can tell there wasn't one, User:Petebutt just moved it and started a new article at Pitts Special. Personally I think this is ridiculous, as per both Naming conventions (aircraft) and Article titles which says "Article titles should be recognizable to readers, unambiguous, and consistent with usage in reliable English-language sources" this move should not have been made. Everywhere in the world the Pitts S-1 and S-2 family of aircraft are known as Pitts Specials and the aircraft now described at Pitts Special aren't. Even the ref cited there supports not moving the page. I think this should be reversed. - Ahunt (talk) 13:52, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree that the move should be undone, plus we don't use the contraction '&' in article titles unless it is in the subject name like Pratt & Whitney. Does it need an admin to move it back? Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)    15:21, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I have made mention of this discussion at WikiProject Aircraft to see if we can get a wider consensus one way or the other. - Ahunt (talk) 15:29, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It should be moved back to Pitts Special as that is the common name but as has been said a stub about a 1947 racer has been created. Two monoplane Pitts Specials were built N97M Miss Dayton and N1961M Li'l Monster but I dont think they trump the S-1/S-2 for the common name use of the term Pitts Special. Problem is what to do with the stub article! MilborneOne (talk) 18:34, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Those are one-offs, so if there are refs for them, then they can go under the individual aircraft names. - Ahunt (talk) 18:49, 16 March 2011 (UTC)


 * We could move the stub to Pitts Special (monoplane), with a hatnote. Either way, I agree that this article should be moved bact to Pitts Special. - BilCat (talk) 19:17, 16 March 2011 (UTC)


 * That makes sense, between this discussion here and the one at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aircraft we seem to have a consensus to move it all back. - Ahunt (talk) 23:20, 16 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I was able to move the article to Pitts Special (monoplane) but not this one back to Pitts Special. I'll ask MB1 to do that. - Ahunt (talk) 23:25, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Pitts with Vendeneyev radial engine
http://www.turkuairshow.fi/index.php/esiintyjat/taitolentokoneet/pitts-12-moerkoe It is an experimental version. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noseball (talk • contribs) 23:04, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 03:05, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Rate of climb
2700 fps? I could swear at air shows I see these little biplanes flying straight-up vertical, giving the appearance of a thrust-to-weight ratio greater than 1.0. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:26, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Some have more installed power than others, so "your mileage may vary", but the 2,700 fpm figure is pretty credible. - Ahunt (talk) 16:32, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Jet Pitts?
After some digging, I've found one biplane that I think was a Pitts Special that was modified by Rich Goodwin to have jet engines. Would it be a good idea to mention this somewhere? (It resides at Gloucester airport) SqueakSquawk4 (talk) 11:44, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Only if you have a reliable source that describes it. - Ahunt (talk) 12:48, 9 October 2022 (UTC)