PPL on tricycle or taildragger?
Ed Brambley
I'm (still) in the process of choosing a flight school and a PPL package. One
of the schools I'm looking at offers a PPL course on either a tricycle C152,
or a taildragger Piper Super Cub. The Super Cub package does the instrument
work on a C152, so I'd get checked out on both.
Is it better to jump in at the deep end and do my PPL on a taildragger, or
stick with the C152 and possibly do a tailwheel conversion at a later date?
Thanks, and sorry for so many questions I've been posting recently.
Ed
--
Ed Brambley
Northampton
England
Joe Norris
that the 152 can not. It's worth the effort, and will make you a better
pilot.
Joe Norris
"Ed Brambley" <edw...@drogue.clara.co.uk> wrote in message
news:Vsuw4.1688$7F3....@nnrp4.clara.net...
Billy Beck
"Ed Brambley" <edw...@drogue.clara.co.uk> wrote:
>Hi,
>
>I'm (still) in the process of choosing a flight school and a PPL package. One
>of the schools I'm looking at offers a PPL course on either a tricycle C152,
>or a taildragger Piper Super Cub. The Super Cub package does the instrument
>work on a C152, so I'd get checked out on both.
>
>Is it better to jump in at the deep end and do my PPL on a taildragger, or
>stick with the C152 and possibly do a tailwheel conversion at a later date?
The Cub. No question about it. I'm others might disagree, and
the question is really about what one values in the experience.
However, before I began flying - from scratch - in a Citabria, I'd
heard many describing how it would make me a better pilot. At about
fifty hours now, I am completely convinced that the fundamental
challenges of learning in a taildragger have served me very well, and
could not have been found in a tricycle-geared airplane.
If you have the opportunity to train in a Cub, I'm here to urge
you in the strongest possible terms to exploit that.
Billy
VRWC Fronteer
http://www.mindspring.com/~wjb3/promise.html
J. C. Kamienski
It may take some patience. Many people find flying a taildragger more
difficult than a tri-gear (more challenging, definitely). It's
possible that it will take you longer to solo (then again, it's also
possible that there would be no difference, depends on your knack for
the plane).
You can go through dejanews and see some of the debates between tri-gears
and tailwheels.
A taildragger has a tendency to make a pilot develop good skills. In a
tri-gear it depends a lot more on how good the instructor is, and can
create either an excellent or a bad pilot.
If you do plan on making the conversion to tailwheel someday, it's best to
start out in it. That way you don't pick up any bad habits you'll have
to break.
Jill
Ed Brambley (edw...@drogue.clara.co.uk) wrote:
: Hi,
: I'm (still) in the process of choosing a flight school and a PPL package. One
: of the schools I'm looking at offers a PPL course on either a tricycle C152,
: or a taildragger Piper Super Cub. The Super Cub package does the instrument
: work on a C152, so I'd get checked out on both.
: Is it better to jump in at the deep end and do my PPL on a taildragger, or
: stick with the C152 and possibly do a tailwheel conversion at a later date?
: Thanks, and sorry for so many questions I've been posting recently.
John
>
>Is it better to jump in at the deep end and do my PPL on a
taildragger, or
>stick with the C152 and possibly do a tailwheel conversion at a later
date?
>
Ed.....
There's a particular regime of flight that goes from tiedown to about
thirty feet off the ground, whether you're coming or going. There
are things to be learned in this place that only a dragger can teach
you. These things will make you smile, fill you with awe, scare you
and amaze you. They will get into your soul, and set you on the road
to becoming an aviator, while all your friends are still learning to
be pilots.
Go with the Cub. No question.
JG
Mike Wylde
even if you fly tricycles afterwards.
Mike
"Ed Brambley" <edw...@drogue.clara.co.uk> wrote in message
news:Vsuw4.1688$7F3....@nnrp4.clara.net...
> Hi,
>
> I'm (still) in the process of choosing a flight school and a PPL package.
One
> of the schools I'm looking at offers a PPL course on either a tricycle
C152,
> or a taildragger Piper Super Cub. The Super Cub package does the
instrument
> work on a C152, so I'd get checked out on both.
>
> Is it better to jump in at the deep end and do my PPL on a taildragger, or
> stick with the C152 and possibly do a tailwheel conversion at a later
date?
>
Mark Burnham
airplane to fly!! Definitely go with the SuperCub.
- Mark Burnham
Ed Brambley wrote in message ...
TekCat
I am not sure what is all the fuss about taildraggers, and that to become a
"real" pilot it is better to go that way. I myself train in C172. You all
you macho pilots can cal me a sisi, but from what I heard from just almost
everybody, that the behavour of the taildraggers and tricycle planes differs
by handling it on the ground. In the air - it doesn't really matter. I am
speaking of course for the similar airplanes... Cub and C152 are different
airplanes. So, your decision should not be limited to the gear type
comparison. If you want to get with the basics as quickly as possible - try
C152 first, and later you can always upgrade to the Cub. On the other hand,
if you prefer greater challenge - Cub is the way to go.
Happy flying to all,
TekCat
***to reply remove "KILLSPAM" from e-mail address***
TekCat
> before landing. A taildragger demands attention at that point that no
> tri-gear ever will. Everything that goes into that is what it's all
> about.
I will sure look for more info on the taildraggers, thanks. I totally agree
with you that take-offs and landing techniques are different. (well, the
wheels are at different locations) But as far as handling just before
landing, I had no idea there is much difference in that. Can you hit me
with some points please on that...
TekCat
homestak...@juno.com.invalid
opinion regarding whether or not this new pilot should or should
not begin with a SuperCub. . . just how many out there actually
have tailwheel time ? How did you come by this time ? Did you
decide to get time in a TW or do you use the TW to work ?
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
ShawnD2112
remember that, until about 196whatever, ALL pilots learned on tail draggers
and they still soloed in the same amount of time, sometimes less. Take the
taildragger now and bask in the fact that you've seen the light so early!
Happy aviating!
Shawn
Super Cub G-AYPR
John wrote in message ...
Ed Brambley wrote in message ...
>
>Is it better to jump in at the deep end and do my PPL on a
taildragger, or
>stick with the C152 and possibly do a tailwheel conversion at a later
date?
>
Billy Beck
"TekCat" <tek_cat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>I am not sure what is all the fuss about taildraggers, and that to become a
>"real" pilot it is better to go that way. I myself train in C172. You all
>you macho pilots can cal me a sisi,...
Oh, nonsense. It's not about that at all.
>...from what I heard from just almost
>everybody, that the behavour of the taildraggers and tricycle planes differs
>by handling it on the ground. In the air - it doesn't really matter.
It most certainly does: in about the last twenty feet or so
before landing. A taildragger demands attention at that point that no
tri-gear ever will. Everything that goes into that is what it's all
about.
CEW
I learned in a 172 then purchased a Maule MX7-180 taildragger to build
hours. I had about 150 hours in 172's when I started my tailwheel
transition. I now have over 150 hours tailwheel and have sold the Maule to
futher my training (instrument, commercial, CFI). If I had my druthers I
would have learned on a tailwheel airplane from the get go. Training in a
taildragger teaches you vigilance, specifically on takeoff and landing. The
adage is true that you don't stop flying the plane until its tied down.
What it takes to safely land a tailwheel airplane is within the reach of 95%
of pilots out there. A tailwheel airplane just sharpens those skills. It
also teaches you and understanding (visualization) of the forces affecting
the plane on landing. You will need to concentrate on how the winds are
affecting the plane in order to make a good landing, especially a crosswind
landing.
It will take a little longer but the sense of satisfaction will be well
worth it.
Aside from all the skill reasons for learning in a tailwheel, ask youself
this...what's more exciting, learning in a a 115hp? Cessna 150 or a 160?hp
Super Cub? Also, you'll spawn a few more conversations somewhere down the
road when you mention that you learned in a tailwheel/Super Cub.
It looks like you're in the UK. America may have been the birthplace of
aviation (this will probably start some arguments) but England, for me,
typifies the romance of aviation. Flying a tricycle gear plane there
doesn't seem proper. If you're learning on one of the old WWII airfields I
would think that you're required to fly a taildragger.
Good Luck,
CEW
Ed Brambley <edw...@drogue.clara.co.uk> wrote in message
news:Vsuw4.1688$7F3....@nnrp4.clara.net...
> Hi,
>
> I'm (still) in the process of choosing a flight school and a PPL package.
One
> of the schools I'm looking at offers a PPL course on either a tricycle
C152,
> or a taildragger Piper Super Cub. The Super Cub package does the
instrument
> work on a C152, so I'd get checked out on both.
>
> Is it better to jump in at the deep end and do my PPL on a taildragger, or
> stick with the C152 and possibly do a tailwheel conversion at a later
date?
>
CEW
The CG is behind the main wheels on a taildragger, between them and a small,
lightly loaded tailwheel. On a tricycle gear airplane the CG is between the
fairly heavily loaded nosewheel and the mains. When a tailwheel plane
touches down the mains have to be aligned with the direction of travel of
the plane otherwise the inertia of the CG will want to swing around and
"lead" the mains in the direction of travel the plane had established before
touching down. You can be pretty well out of alignment with a tricylcle
gear plane and it will either skid or veer off in the direction the wheels
are pointed. The wheels establish 3 pretty heavily loaded points on the
ground that resist any tendency the plane may have to "spin". The tailwheel
isn't heavily loaded (you can push an empty tennis shoe sideways but try to
push one sideways while someone's standing in it) nor is it fixed in most
cases. It will either easily skid sideways or, jump out of the detent that
was holding it aligned with the rudder and align with the direction that the
CG wants to go in.
What is required in the last 20 feet is to get the wheels aligned with the
direction of travel before touching down. Failing this, you need to be fast
with differential brakes or large rudder input to re-align the plane and
stop the swing of the CG. On the rollout, gusts of wind are still trying to
push the tail around and get the CG out of alignment. Again, differential
braking and rudder inputs are needed to keep things straight.
CEW
TekCat <tek_cat...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:89vbv9$2vup6$1...@fu-berlin.de...
> > It most certainly does: in about the last twenty feet or so
> > before landing. A taildragger demands attention at that point that no
> > tri-gear ever will. Everything that goes into that is what it's all
> > about.
>
Billy Beck
"TekCat" <tek_cat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> It most certainly does: in about the last twenty feet or so
>> before landing. A taildragger demands attention at that point that no
>> tri-gear ever will. Everything that goes into that is what it's all
>> about.
>
>I will sure look for more info on the taildraggers, thanks. I totally agree
>with you that take-offs and landing techniques are different.
That's true. I neglected the takeoff aspect, which really is
different, but it's not quite as dramatic as the landing thing. One
fact, however, is that I was a lot more concerned with the takeoff
than landings when I got around to them. On introducing me to the
airplane, Terri pointed out that when it's pitched up onto the
mainmounts, the propellor tips are only twenty-two inches off the
runway. That was extremely impressive to me: the picture of a prop
strike was horrifying to me (and still is), and I handle that first
move very gingerly.
There's still something about that first pitch that sets the tone
for the entire flight.
>...(well, the wheels are at different locations) But as far as handling just
>before landing, I had no idea there is much difference in that. Can you hit
>me with some points please on that...
Bear in mind that I have about 50 hours' total time.
Most of it has to do with extremely fine rudder awareness.
Touching a taildragger down at landing speed with anything (and I mean
*anything*) less than perfect direction down the runway is just
begging for a ground loop. They'll ground loop at taxi speed, of
course, but at landing speed we're talkin' murder. I've watched all
kinds of tri-gear airplanes touch down with directional deviations
that taildraggers could never get away with, and roll out safely.
Thinking about this, I have to admit something: in precise terms,
they *don't* handle differently from tri-gears. As they move through
the air, they're exactly the same. What's actually true is that it's
crucially important for the pilot to handle them differently, and
there are many aspects of this. For instance: a sideslip crosswind
wheel-landing. Think about that for a minute.
I'm talking about putting *only* the upwind wheel on the runway.
Deliberately not flaring (like one would on a calm day, or naturally
flaring under all conditions in a tri-gear), but positively flying
only one wheel onto the runway.
There are times when that's the only alternative to giving up and
flying to a different airport with a more wind-favorable runway.
Everything necessary to doing something like that comes into
focus just above the ground effect.
Here's a question: did you fly low centerline passes before your
first landing? I did. Lots of 'em. Terri wouldn't let me within ten
feet of the runway until she'd seen me fly that centerline over and
over and was certain that I was positively in control of it under all
conditions. (That's why when I finally *did* land the airplane, I
really did it myself: ten landings the first day, and I had to ask her
because I can't see her in the back seat, but she assured me that I
did it myself. She was ready to take the airplane if necessary, but
it wasn't.)
You were right: taildraggers don't really handle any differently
from tri-gears in the air, but the pilot had better know the
difference and be on top of it. It's no arbitrary constraint that
they require a special endorsement.
A handy analogy that I use is that it's a bit like the difference
between learning to drive a manual-shift automobile and an automatic.
It's more difficult but it can really pay off in terms of knowing
everything about how to put precise power on the road and managing the
entire automobile. In the *air*, I've really appreciated that
total-touch as a matter of being the best possible pilot. And, I've
also seen it directly transferrable to the C-172. So did the
instructors with who I flew in that airplane. It was very prominent
in my first night landings, which I did in the 172, and there was
nothing to it.
I dunno.
I don't know really how to make this clear and convincing. About
the only other thing I could add would be the suggestion to go book
some time in one. If the taxi-out doesn't clarify some of the
implications, the rest of it probably will.
Billy Beck
"CEW" <walt...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Ed,
>
>I learned in a 172 then purchased a Maule MX7-180 taildragger to build
>hours. I had about 150 hours in 172's when I started my tailwheel
>transition. I now have over 150 hours tailwheel and have sold the Maule to
>futher my training (instrument, commercial, CFI). If I had my druthers I
>would have learned on a tailwheel airplane from the get go. Training in a
>taildragger teaches you vigilance, specifically on takeoff and landing. The
>adage is true that you don't stop flying the plane until its tied down.
>What it takes to safely land a tailwheel airplane is within the reach of 95%
>of pilots out there. A tailwheel airplane just sharpens those skills. It
>also teaches you and understanding (visualization) of the forces affecting
>the plane on landing. You will need to concentrate on how the winds are
>affecting the plane in order to make a good landing, especially a crosswind
>landing.
>
>It will take a little longer but the sense of satisfaction will be well
>worth it.
>
>Aside from all the skill reasons for learning in a tailwheel, ask youself
>this...what's more exciting, learning in a a 115hp? Cessna 150 or a 160?hp
>Super Cub? Also, you'll spawn a few more conversations somewhere down the
>road when you mention that you learned in a tailwheel/Super Cub.
(All very good, but I'm jumping in here with a mangled subject
header and something divergent that I've been dying to relate.)
>It looks like you're in the UK. America may have been the birthplace of
>aviation (this will probably start some arguments) but England, for me,
>typifies the romance of aviation. Flying a tricycle gear plane there
>doesn't seem proper. If you're learning on one of the old WWII airfields I
>would think that you're required to fly a taildragger.
I just finished a sensational book.
"Wings And Warriors - My Life As A Naval Aviator" (Donald D.
Engen, Smithsonian History Of Aviation Series, 1997, Smithsonian
Institution Press, 341 pages)
Currently the director of the Smithsonian Air & Space museum,
this man had a fabulous career in the US Navy, and this book is that
biography. He soloed after 8 hours' instruction in a J-3 Cub in 1942.
He went on to fly SB2C-3 Helldiver dive bombers, and, at the battle of
Leyte Gulf (1944), he sunk the Japanese carrier 'Zuikaku', which led
the attack on Pearl Harbor. He was twenty years old.
In a chapter entitled "Test And Tes Again" he describes his
experience at the Empire Test Pilot School, located at Farnborough.
It's very interesting. One thing that rings through the whole book is
that, among other things, Engen was a professional *student*. He was
sent to ETPS in 1953, and he says, "I had been flying now for eleven
years and had fought in two wars, but there in England I really
learned about flying."
If you enjoy reading about aviation, keep an eye out for this
one. You won't be disappointed.
Billy Beck
"CEW" <walt...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>TekCat,
>
>The CG is behind the main wheels on a taildragger, between them and a small,
>lightly loaded tailwheel. On a tricycle gear airplane the CG is between the
>fairly heavily loaded nosewheel and the mains. When a tailwheel plane
>touches down the mains have to be aligned with the direction of travel of
>the plane otherwise the inertia of the CG will want to swing around and
>"lead" the mains in the direction of travel the plane had established before
>touching down.
<nod> Really, really, important. Not to be diminished in any
way.
Here's an experiment:
Go to a grocery store. Take an ordinary shopping cart, and turn
it around so that the handle is facing away from you. Give it a good
hard push, and watch what happens.
Now, picture that effect at 70+ mph, with a big pile of mass
called a "wing" sticking off each side and throwing inertia of
centrifugal force as it starts going around, accelerating, with you
*in* it.
Bad juju.
>You can be pretty well out of alignment with a tricylcle
>gear plane and it will either skid or veer off in the direction the wheels
>are pointed. The wheels establish 3 pretty heavily loaded points on the
>ground that resist any tendency the plane may have to "spin". The tailwheel
>isn't heavily loaded (you can push an empty tennis shoe sideways but try to
>push one sideways while someone's standing in it) nor is it fixed in most
>cases. It will either easily skid sideways or, jump out of the detent that
>was holding it aligned with the rudder and align with the direction that the
>CG wants to go in.
>
>What is required in the last 20 feet is to get the wheels aligned with the
>direction of travel before touching down. Failing this, you need to be fast
>with differential brakes or large rudder input to re-align the plane and
>stop the swing of the CG. On the rollout, gusts of wind are still trying to
>push the tail around and get the CG out of alignment. Again, differential
>braking and rudder inputs are needed to keep things straight.
Oh, and, uh: be really careful with the brakes lest you toss the
whole works up on its nose. N53883 went through that a couple of
years ago. Really ugly.
Jeff Cook
> "Wings And Warriors - My Life As A Naval Aviator" (Donald D.
> Engen, Smithsonian History Of Aviation Series, 1997, Smithsonian
> Institution Press, 341 pages)
>
> Currently the director of the Smithsonian Air & Space museum,
> this man had a fabulous career in the US Navy, and this book is that
> biography.
Donald Engen died in a glider accident in July 1999. The new director of
the Air & Space Museum is now General John R. Daily, retired from the
Marines, and most recently Associate Deputy Administrator of NASA. He is
apparently making a major effort to carry through Engen's plans for the
huge Dulles Center "which will display more than 180 aircraft and 100
spacecraft currently in storage".
http://www.nasm.edu/nasm/pa/nasmnews/museumkit/dailey.htm
--
Jeff Cook
je...@cookstudios.com
http://www.cookstudios.com
Washington DC area
Billy Beck
Jeff Cook <je...@cookstudios.com> wrote:
>Billy Beck wrote:
>> "Wings And Warriors - My Life As A Naval Aviator" (Donald D.
>> Engen, Smithsonian History Of Aviation Series, 1997, Smithsonian
>> Institution Press, 341 pages)
>>
>> Currently the director of the Smithsonian Air & Space museum,
>> this man had a fabulous career in the US Navy, and this book is that
>> biography.
>Donald Engen died in a glider accident in July 1999.
*Holy shit*. That was *him*. You know, that didn't even occur
to me as I read the book. I mean, I'd heard that story, and was dimly
aware of the event, but I didn't connect it.
Wow. Thank you for the correction. Jeez, that makes it so much
more poignant, because the book is very personable, and I'd idly
considered that it would be a privilege to someday shake his hand.
Nicholas J Davis
great if you want to be a pilot that often, once qualified ends up visiting
grass airfields for which a taildragger feels at home.
And i am positive that after 2 engine failures in 13 years (1500 hrs) that
if it had not been for the experience on short field landings on a Cub then
you would have read about me as another statistic.
Go for it!
--
My very best regards,
Nick
Dylan Smith
news:1698ea20...@usw-ex0104-033.remarq.com...
> After having read this series of posts, whereby everyone has an
> opinion regarding whether or not this new pilot should or should
> not begin with a SuperCub. . . just how many out there actually
> have tailwheel time ? How did you come by this time ? Did you
> decide to get time in a TW or do you use the TW to work ?
I own a half-share in a tailwheel aircraft (a 1946 Cessna 140). The thing
that does it for me is that tailwheel aircraft are more fun, especially old
ones. It's always nice to go to a different airport and have people come and
ask you about the plane (but that's probably a function of the plane's age,
rather than the small wheel's location).
From an owner's standpoint, the nice thing about tailwheel aircraft is prop
clearance. I'm much happier bringing the C140 into a rough field than any
nosedragger (save a Piper Tripacer with its milkstool legs and beefy
nosegear). Our prop has sufficient clearance that we haven't got the usual
nicks and wear that you'll find on a Cessna 150's prop.
--
Dylan Smith, Houston TX.
Flying: http://www.icct.net/~dyls/
FFE/FE2 Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"
J. C. Kamienski
: After having read this series of posts, whereby everyone has an
: opinion regarding whether or not this new pilot should or should
: not begin with a SuperCub. . . just how many out there actually
: have tailwheel time ? How did you come by this time ? Did you
: decide to get time in a TW or do you use the TW to work ?
I started out in a C150. The day of my very first lesson, after it,
my instructor took me flying in a tailwheel. I was hooked.
Unfortunately, the cost difference was $20/hour, so I stuck with the
150 through my PPL. The first thing I did after my PPL was get my
taildragger endorsement. I now have 90 hours tailwheel.
I fly a tailwheel just about every time I go up now unless I'm doing my
commercial training (haven't found a complex taildragger for rent around
here yet, so I'm stuck in an Arrow :)
Jill
CEW
If you want to read a phenominal book about British pilots (featuring 1,
Stanford Tuck) during WWII run, don't walk and get "Fly for Your Life" by
Larry Forrester. It's an account of Tuck's exploits during WWII and mostly
about the Battle of Britain. An added benefit is that you get to read about
the other Aces (mostly British) that were Tuck's contemporaries.
The book really put the air war over Europe in perspective for me. Prior to
reading it I had the perspective that the US was sort of the White Knight in
winning the air war over Europe (obviously I hadn't read WWII history that
closely and looked at US's entry vs the dates of the Battle of Britain).
One of the neat things about the book is that it details pubs and such that
the pilots frequented that you can still visit today. In many cases the
pubs are virtually unchanged and the evidence of the pilots visits is still
there.
You'll probably have to go to a dealer to find the book because its out of
print. Trust me on this, its an outstanding book and well worth the effort.
Billy Beck <wj...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:38c34909...@news.mindspring.com...
> "Wings And Warriors - My Life As A Naval Aviator" (Donald D.
> Engen, Smithsonian History Of Aviation Series, 1997, Smithsonian
> Institution Press, 341 pages)
>
> Currently the director of the Smithsonian Air & Space museum,
> this man had a fabulous career in the US Navy, and this book is that
> biography. He soloed after 8 hours' instruction in a J-3 Cub in 1942.
> He went on to fly SB2C-3 Helldiver dive bombers, and, at the battle of
> Leyte Gulf (1944), he sunk the Japanese carrier 'Zuikaku', which led
> the attack on Pearl Harbor. He was twenty years old.
>
> In a chapter entitled "Test And Tes Again" he describes his
> experience at the Empire Test Pilot School, located at Farnborough.
> It's very interesting. One thing that rings through the whole book is
> that, among other things, Engen was a professional *student*. He was
> sent to ETPS in 1953, and he says, "I had been flying now for eleven
> years and had fought in two wars, but there in England I really
> learned about flying."
>
> If you enjoy reading about aviation, keep an eye out for this
> one. You won't be disappointed.
>
>
Dylan Smith
news:Vsuw4.1688$7F3....@nnrp4.clara.net...
> Hi,
>
> I'm (still) in the process of choosing a flight school and a PPL package.
One
> of the schools I'm looking at offers a PPL course on either a tricycle
C152,
> or a taildragger Piper Super Cub. The Super Cub package does the
instrument
> work on a C152, so I'd get checked out on both.
Super Cub, definitely. It will teach you MUCH better habits than the C152.
As a side effect, you'll be checked out in two planes instead of one.
And besides, tailwheel aircraft are more fun ;-)
John Mazor
D.
>>> Engen, Smithsonian History Of Aviation Series, 1997, Smithsonian
>>> Institution Press, 341 pages)
>>>
>>> Currently the director of the Smithsonian Air & Space
museum,
>>> this man had a fabulous career in the US Navy, and this book is
that
>>> biography.
>
>
> *Holy shit*. That was *him*. You know, that didn't even occur
>to me as I read the book. I mean, I'd heard that story, and was
dimly
>aware of the event, but I didn't connect it.
>
> Wow. Thank you for the correction. Jeez, that makes it so much
>more poignant, because the book is very personable, and I'd idly
>considered that it would be a privilege to someday shake his hand.
>
He also did a quite respectable stint as head of the FAA. He is
missed.
ShawnD2112
a Stearman yesterday.
I wanted to do my serious PPL training in a Super Decathalon but my
instructor talked me out of it on basis of cost. I wish she hadn't. I
learned how to fly in a 152. I learned airmanship in the SuperCub. I think
it says something when you talk to nose-wheel only pilots and they poo-poo
all the talk about the fun and challenge of flying a taildragger, and then
every tailwheel pilot I've ever talked to wouldn't go back to nosewheels
unless he had no choice.
It does sharpen your skills and awareness of the effects of wind at all
times, even when you park her in front of the hangar (into wind, please).
I've since flown with other 152 pilots who plant it on the ground and then
let everything go slack while they clear the runway. Made me nervous as
hell but I used to do the same thing.
You gotta do whatever's right for you, but don't disregard and give up on
taildraggers until you've gotten a couple of hours in one and can make it an
educated decision.
Whatever you fly, stay safe and have fun!
Shawn
Piper Super Cub G-AYPR
homestak...@juno.com.invalid wrote in message
<1698ea20...@usw-ex0104-033.remarq.com>...
After having read this series of posts, whereby everyone has an
opinion regarding whether or not this new pilot should or should
not begin with a SuperCub. . . just how many out there actually
have tailwheel time ? How did you come by this time ? Did you
decide to get time in a TW or do you use the TW to work ?
Tina Marie
home...@juno.com <homestak...@juno.com.invalid> wrote:
>After having read this series of posts, whereby everyone has an
>opinion regarding whether or not this new pilot should or should
>not begin with a SuperCub. . . just how many out there actually
>have tailwheel time ? How did you come by this time ? Did you
> decide to get time in a TW or do you use the TW to work ?
I have almost 100 hours of TW time. Did most of my training in a Tripacer
(because I could fly it for the cost of fuel and oil), but took my
checkride in a Citabria.
I now own a Starduster (aerobatic biplane), and occaisionally tow
in a Pawnee.
Tina Marie
--
skydiver - PP-ASEL - N860SG \*\ An apostrophe does not mean, "Yikes!
http://www.neosoft.com/~tina \*\ Here comes an 's'!" - Dave Barry
Billy Beck
"John Mazor" <maz...@erols.com> wrote:
Well, you know me, John. I ain't that hot on that sort of work,
but he seemed like a hell of a nice guy, from what I read in his
(really good) book, so I can't really hold it against him.
I hated to realize how he died, but I guess it's fitting enough.
It's also a tad eerie: the second-to-last paragraph of his book refers
to his flying his glider. When I first read that, I thought, "How
cool. After the career he had, he's still hanging in there with
something like that. Staying in the air."
I liked that.
972
<tek_cat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> I am not sure what is all the fuss about taildraggers, and that to
> become a
> "real" pilot it is better to go that way. I myself train in C172.
> You all
> just almost
> everybody, that the behavour of the taildraggers and tricycle
> planes differs
> by handling it on the ground. In the air - it doesn't really
> speaking of course for the similar airplanes... Cub and C152 are
> different
> airplanes. So, your decision should not be limited to the gear
> type
> comparison. If you want to get with the basics as quickly as
> possible - try
> C152 first, and later you can always upgrade to the Cub. On the
> other hand,
> if you prefer greater challenge - Cub is the way to go.
> Happy flying to all,
> TekCat
automatic. You can't fang around in a spam can any more than you can in
an automatic, and you're a much more skilled pilot and driver down the
track. Of course if you really only want to drive a taxi ---.
972.
Michael
> I think
> it says something when you talk to nose-wheel only pilots and they poo-poo
> all the talk about the fun and challenge of flying a taildragger, and then
> every tailwheel pilot I've ever talked to wouldn't go back to nosewheels
> unless he had no choice.
Nonsense. I've got 600+ hrs TT, about 60 tailwheel. I fly tailwheel
when that's what the situation demands. I land crosswind or downwind
in tailwheel aircraft when that's what the situation demands. Sometimes
I fly tailwheel for hours, stopping only long enough to refuel, making 5
landings an hour, most of them downwind over obstructions. I have
no great love of tailwheel aircraft - I consider it an obsolete inferior
design. My personal aircraft is tri-gear and I will never buy a tailwheel.
Too limiting. Landing conditions that I don't even give a second thought
to in my tri-gear aircraft are beyond all but the most veteran tailwheel
pilots.
I transitioned to tailwheel aircraft in the insurance-mandated 5 hours of
tailwheel time, evenly divided between Cub and Champ, so I could tow
gliders for my club. I found the Champ simple and forgiving to fly, and
I found the Cub an absolute pain because you have to fly it from the
back seat and can't see what you are doing (this objection does not
apply to Supercubs which solo from the front seat). At three hours of
tailwheel instruction I was landing in 15 kt crosswinds on a narrow grass
strip (used to be a taxiway). With proper instruction (very important -
I was learning from a 10000+ hr CFI with 2000+ hr tailwheel in everything
from J-3 to DC-3) any current and competent tri-gear pilot can do the
same. There's no great challenge to it.
The challenge comes in landing tailwheel airplanes in conditions for which
they were never intended. Narrow paved runways with gusty crosswinds
made worse by objects upwind of the runway come to mind. That was
no big deal in the heyday of taildraggers, when narrow paved runways
were rare and wide grass ones common - now it's a real limitation.
> It does sharpen your skills and awareness of the effects of wind at all
> times, even when you park her in front of the hangar (into wind, please).
> I've since flown with other 152 pilots who plant it on the ground and then
> let everything go slack while they clear the runway. Made me nervous as
> hell but I used to do the same thing.
Then you were never taught properly in the C-152. Period. It's true that
planes like the C-152 are poorly designed as trainers and tend to let the
student get away with sloppiness that a good trainer like a Champ would
immediately make obvious, but it is equally true that good training is
entirely possible in a C-150 or C-152 if the instructor knows how to fly.
A C-150/2 can be landed on a runway only 10 feet wider than the
wheelbase, at night, with no landing light and only minimal runway lights.
It can be landed with 20+ kts crosswind. Did your instructor teach you
to do those things? If he did, I can't imagine how he let you get away
with sloppy rollouts - and if he didn't, then the fault lies with the
instructor, not the airplane.
Michael
George R. Patterson III
Ed Brambley wrote:
>
> Is it better to jump in at the deep end and do my PPL on a taildragger, or
> stick with the C152 and possibly do a tailwheel conversion at a later date?
Go with the trike. You will have enough to learn at first without having
to deal with the ground handling problems of conventional gear.
George Patterson, N3162Q.
George R. Patterson III
"home...@juno.com" wrote:
>
> just how many out there actually
> have tailwheel time ? How did you come by this time ? Did you
> decide to get time in a TW or do you use the TW to work ?
I'm a private pilot. About a year after I got my certificate, I started
thinking about buying. At the time, Citrabias were fairly reasonable, so
I got a few hours training in a PA-18 in preparation. Then Flying and
another magazine ran articles listing Citrabias as one of the ten best
buys, and the prices on the ones in TAP went up about 50%. I bought a
C-150 and quit flying tailwheel aircraft.
Years later, Maule Air ran a 40% off sale on their MX-7s. I bought one
and got my tailwheel signoff in that airplane. I have about 250 hours
in that.
George Patterson, N3162Q.
Dave Stadt
way? It takes no longer and is no more difficult to learn in a conventional
gear plane from day one. There are no ground handling problems with
conventional gear, different maybe but certainly not a problem.
George R. Patterson III wrote in message
<38C42E7F...@earthlink.net>...
Dave Stadt
As one of the nations distinguished aviation leaders says. "Pilots don't
know what to do with their feet, aviators do."
Dylan Smith wrote in message <8a0k7i$16ga$1...@ausnews.austin.ibm.com>...
homestak...@juno.com.invalid
>Too limiting. Landing conditions that I don't even give a
second thought
>to in my tri-gear aircraft are beyond all but the most veteran
tailwheel
>pilots.
Michael, can you elaborate on this, help me understand what
you're talkin about here.
>A C-150/2 can be landed on a runway only 10 feet wider than the
>wheelbase, at night, with no landing light and only minimal
runway lights.
>It can be landed with 20+ kts crosswind.
Do I understand you on this point, surely you're not saying that
a 150 can but a SuperCub can't ?
Did your instructor
teach you
>to do those things? If he did, I can't imagine how he let you
get away
>with sloppy rollouts - and if he didn't, then the fault lies
with the
>instructor, not the airplane.
>
>Michael
Maybe I took your comments out of context here, if so, I retract
the previous question, are you commenting on the ability of the
instructor and not the aircraft ?
Bill
David B. Schober
you want to fly taildraggers, start there. If you have no desire to ever fly
tailwheel, then pick the 152. Of all the transition students I've had, it's far
easier to start off in a tailwheel that to transition later. I can generally solo
a new student with less than 10 hours in a Champ or Cub, but to transition someone
that has flown tricycle gear generally takes more like 15 to 20 hours.
Ed Brambley wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm (still) in the process of choosing a flight school and a PPL package. One
> of the schools I'm looking at offers a PPL course on either a tricycle C152,
> or a taildragger Piper Super Cub. The Super Cub package does the instrument
> work on a C152, so I'd get checked out on both.
>
> Is it better to jump in at the deep end and do my PPL on a taildragger, or
> stick with the C152 and possibly do a tailwheel conversion at a later date?
>
> Thanks, and sorry for so many questions I've been posting recently.
>
> Ed
>
> --
> Ed Brambley
> Northampton
> England
--
*****************************************************************************
David B.Schober, CPE
Instructor, Aviation Maintenance
Fairmont State College
National Aerospace Education Center
1050 East Benedum Industrial Drive
Bridgeport, WV 26330-9503
(304) 842-8300
When once you have tasted flight, you will always walk with your eyes
turned skyward, for there you have been and there you will always be.
--Leonardo da Vinci
Michael
> >Too limiting. Landing conditions that I don't even give a
> second thought
> >to in my tri-gear aircraft are beyond all but the most veteran
> tailwheel
> >pilots.
>
> Michael, can you elaborate on this, help me understand what
> you're talkin about here.
Sure. Even a low time pilot can land a Cessna 150 on a narrow
paved runway with a 25kt gusty quartering tailwind. It won't look
pretty but it's certainly doable. In a Cub? No way. And it's like
that all down the line. Sure, some guy with thousands of tailwheel
hours will chime in "I can do that in a Cub, no problem" and of course
he can. But I'm not willing to wait until I have thousands of hours.
> >A C-150/2 can be landed on a runway only 10 feet wider than the
> >wheelbase, at night, with no landing light and only minimal
> runway lights.
> >It can be landed with 20+ kts crosswind.
>
> Do I understand you on this point, surely you're not saying that
> a 150 can but a SuperCub can't ?
Don't know about a SuperCub, never flew one. I sure as hell would
not try it in a J-3 Cub. I wouldn't even think twice about it in a
C-150. Again it goes back to experience and skill - but the level
of skill required to do it in the Cub is much higher, and the risk of
groundlooping it inevitably higher.
But that's not really what I was talking about...
> Did your instructor
> teach you
> >to do those things? If he did, I can't imagine how he let you
> get away
> >with sloppy rollouts - and if he didn't, then the fault lies
> with the
> >instructor, not the airplane.
>
> Maybe I took your comments out of context here, if so, I retract
> the previous question, are you commenting on the ability of the
> instructor and not the aircraft ?
Yeah, I am. If the instructor let the student get away with making
sloppy rollouts instead of teaching him to maintain control of the
aircraft on pavement, then he could not have taught the maneuvers
I described above - because even in a C-150 you can't do them
without conscious attention to control on the rollout. And if he did
not teach these maneuvers, which (in a C-150) are well within the
reach of a 50 hour pilot, then he really didn't do his job.
The point I am making is that all this stuff about how training in a
trike will make you a worse pilot than training in tailwheel is a
bunch of crap. If a pilot trained in a C-150 and came out doing
painfully sloppy rollouts (as the original poster said) then the
fault lies with the instructor, not the aircraft.
Michael
Dylan Smith
> The challenge comes in landing tailwheel airplanes in conditions for which
> they were never intended. Narrow paved runways with gusty crosswinds
> made worse by objects upwind of the runway come to mind. That was
> no big deal in the heyday of taildraggers, when narrow paved runways
> were rare and wide grass ones common - now it's a real limitation.
The person who started this thread lives in England, where the makeup of GA
airfields are quite different to the US.
Guess what? In England, wide, grass runways are still common. The poster who
started the thread lives in Northamptonshire, so I bet he'll be learning at
Sywell, which is IIRC a wide grass airfield.
One thing learning taildragging has done for me is allow me to take
nosedraggers up on days I previously wouldn't have done even on a
double-dare. It really has made a measurable improvement to my handling of
crosswinds.
Michael
> Guess what? In England, wide, grass runways are still common. The poster
who
> started the thread lives in Northamptonshire, so I bet he'll be learning
at
> Sywell, which is IIRC a wide grass airfield.
That makes a difference. Honestly, if the training were to be done
at a wide grass airfield, I would cast my vote for the Aeronca Champ
as the best possible trainer. Tailwheel but with excellent visibility
even on the ground, slow on landing, totally honest and predictable,
light on the controls, and dead simple, it's all about flying with no
distractions. But making a student learn on one from a narrow paved
runway with a crosswind....
> One thing learning taildragging has done for me is allow me to take
> nosedraggers up on days I previously wouldn't have done even on a
> double-dare. It really has made a measurable improvement to my handling of
> crosswinds.
Sure, but you wouldn't take taildraggers up on those days, right?
See, I think all that means is that your original training was deficient.
Taildragging hasn't done much for my crosswind skills, but then
again I was already pretty comfortable landing in conditions that
caused the flight school at my home base to shut down - and I
learned on a C-150.
Michael
HLAviation
>paved runway with a 25kt gusty quartering tailwind. It won't look
>pretty but it's certainly doable. In a Cub?
Thats because a cub pilot is smart enough not to land with a tail wind. The
point you make is silly anyway. You say a "thousand hour Cub pilot". If you
aren't proficient in an airplane after 20 hrs of transition, there something
wrong with you as a pilot.
>The point I am making is that all this stuff about how training in a
>trike will make you a worse pilot than training in tailwheel is a
>bunch of crap.
No, the taildragger pilot is usually a better pilot because taildragger
instructors are usually better instructors
Rick Macklem
: No, the taildragger pilot is usually a better pilot because taildragger
: instructors are usually better instructors.
Excellent point. The other side of this coin is, "If the taildragger
instructor isn't a good one, things could get interesting":-).
My suggestion is to try an intro lesson in both, since they are quite
different.
Have fun with whichever you choose, rick
ps: If you have to make a decision before leaving the UK, maybe try an intro
lessons in both in the UK to help with the decision.
Michael
> >Even a low time pilot can land a Cessna 150 on a narrow
> >paved runway with a 25kt gusty quartering tailwind. It won't look
> >pretty but it's certainly doable. In a Cub?
>
> Thats because a cub pilot is smart enough not to land with a tail wind.
The
> point you make is silly anyway.
So tell me - when you come out the bottom end of an instrument approach
below circling minimums, how do you use your smarts to avoid the 25kt
gusty quartering tailwind if that's what you have for the runway?
Before you laugh too hard, I know of at least one full-IFR Cub. Yeah,
I think it's pretty dumb too. But once you get into the 4-seat, 150-hp
class, it's not that dumb anymore. Start thinking Pacer vs Tri-Pacer.
> You say a "thousand hour Cub pilot".
No, I don't. I say a thousand hour tailwheel pilot. Slight difference.
> If you
> aren't proficient in an airplane after 20 hrs of transition, there
something
> wrong with you as a pilot.
So if you take a hundred hour pilot and transition him into a Cub and take
a thousand hour pilot and transition him into a Cub, after 20 hrs they can
both fly the Cub equally well? I'm sure you don't really believe that.
The problem is that if you take a mediocre pilot and transition him into
a Cub, after 20 hrs (less, really) he's as proficient in the Cub as he is in
anything else. So now he's a mediocre Cub pilot too. So how's a
mediocre Cub pilot going to do on a narrow paved runway with a
20 kt gusty crosswind?
> >The point I am making is that all this stuff about how training in a
> >trike will make you a worse pilot than training in tailwheel is a
> >bunch of crap.
>
> No, the taildragger pilot is usually a better pilot because taildragger
> instructors are usually better instructors
Now THAT may well be true. It's certainly in line with what I have
seen. ALL the good instructors I have ever met were tailwheel
qualified. Some liked taildraggers, some didn't, but all could fly
them just fine.
Most of the really painfully bad instructors I have ever met were
not tailwheel qualified. Not all, but most.
Michael
John
>
>So tell me - when you come out the bottom end of an instrument
approach
>below circling minimums, how do you use your smarts to avoid the 25kt
>gusty quartering tailwind if that's what you have for the runway?
>
So tell me - what kind of pilot finds himself at the bottom of a
non-precision approach, below circling minima, WITHOUT KNOWING WHAT
THE DAMNED WINDS ARE? Except for a very few places, 25 kt gusty winds
are not a local phenomenon.... that's systemic weather, not a
surprise. Pilots who use their smarts don't get into that box. JG
highflyer
>
> Hi,
>
> I'm (still) in the process of choosing a flight school and a PPL package. One
> of the schools I'm looking at offers a PPL course on either a tricycle C152,
> or a taildragger Piper Super Cub. The Super Cub package does the instrument
> work on a C152, so I'd get checked out on both.
>
> Is it better to jump in at the deep end and do my PPL on a taildragger, or
> stick with the C152 and possibly do a tailwheel conversion at a later date?
>
> Thanks, and sorry for so many questions I've been posting recently.
>
> Ed
>
Super Cub as it is in the C-150, but you will learn habits from the
start that will make you a better pilot in everything that you fly
for the rest of your life. Been there, done that! :-)
--
HighFlyer
Highflight Aviation Services
John
Michael wrote in message ...
>
which
>they were never intended. Narrow paved runways with gusty crosswinds
>made worse by objects upwind of the runway come to mind. That was
>no big deal in the heyday of taildraggers, when narrow paved runways
>were rare and wide grass ones common - now it's a real limitation.
>
comes not in landing a tailwheel airplane in adverse crosswinds, but
in the rollout and taxi. We would sometimes encounter conditions
(35-40 kt x) where the craft could be brought to touchdown well within
the performance envelope, subject to the realization that after
touchdown, with power reduced and speed bleeding off, lateral control
would disappear. JG
Michael
> My experience (SM8A, C140, DC3) has been that most often the challenge
> comes not in landing a tailwheel airplane in adverse crosswinds, but
> in the rollout and taxi.
Since when is the rollout not part of the landing? The hard part is not
putting it on the ground - the hard part is keeping it on the straight
and narrow once down. That's why tailwheel landings have to be
full-stop to count for currency, and rightly so.
Michael
highflyer
>
> After having read this series of posts, whereby everyone has an
> opinion regarding whether or not this new pilot should or should
> have tailwheel time ? How did you come by this time ? Did you
> decide to get time in a TW or do you use the TW to work ?
>
I have several thousand hours of tailwheel time. Most of my multi-
engine time is tailwheel time. Most of the time that I gained working
as a pilot is tailwheel time, both single and multi-engine. I had
over a hundred hours before I first flew an airplane with a nose wheel.
It was a Beech Bonanza. I transitioned to it from a BT-13.
Have you EVER seen a crop duster with a nose wheel? I haven't!
The only real difference between a taildragger and a nose dragger is
versatility. You can land a taildragger at ANY speed you choose. You
cannot do that with a nosedragger. The taildragger will turn around
and bite your butt if you get a little sloppy in your flying. The
nosedragger will let you get away with being sloppy until it finally
gets fed up with you and then it will bite you BIG TIME.
Michael
> So tell me - what kind of pilot finds himself at the bottom of a
> non-precision approach, below circling minima, WITHOUT KNOWING WHAT
> THE DAMNED WINDS ARE?
Who said he didn't know? If I know that at the bottom end of my approach
I'm going to be putting down on a 4000x40 paved runway with a 25kt gusty
quartering tailwind, what makes you think I'm not going? That's an
acceptable
landing condition in my TriPacer. Now if I'd moved the third wheel back to
the wrong end, it would be a mistake.
> Except for a very few places, 25 kt gusty winds
> are not a local phenomenon.... that's systemic weather, not a
> surprise.
Right - it is systemic weather. And since most small airports tend to have
their (usually only) runway pointed into the prevailing winds, going to the
airport next door is generally no better. You usually know about the
conditions before you take off - but your options are often deal with it
or don't go.
> Pilots who use their smarts don't get into that box.
In the right kind of airplane - a plane using modern tricycle gear - it's
not a box. It's not really even a problem. The problem is having
obsolete, inferior conventional gear. And the solution is get better
equipment or stay on the ground.
Michael
Dylan Smith
> See, I think all that means is that your original training was deficient.
I don't think it was. My primary instructor taught me all about the correct
placement of controls etc. and how to deal with crosswinds. Consequently, my
tailwheel transition didn't take very long. However, what the tailwheel
aircraft gave me is a much higher level of confidence in handling gusty
winds, especially the time that I got home in the C140 just after the front
had passed, giving the gustiest crosswinds I've ever landed in...
ShawnD2112
The guy asked which would be better to learn in. I think most posters here
seem to agree, with Michael being the only bold one with with an even
tangentially differing opinion, that he may learn better skills overall in
the taildragger and he's likely to have more fun. It's a broad
generalization, his milage may differ.
I fly in the UK about 20 miles north of where this guy is, in
Leicestershire. Given the kinds of airfields we have and preponderance of
farm strips, I still think he'll do better in a Cub - but not landing it in
unsuitable conditions (like a 25 kt gusting tailwind - honestly, where do
you guys come up with these things?). That way, he already knows how to fly
both configurations and, if he later abandons tailwheels for a Seneca or
something, at least he's had experience in both. I don't think learning in
a Cub would be any more difficult because, as I said in my first response,
until 196whatever, EVERYBODY learned on tailwheels and they somehow managed
it. But I do think it will teach him certain skills and awarenesses that he
won't have to learn in a 152 because it'll let him get away with different
mistakes.
Oh, and Michael, I still stand by my original statement about "every
taildragger pilot I've ever talked to wouldn't go back". I just hadn't had
a chance to talk to you before. :-)
I don't even remember the original poster's name but, if you'll respond to
this, I'll give you a ride in the Super Cub gratis to give you a feel for
it. I'll even come pick you up at Sywell, or wherever, crosswind component
on the day not withstanding. (that's one of Michael's mentioned limitations)
:-)
It's nice to see such a lively and informative debate on a subject. At
least no one has written their entire message in capitals or called someone
else a nazi. That's why I like this ng.
Happy landings, and if any of you make it to Leicestershire Aero Club, look
me up. As far as I know, I'm about the only "Shawn" to be found up there on
most weekends. :-)
Shawn
HLAviation wrote in message
<20000307123228...@ng-cd1.aol.com>...
>Even a low time pilot can land a Cessna 150 on a narrow
>paved runway with a 25kt gusty quartering tailwind. It won't look
>pretty but it's certainly doable. In a Cub?
Thats because a cub pilot is smart enough not to land with a tail wind. The
point you make is silly anyway. You say a "thousand hour Cub pilot". If
you
aren't proficient in an airplane after 20 hrs of transition, there something
wrong with you as a pilot.
CEW
At 660+ hours and 60+ in taildraggers I believe you're hardly qualified to
determine what's an obsolete and inferior airplane. The concerning thing
about your comments is that you don't know what you don't know.
You shouldn't fly/land a cub in the conditions you mentioned not because its
a tailwheel, mainly because its basically a kite with with a motor. Yes a
veteran could probably do it. Yes they are taking a great risk.
Did you instructor teach you to make frequent downwind landings, over
obstacles? You mentioned the quality of instruction. Did someone teach you
to make a habit of this?
If the tailwheel plane didn't do much for your crosswind landings, maybe
you're relying on the nosewheel too much.
Don't you think there's a real possiblity of putting a 150/152 on its back
by landing/taxiing in 25+ kt quarting tailwinds?
There are a lot of aspiring airline pilots on this newsgroup and I think its
a disservice to them to encourage flying in these marginal conditions. An
accident on your record can ruin any chance of moving up.
CEW
Michael <cre...@flash.net> wrote in message
news:SPax4.15832$Kz3.7...@news.flash.net...
> Dylan Smith <usenet...@alioth.net> wrote
> > Guess what? In England, wide, grass runways are still common. The poster
> who
> > started the thread lives in Northamptonshire, so I bet he'll be learning
> at
> > Sywell, which is IIRC a wide grass airfield.
>
> That makes a difference. Honestly, if the training were to be done
> at a wide grass airfield, I would cast my vote for the Aeronca Champ
> as the best possible trainer. Tailwheel but with excellent visibility
> even on the ground, slow on landing, totally honest and predictable,
> light on the controls, and dead simple, it's all about flying with no
> distractions. But making a student learn on one from a narrow paved
> runway with a crosswind....
>
> > One thing learning taildragging has done for me is allow me to take
> > nosedraggers up on days I previously wouldn't have done even on a
> > double-dare. It really has made a measurable improvement to my handling
of
> > crosswinds.
>
> Sure, but you wouldn't take taildraggers up on those days, right?
>
> See, I think all that means is that your original training was deficient.
Edward Zager
|> >Even a low time pilot can land a Cessna 150 on a narrow
|> >paved runway with a 25kt gusty quartering tailwind. It won't look
|> >pretty but it's certainly doable. In a Cub?
|>
|> Thats because a cub pilot is smart enough not to land with a tail wind. The
|> point you make is silly anyway. You say a "thousand hour Cub pilot". If you
|> aren't proficient in an airplane after 20 hrs of transition, there something
|> wrong with you as a pilot.
Charley Hilliard had something like 43 hours in the Seafury at the time
of his fatal crash. Charley had thousands of hours of Pitts time prior
to his Seafury transition.
Still want to stick with your assertion?
I would agree that 20 hours should be sufficient for most light aircraft.
20 hours doesn't begin to make it for all aircraft.
|> >The point I am making is that all this stuff about how training in a
|> >trike will make you a worse pilot than training in tailwheel is a
|> >bunch of crap.
|>
|> No, the taildragger pilot is usually a better pilot because taildragger
|> instructors are usually better instructors
I disagree, the tailwheel aircraft has requirements in pilot skills that
a trike does not require.
Tail wheel aircraft tend to be older designs, and as such, have more adverse
yaw than a Cessna 150/2/172. If you don't use the rudder in flight, it will
be much more noticeable in an taildragger than a trike.
Many tail wheel aircraft don't have flaps, so every landing is a no flap
landing. Want to get really good at your airspeed control? Take away the
flaps, and then fly a design where the angle of attack of the wing increases
as you attain the landing attitude. You can fly a trike on the runway at
stall speed, or 20 knots above stall speed. The only difference will be
the distance of the landing roll. Try three pointing a tail dragger if
you are 20 knots fast. The first question will be are you going to land,
or are you going around.
The big difference between the trike and taildragger is the requirement
to use the rudder aggressively in the taildragger. If you don't, you
will probably never even make it off the runway.
An airplane flys in three dimensions, and so needs controls for all three
dimensions.
The choice is do you really want to learn to use all three sets of the controls,
or just two?
Edward Zager Focke Wulf 149JZ
972
> engine time is tailwheel time. Most of the time that I gained
> working
> as a pilot is tailwheel time, both single and multi-engine. I had
> over a hundred hours before I first flew an airplane with a nose
> wheel.
> It was a Beech Bonanza. I transitioned to it from a BT-13.
> Have you EVER seen a crop duster with a nose wheel? I haven't!
972.
Michael
> Did you instructor teach you to make frequent downwind landings, over
> obstacles? You mentioned the quality of instruction. Did someone teach
you
> to make a habit of this?
Absolutely. If you want to tow gliders for a busy operation, you'll make
a habit of it too. We routinely land downwind to cut turnaround time.
Our procedures manual allows us up to 10 kts tailwind component, and
while I personally follow this limitation religiously many others do not.
> If the tailwheel plane didn't do much for your crosswind landings, maybe
> you're relying on the nosewheel too much.
That doesn't make a whole lot of sense. If I were relying on the nosewheel
I would have had a hell of a time transitioning to taildraggers, but I found
the transition easy if nervy.
> Don't you think there's a real possiblity of putting a 150/152 on its back
> by landing/taxiing in 25+ kt quarting tailwinds?
There's always a real chance it will happen, regardless of conditions.
The real question is do I believe that under these conditions, with a
reasonably qualified low time pilot, does the risk become severe?
No, I really don't. In fact, I can't imagine how you would do it, short of
landing hot and/or long and then stomping on the brakes. 25 kts is not
even close to being enough to flip a C-150 over. Now if you lose
control and go into a ditch - but that's much more likely with a tailwheel.
> You shouldn't fly/land a cub in the conditions you mentioned not because
its
> a tailwheel, mainly because its basically a kite with with a motor.
Then it would be just as much a problem in the C-150 (well, OK, maybe
a bit less because the wing loading is higher) and it's not really a
problem.
> Yes a veteran could probably do it. Yes they are taking a great risk.
It's good to find something we can agree on.
> There are a lot of aspiring airline pilots on this newsgroup and I think
its
> a disservice to them to encourage flying in these marginal conditions. An
> accident on your record can ruin any chance of moving up.
Every time I get into an airliner in lousy weather, gusty winds, and driving
rain
(and traveling on business that's not rare), especially a turboprop
commuter,
I look at the kids up front and I hope to hell this isn't their FIRST time
flying in these marginal conditions. I hope they've done it plenty of times
before, and know what's coming. I hope they have real experience.
The reason I dislike tailwheel trainers is that they are a real handful in
strong conditions - beyond what most low time pilots can handle. And
that means doing all your training in a tailwheel trainer will not give you
exposure to these strong conditions in the training environment. That
either stacks the odds against you when you do encounter them, or forces
you into a restrictive conservatism about what conditions you will fly in.
As far as I'm concerned, if you're just going to fly locally on perfect VFR
days, and maybe go somewhere once in a while if it's really nice and you
have all day, then you should just fly a glider. It's cheaper, it's more
fun,
and it's more challenging.
The whole point of an airplane is to get you where you want to go, when
you want to get there. And a tailwheel limits where and when you can
go, for no particularly good reason. That's why I can't understand the
attraction.
I understand why people fly singles rather than twins, pistons rather
than turbines, VFR rather than IFR, Strikefinders rather than RADAR,
and so on down the line - it's cheaper. But tailwheels are more expensive
for less utility (in most cases) so why people feel they must defend this
obsolete, inferior technology that is no longer used for any military,
transport, or corporate airplanes is beyond me.
All this started because everyone wanted to steer a new student pilot
towards a SuperCub rather than a C-152. OK, fine, that's probably
not so bad. But I don't think it's fair to suggest that somehow tailwheels
are the better airplanes, and once you fly one you'll never go back.
The fact is that trikes were developed and flown by the people who
learned on conventional gear, because conventional gear just wasn't
good enough. Go back to Stick and Rudder and the person who
wrote the book on tailwheel flying will tell you in great detail that the
trike is the better airplane.
As for what you should learn in - I think it's like the low wing vs. high
wing debate. Issues of cost, convenience, and instructor quality are
far more important than where the third wheel is located, and I think
it does a disservice to prospective student pilots to tell them otherwise.
Michael
Ed Brambley
> > they were never intended. Narrow paved runways with gusty crosswinds
> > made worse by objects upwind of the runway come to mind. That was
> > no big deal in the heyday of taildraggers, when narrow paved runways
> > were rare and wide grass ones common - now it's a real limitation.
>
> airfields are quite different to the US.
>
> started the thread lives in Northamptonshire, so I bet he'll be learning at
> Sywell, which is IIRC a wide grass airfield.
It's one of the places I'm looking at learning from. For those of you who
don't know Sywell, it has three, reasonably wide grass runways in a triangular
configuration. They're trying to get permission to pave one of them, but
there will still be a grass strip along side it.
John
>
below circling minima] I'm going to be putting down on a 4000x40
paved runway with a 25kt >gusty quartering tailwind, what makes you
think I'm not going? That's an
>acceptable landing condition in my TriPacer.
Michael, I would suggest to you that you could never in a million
years convince either the FAA or your insurance carrier of the
validity of the above statement.
I might also suggest that you save your posts in this thread for about
5 years or 5000 hours, .....then reread them and see if you recognize
the author. Nothing personal, ........ we've all flown through that
block you're in now (500 - 1000 hrs). It's a very frustrating place
to be, and a dangerous one for the unwary. You've acquired enough
experience that you've no doubt become quite skillful at handling an
aircraft, but you have not acquired enough experience to realize how
little experience you actually have. You're obviously very bright,
and have a passion for the knowledge of the craft. Some time in the
next few years you'll scare the bejeezus out of yourself a couple of
times, and, assuming you survive, that will provide just the right
temper for your outlook. Good Luck!! JG
Ditch
>to use the rudder aggressively in the taildragger. If you don't, you
>will probably never even make it off the runway.
Yes, you have to use the rudder more in a tailwheel airplane, but not
aggressively.
Hell, you use a rudder in a Pitts S-1 "Aggressively", you may as well just end
up off the runway as you would if you didn't use it at all. Aggressive use of
the rudder will lead to over-control. Just use what you have to....
-John
*You are nothing until you have flown a Douglas, Lockheed or North American...*
Billy Beck
"Michael" <cre...@flash.net> wrote:
>The reason I dislike tailwheel trainers is that they are a real handful in
>strong conditions - beyond what most low time pilots can handle.
That's what CFI sign-offs are all about.
> And that means doing all your training in a tailwheel trainer will not give you
>exposure to these strong conditions in the training environment. That
>either stacks the odds against you when you do encounter them, or forces
>you into a restrictive conservatism about what conditions you will fly in.
Rubbish. Nothing about any of that precludes *graduating* into
more challenging conditions over time. "Restrictive conservatism" is
just word-salad. I could call it "restrictive conservatism" that
someone would refuse to fly in a hurricane. The way to build and
maintain proficiency is fly. Often is best, but graduating through
levels of conditional challenge is pretty good, too, and I've had
times when one day was three knots over my sign-off and I was
"restrictive[ly] conservative", but the next was just one-knot under
so I went flyin'. The *practical* difference was so fine as to be
almost nil, but taking on conditions just up against the limits judged
by my instructor was a challenge that I knew I had to exploit in order
to *aviate*.
"Strong conditions in the training environment" is a relative
thing. After all, at the very beginning, a *landing* - even in
dead-calm winds - is a "strong condition". "Stacked odds", if ever
there was such a thing, but that doesn't mean that we don't take 'em
on, or nobody would ever learn.
>The whole point of an airplane is to get you where you want to go, when
>you want to get there. And a tailwheel limits where and when you can
>go, for no particularly good reason. That's why I can't understand the
>attraction.
>
>I understand why people fly singles rather than twins, pistons rather
>than turbines, VFR rather than IFR, Strikefinders rather than RADAR,
>and so on down the line - it's cheaper. But tailwheels are more expensive
>for less utility (in most cases) so why people feel they must defend this
>obsolete, inferior technology that is no longer used for any military,
>transport, or corporate airplanes is beyond me.
Yup. That's right.
You don't understand, and it's beyond you.
Billy
VRWC Fronteer
http://www.mindspring.com/~wjb3/promise.html
Billy Beck
"Ed Brambley" <edw...@drogue.clara.co.uk> wrote:
>> > The challenge comes in landing tailwheel airplanes in conditions for which
>> > they were never intended. Narrow paved runways with gusty crosswinds
>> > made worse by objects upwind of the runway come to mind. That was
>> > no big deal in the heyday of taildraggers, when narrow paved runways
>> > were rare and wide grass ones common - now it's a real limitation.
>>
>> The person who started this thread lives in England, where the makeup of GA
>> airfields are quite different to the US.
>>
>> Guess what? In England, wide, grass runways are still common. The poster who
>> started the thread lives in Northamptonshire, so I bet he'll be learning at
>> Sywell, which is IIRC a wide grass airfield.
>
>It's one of the places I'm looking at learning from. For those of you who
>don't know Sywell, it has three, reasonably wide grass runways in a triangular
>configuration.
Man, you cannot miss in a situation like that. Good god: I've
been flying from a single concrete runway (25/07 - 6000'), and I take
what I can get in terms of winds, nevermind *grass*.
In a situation like what you're talking about, I would choose the
Cub in a heartbeat, and never look back.
Paul H. Miller
with them. I did, no problems.
Ditch
go, for no particularly good reason.
Why? When you get a clue, then come and talk tailwheel airplanes. I'd rather
have a Citabria in a 30 kt crosswind than a piece of crap Cessna 172 any day of
the week.
> inferior technology
Check out Jon Sharp and Nemesis
>that is no longer used for any military
Both the Navy and USAF Test Pilot schools use tailwheel airplanes
>transport, or corporate airplanes is beyond me.
There are several frieght companies out there that use Beech-18 and DC-3s.
Also, in 1998 at the NBAA convention as I was taxing out in a Citation II, I
saw a corporate DC-3.
Dave Stadt
get a clue. Then again.......................
Ditch wrote in message <20000308011112...@ng-ca1.aol.com>...
Chuck Forsberg
CEW <walt...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>There are a lot of aspiring airline pilots on this newsgroup and I think its
>a disservice to them to encourage flying in these marginal conditions. An
>accident on your record can ruin any chance of moving up.
>
An interesting comment considering SWA's arrival at Burbank the other day.
--
Chuck Forsberg WA7KGX PP-ASEL/HP Skylane N2469R c...@omen.COM
Omen Technology Inc The High Reliability Software www.omen.com
Author of YMODEM, ZMODEM, RZ, SZ, Pro-YAM, ZCOMM, GSZ, and DSZ
TeleGodzilla BBS: 503-617-1698 FTP: ftp.cs.pdx.edu pub/zmodem
POB 4681 Portland OR 97208 503-614-0430 FAX:503-629-0665
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
Dylan Smith
> > You shouldn't fly/land a cub in the conditions you mentioned not because
> its
> > a tailwheel, mainly because its basically a kite with with a motor.
>
> Then it would be just as much a problem in the C-150 (well, OK, maybe
> a bit less because the wing loading is higher) and it's not really a
> problem.
Personally, I would fly my C140 any day I'd fly a C150. However, there are
days where the wind condition is such I wouldn't fly the 140 or a 150, but
I'd still fly the Bonanza (and have done so). The nice thing about the
Bonanza is that it has a goodly amount of mass, and this makes it much
easier to take off/land on a gusty, turbulent day - and if I actually want
to GET somewhere, it's just a better travelling plane because it goes at 163
knots, not 85 knots (notwithstanding the pronounced ability to turn into the
yaw-monster from hell on a turbulent day!)
However, I agree entirely with Michael that nosedraggers are much easier to
land on a squirrely, crosswind gusty day. Well, they are for me at least!
However, I'd rather own a taildragger myself - they are just more fun
BECAUSE they are more work. They also have a coolness factor due to their
relative uncommonness these days. Turn up in a nice Cessna 140, and people
will ask you questions, old pilots will come and have a chat with you and
relate some of their learning to fly stories etc. and the lineboy will
complement you on having a nice plane. Turn up in a nice Cessna 150 (our
club had a *very* nice C150), and if you're lucky, the lineboy might
complement you on having a nice plane, and that's only because he noticed it
was nice when he drove the fuel truck over there!
I fly firstly because I enjoy it. The fact that you can go somewhere in a
plane and avoid being herded into an airliner just happens to be a useful
side effect. I will always prefer to own a tailwheel plane because they are
more fun, IMHO.
Edward Zager
|> >The big difference between the trike and taildragger is the requirement
|> >to use the rudder aggressively in the taildragger. If you don't, you
|> >will probably never even make it off the runway.
|>
|> Yes, you have to use the rudder more in a tailwheel airplane, but not
|> aggressively.
|> Hell, you use a rudder in a Pitts S-1 "Aggressively", you may as well just end
|> up off the runway as you would if you didn't use it at all. Aggressive use of
|> the rudder will lead to over-control. Just use what you have to....
|>
You and I obviously have different interpretations of the word "aggressively"
Let me make a suggsetion.
The next time you are performing a take-off in the Pitts, either don't use
the rudder, or just casually use the rudder. (like you would in a trike)
Then let me know what ditch you end up and what word you would use to
describe the difference in the use of the rudder between a taildragger
and a trike.
What word would you use to describe the useage of the rudder to a group of
people (aka a trike driver) that basically doesn't use the rudder?
I argue that the rudder must be used more agressively in a taildragger
when compared to a trike. How much more agressively is for the instructor
flying with the student to decide, not for a person sitting in front of a
terminal.
Rahul Sharma
stopping you from getting the best of both worlds?
BTW, in India we have a taildragger called 'Pushpak' which is a dream to
learn on - especially the last 20 feet of the landing...
Cheers.
Billy Beck <wj...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:38c31cea...@news.mindspring.com...
>
> "TekCat" <tek_cat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >I am not sure what is all the fuss about taildraggers, and that to become
a
> >"real" pilot it is better to go that way. I myself train in C172. You
all
> >you macho pilots can cal me a sisi,...
>
> Oh, nonsense. It's not about that at all.
>
> >...from what I heard from just almost
> >everybody, that the behavour of the taildraggers and tricycle planes
differs
> >by handling it on the ground. In the air - it doesn't really matter.
>
> It most certainly does: in about the last twenty feet or so
> before landing. A taildragger demands attention at that point that no
> tri-gear ever will. Everything that goes into that is what it's all
> about.
highflyer
>
> Sure. Even a low time pilot can land a Cessna 150 on a narrow
> paved runway with a 25kt gusty quartering tailwind. It won't look
> that all down the line. Sure, some guy with thousands of tailwheel
> hours will chime in "I can do that in a Cub, no problem" and of course
> he can. But I'm not willing to wait until I have thousands of hours.
>
Pure unadulterated bullshit here. Now only was I landing on paved
runways with 25 know gusty crosswinds with less than 20 hours total
flying time, all of it in small taildraggers, but so was every OTHER
student pilot I knew. It just isn't any big deal. However, I WOULD
ask why your are landing with a 25 knot gusty TAILWIND. We were
always taught to land INTO the wind, and avoid landing DOWNWIND.
I still recommend upwind landings to my students. :-)
> > >A C-150/2 can be landed on a runway only 10 feet wider than the
> > >wheelbase, at night, with no landing light and only minimal
> > runway lights.
> > >It can be landed with 20+ kts crosswind.
> >
> > Do I understand you on this point, surely you're not saying that
> > a 150 can but a SuperCub can't ?
>
> Don't know about a SuperCub, never flew one. I sure as hell would
> not try it in a J-3 Cub. I wouldn't even think twice about it in a
> C-150. Again it goes back to experience and skill - but the level
> of skill required to do it in the Cub is much higher, and the risk of
> groundlooping it inevitably higher.
>
For you, it probably is. It wasn't for any of the student pilots I
knew back when I was a student pilot and everyone flew taildraggers.
> Yeah, I am. If the instructor let the student get away with making
> sloppy rollouts instead of teaching him to maintain control of the
> aircraft on pavement, then he could not have taught the maneuvers
> I described above - because even in a C-150 you can't do them
> without conscious attention to control on the rollout. And if he did
> not teach these maneuvers, which (in a C-150) are well within the
> reach of a 50 hour pilot, then he really didn't do his job.
>
Of course, in a taildragger, the instructor wasn't ALLOWED to be that
sloppy either. However, the STUDENTS didn't have any problem, and
those maneuvers used to be EXPECTED prior to SOLO.
> The point I am making is that all this stuff about how training in a
> trike will make you a worse pilot than training in tailwheel is a
> bunch of crap. If a pilot trained in a C-150 and came out doing
> painfully sloppy rollouts (as the original poster said) then the
> fault lies with the instructor, not the aircraft.
>
Ahh, now we come to the root of the problem. Michael is afraid of his
taildraggers and doesn't think much of most flight instructors.
However,
he misattributes the reason for the decline in quality of flight
instruction. Flight instructors didn't get that sloppy when I was
a student pilot because the COULDN'T. Now they CAN. So they DO.
Keep your instructor on the ball and competent. Train in a taildragger!
:-)
Michael
> Personally, I would fly my C140 any day I'd fly a C150...
> However, I agree entirely with Michael that nosedraggers are much easier
to
> land on a squirrely, crosswind gusty day.
So which is it? They're much easier to land but you'd still use the same
wind/runway limits for both? That hardly sounds sensible.
> They also have a coolness factor due to their relative
> uncommonness these days...
> I will always prefer to own a tailwheel plane because they are
> more fun, IMHO.
Now those are honest reasons. More fun, higher coolness factor.
Can't argue with that. But hell, if you're going to go that route,
just go whole hog and get something like a Hatz or Pietenpol or
whatever.
When I wanted something that was fun to fly and had a high coolness
factor, and I didn't care about utility, I bought a glider. Dylan, when
you get your glider rating I'll let you fly it. It's tailwheel, and unlike
most gliders handles like one - the cg is well aft of the main and at
low speeds control authority is very marginal. It's a handful on the
approach and landing, a REAL handful on takeoff, and I have to pick
my days to fly it. It really isn't competitive with modern glass anymore,
though in its day the design placed in nationals. There were only about
30 ever built (all from kits) and now they're all over 30 years old.
High coolness factor, fun to fly. No utility whatsoever, but who cares.
To me, that's what gliders are about. In an airplane, I want to go
somewhere.
Michael
highflyer
> All this started because everyone wanted to steer a new student pilot
> towards a SuperCub rather than a C-152. OK, fine, that's probably
> not so bad. But I don't think it's fair to suggest that somehow tailwheels
> are the better airplanes, and once you fly one you'll never go back.
> The fact is that trikes were developed and flown by the people who
> learned on conventional gear, because conventional gear just wasn't
> good enough. Go back to Stick and Rudder and the person who
> wrote the book on tailwheel flying will tell you in great detail that the
> trike is the better airplane.
>
> As for what you should learn in - I think it's like the low wing vs. high
> wing debate. Issues of cost, convenience, and instructor quality are
> far more important than where the third wheel is located, and I think
> it does a disservice to prospective student pilots to tell them otherwise.
>
> Michael
That is right, Michael. And all of us with any degree of experience
know
that you are wrong. However, you speak very authoritative from your
history os 600 hours in a Cessna and 60 hours in a Champ. From where
I sit your ignorance is appalling. I know you are unaware of it.
Feel free to fly whatever you want. Do not expect me to honor your
lack of wisdom, and don't arrogantly trot your inexperience out and try
to sway the newbies without any experience to your warped way of
thinking.
Tricycle geared airplanes are EASIER to handle on the ground. They
are more forgiving of carelessness and incompetence. Some people think
that makes them a better airplane. I think it makes them a better
airplane for the pilot who will not or can not fly enough to maintain
a minimum level of competence and proficiency.
That does NOT make them a better TRAINER. In fact it makes it far more
likely that the student will never develop a reasonable level of
proficiency and competence, since he/she does not have to do so. It
allows instructors to become complacent and to ignore habits that they
should NEVER allow to develop in a new pilot.
Personally, I find that I can handle easily much greater crosswind and
gust components with a taildragger that I would dare attempt with a
nose wheel airplane. But then, I have to admit that I have thousands
of hours of experience flying BOTH kinds of airplanes. Nonetheless,
when things get sticky I would MUCH rather have a taildragger than a
nosewheel.
Like the landing I made at my buddys strip recently. His PAVED runway
is only 15 feet wide. There was a 25 knot DIRECT crosswind around
the houses on both sides of the runway. I used more runway than I
usually do, getting my four thousand pound taildragger on the ground,
since I had a relatively large gust addition to my touchdown speed.
I also made a wheel landing ( try THAT with a nosedragger! ) so my
actual touchdown speed was about 75 mph instead of the usual 70.
As a result I rolled past his hangar and used about 900 feet of runway
to come to a stop instead of the usual 600 feet at his strip.
Sure glad I wasn't in a Bonanza or Baron or something with a nose
wheel! :-)
highflyer
>
> Michael wrote in message ...
> >
> which
> >they were never intended. Narrow paved runways with gusty crosswinds
> >made worse by objects upwind of the runway come to mind. That was
> >no big deal in the heyday of taildraggers, when narrow paved runways
> >were rare and wide grass ones common - now it's a real limitation.
> >
> comes not in landing a tailwheel airplane in adverse crosswinds, but
> (35-40 kt x) where the craft could be brought to touchdown well within
> the performance envelope, subject to the realization that after
> touchdown, with power reduced and speed bleeding off, lateral control
> would disappear. JG
Yup. I remember once, back when I had JUST gotten my private. I was
on a crosscountry in a cub. I flew down to Patterson, Louisiana. A
nice PAVED runway, with a ditch alongside for seaplanes. The wind, as
with many airports near a large body of water, is always directly
across the runway, no matter which way you land! :-)
This day there was a 25 knot direct crosswind. About halfway down the
runway there was a hangar on the downwind side of the runway with a
ramp in front of it and a Stearman duster parked there. There was an
old man sitting on a car seat that had been removed from the car and
plopped down in front of the hangar. He was relaxing and watching the
airplane trying to land! :-)
I did my usual crosswind trip, and made a beautiful wheel landing on
the upwind wheel with my upwind wingtip just a foot or so off the
runway. I rolled out, tailhigh. Then I started wondering how long
I should hold that tail up in the air! I was almost down to a walk
and still had the tail up. I let it start down, and as soon as it
did it lost a little effectiveness and I suddenly made a left turn
between the runway lights toward the seaplane ditch! I hit the left
brake and made a neat one eighty "on pylon" turn around the runway
light. I then ran straight back across the runway and taxied onto
the ramp in front of the old duster sitting in front of his hangar.
I tryed to bluster a bit and pretend that I ALWAYS stopped that way.
He looked at me, cocked an eyebrow, and said "Sure, Uh huh."
Blush! :-)
I did learn though. Haven't done THAT again! :-)
highflyer
>
> John <jga...@ici.net> wrote
> > My experience (SM8A, C140, DC3) has been that most often the challenge
> > comes not in landing a tailwheel airplane in adverse crosswinds, but
> > in the rollout and taxi.
>
> putting it on the ground - the hard part is keeping it on the straight
> and narrow once down. That's why tailwheel landings have to be
> full-stop to count for currency, and rightly so.
>
> Michael
And is why "touch and goes" should not be allowed for currency in
nose draggers either, and, in fact, are not after dark.
Over the years I have picked up about as many NOSEdraggers that have
been seriously damaged in ground loops as I have taildraggers. The
taildraggers groundloop more often, but usually do not do any damage
to anything except egos. :-)
highflyer
>
> > Have you EVER seen a crop duster with a nose wheel? I haven't!
972 wrote:
> The Fletcher?
>
Never seen one. Who used them? My favorite is the Ag Cat. They do
a great job of protecting their pilots when things get nasty.
John
>
>Yup. I remember once,...... I flew down to Patterson, Louisiana.....
The wind, as
>with many airports near a large body of water, is always directly
>across the runway, no matter which way you land! :-)
>
Oh, I know! Used to fly DC3s into PVC (Provincetown, MA - 3500x100),
mostly summertime, but we'd usually keep one up north till about
Thanksgiving, then move it to Florida. In November, we'd get a cold
front or two, and the NW wind would just howl over the dunes about 40
kt. Where does that leave you, with that huge wing on a lightly
loaded -3 on Rwy 25? Boy, if you think the Super Cub's a kite, try
this. JG
Michael
> Pure unadulterated bullshit here. Now only was I landing on paved
> runways with 25 know gusty crosswinds with less than 20 hours total
> flying time, all of it in small taildraggers, but so was every OTHER
> student pilot I knew. It just isn't any big deal.
Then why is it that even at the best of schools I see today, when these
are the prevailing conditions all the taildraggers are on the ground? Why
do all the taildragger pilots only visit my home field when the winds are
right? Why do most of the people who decide to base taildraggers there
quickly move? Are they all incompetent tailwheel pilots?
> However, I WOULD
> ask why your are landing with a 25 knot gusty TAILWIND.
Instrument approach below circling minimums.
> We were
> always taught to land INTO the wind, and avoid landing DOWNWIND.
> I still recommend upwind landings to my students. :-)
That's great, but on weekends I tow gliders for my club. In Pawnees.
Downwind landings are the norm for us. Out ops manual allows up to
10 kts downwind component. We do it to cut turnaround time. We've
got one guy who lands downwind regardless - the rest of us mostly back
off and land into the wind (accepting a higher turnaround time) somewhere
in the 5-15 kt range.
> For you, it probably is. It wasn't for any of the student pilots I
> knew back when I was a student pilot and everyone flew taildraggers.
Back in the olden days when men were real men, women were real
women, and small furry creatures from Alpha Centauri were REAL
small furry creatures from Alpha Centauri...
Look, maybe tailwheel flying has become a lost art and we don't know
how to do it anymore. Maybe you old timers know tricks we just
don't know. But here's reality for you - I found the best possible
person in the area to do my tailwheel transition. I didn't go to the
local FBO with the advertised tailwheel instructor, I found an
airline pilot with 10000+ hrs, 2000+ tailwheel in everything from
J3 to DC3, and I kept flying with him long after I had my endorsement
and was able to rent the Champ solo (and did). Most people learning
to fly tailwheel today will not get better instruction than I got. And
I'm telling you how it is from where I'm looking. And from where I'm
looking, I got my endorsement quickly, and I fly tailwheel regularly,
making lots of landings - but there are things I can do in a trike without
a second thought that I'd not try in a tailwheel. And I'm just not seeing
tailwheel pilots at my experience level doing any better, either. I'm
seeing veterans who can do the things you describe, but I'm not seeing
ANY pilots with 20 hours of tailwheel (never mind total time) doing
them.
Maybe it's not the thousands of hours in tailwheel. Maybe it's age - the
fact that they learned before tailwheel flying became a mostly lost art.
Maybe it doesn't take a thousand hours of tailwheel flying to acheive
that sort of proficiency - maybe it only takes the right sort of
instruction.
But if that's case, I'd say that this sort of instruction is pretty much not
available now. I looked pretty damn hard, and I got the best I could
get. When you tell someone to get tailwheel training - is he going to
get the kind of training you got? Or the kind I got? Or the kind my
friend with the Pacer (now getting a new wing due to groundloop) got?
What's more likely?
> Ahh, now we come to the root of the problem. Michael is afraid of his
> taildraggers
Afraid may be a strong word. I can feel them wanting to come around.
They demand constant attention to keep straight. I know one day a
gust or a bump in the field will come at just the wrong time, or I'll get
distracted for just a second, and the next thing I know I'll have a
crushed wingtip (or worse) - and it's not like it hasn't happened to you.
Which brings up another question - when you had all these 20-hour students
landing on narrow paved runways with 25+ kts gusting crosswinds - how
often did planes get dinged? I realize that back then, when men were real
men and if you didn't have the proper materials you's just cut some from
your cotton undershirt, dope it up, slap it on, and go, minor dings carried
minor price tags - but it's not like that today.
> and doesn't think much of most flight instructors.
No I don't. And neither it seems, do you. And for good reason - most of
them aren't much good.
> However,
> he misattributes the reason for the decline in quality of flight
> instruction. Flight instructors didn't get that sloppy when I was
> a student pilot because the COULDN'T. Now they CAN. So they DO.
That's a lousy attitude. I'd like to think that most people don't do a
sloppy job just because they can, at least not when doing something
they love. And if aviation isn't something you love, why do it?
Michael
Michael
> Over the years I have picked up about as many NOSEdraggers that have
> been seriously damaged in ground loops as I have taildraggers.
Considering the fleet is mostly nosedraggers, that really says something,
doesn't it? A small minority of the airplanes, typically flown by the more
experienced pilots, are contributing half the groundloops leading to
serious damage.
Michael
Michael
> Tricycle geared airplanes are EASIER to handle on the ground. They
> are more forgiving of carelessness and incompetence.
You mean like the carelessness or incompetence that tore up the
wing on YOUR airplane? How much would the repair have cost
if you had to go to a shop and have it done instead of doing it
yourself? Did you all of a sudden become careless or incompetent?
Or is it likely that you just diverted attention for a moment, made a
simple mistake such as any of us could make? A mistake most
trikes would forgive - and most taildraggers will punish you for?
> Some people think that makes them a better airplane.
Given what's being manufactured and purchased today, most
people. Even most experienced people. Yours is one of the
few dissenting voices, and I think it's unfair to imply that all the
experienced voices are on your side. If they were, we would
see many more Maules being built and sold, and a lot fewer
Cessnas.
Taildragging, I've noticed, is almost a religion. The people who
believe in it believe in it fervently, and facts will not sway them.
But if it's the ultimate truth, why do I see so many old-time
pilots and instructors who just don't care for taildraggers?
Why did my A&P, who instructed in Stearmans when they
were new and flew both Pacers and TriPacers when they
were new, tell me that they put the nosegear on there for a
reason and taking it off was a dumb idea? Why did the
people who learned on and grew up on taildraggers
abandon them in droves when trikes came out? Why are
new tailwheel airplanes such a rarity? Why did Piper
sell ten TriPacers for every Pacer? Why did Maule
start building a trigear version? Why did Beech put a
nosewheel on the venerable Beech-18? Why did Douglas
discontinue the DC-3 in favor of the tri-gear DC-4?
Were all the people flying these airplanes just not flying
enough to maintain proficiency? Do airline pilots, who fly
all the time and have to take checkrides every year, not
fly enough to maintain proficiency? Are they careless or
incompetent? Then why hasn't a tailwheel prop airliner or
corporate aircraft been built in decades?
Michael
Rick Macklem
: highflyer <high...@alt.net> wrote
: > Pure unadulterated bullshit here. Now only was I landing on paved
: > runways with 25 know gusty crosswinds with less than 20 hours total
: > flying time, all of it in small taildraggers, but so was every OTHER
: > student pilot I knew. It just isn't any big deal.
: Then why is it that even at the best of schools I see today, when these
: are the prevailing conditions all the taildraggers are on the ground? Why
: do all the taildragger pilots only visit my home field when the winds are
: right? Why do most of the people who decide to base taildraggers there
: quickly move? Are they all incompetent tailwheel pilots?
Well Michael, I have to commend your tenacity. Anyhow, I'll dare to agree
with some of your points, sort of...
Whether or not tailwheel airplanes can handle winds as strong as tricycle
gear, I think there is truth in the statement that, these days, schools
that use tailwheel aircraft as trainers will probably be conservative w.r.t.
wind limits. (It might be just paranoia or concerns over high insurance
rates or... but I think it will often be the case?) For the person
considering training on a taildragger, that might imply that they will be
stuck on the ground on nice but windy days, when others get to go flying.
I will also note that lumping all taildraggers to-gether is a bit foolish.
(For example, I'm not comfortable taxiing a J3 in 25knot winds but I'd
take a Pitts out on a day when all the Cessnas are safely nestled in their
hangers. btw, I find landing a J3 in strong winds ok, it's taxiing it once
on the ground that scares me.:-)
The only other thing I'll toss into the discussion is a comment made by
a guy who has given more than 10,000hrs of dual in taildraggers when asked
"How long will a tailwheel checkout take?". His response was, "In my
experience, the more Cessna time you have, the longer it takes".
This comment suggests that, if you are interested in taildraggers, either
doing your ab initio training or a checkout right after finishing your
license in a taildragger, might be a good idea.
Interesting discussion, please battle on, rick
Michael
> Well Michael, I have to commend your tenacity.
I have my reasons. I've found the exchange educational.
> For the person
> considering training on a taildragger, that might imply that they will be
> stuck on the ground on nice but windy days, when others get to go flying.
Ah, so I'm not the only one to notice this effect... You know, the
effect is real. Whether the cause is that the taildragger can't handle
the winds without inordinate pilot skill or that today's taildragger pilot
(myself included) simply doesn't know how is open to debate - I've
heard some very experienced taildragger pilots argue both sides of
it. But I think that given the flying people do, training in high winds
will be of greater use than training in a taildragger.
> I will also note that lumping all taildraggers to-gether is a bit foolish.
Of course it is. Just as lumping all trikes together is foolish. They
don't
all fly and land the same. But we're talking primary trainers here. I'm
sure a DC-3 can take more crosswind that a Cessna 150 but what the
hell does that prove?
> For example, I'm not comfortable taxiing a J3 in 25knot winds but I'd
> take a Pitts out on a day when all the Cessnas are safely nestled in
their
> hangers.
You know, there's a big aerobatic school/FBO at LaPorte, TX. Lots of
Pittses live out there, both rentals and personal aircraft. On nice days
when the winds are not too bad, you can see them all out in the skies to
play. When it gets windy (and mind you, LaPorte has big wide runways
without obstructions) they all go hide in the hangars. It gets a bit
windier
and the Decathlons and Citabrias are grounded too. I've owned my
TriPacer three years and have NEVER grounded myself for excessive
winds, nor have I ever felt like I bit off more crosswind that I could chew.
Maybe you're a very unusual Pitts pilot. I know that I'll soon be helping
repair a Starduster wing that a very experienced biplane ferry pilot
scraped on a runway while trying to land in 20 kt winds. Good thing
it's an experimental, or the owher might be looking at some real money.
> The only other thing I'll toss into the discussion is a comment made by
> a guy who has given more than 10,000hrs of dual in taildraggers when asked
> "How long will a tailwheel checkout take?". His response was, "In my
> experience, the more Cessna time you have, the longer it takes".
Well, I don't have that much Cessna time. Less than 150 hrs at the outside.
Maybe that made my transition easier?
Michael
BARR DOUG
Michael sees his taildragger and raises him a glider.
We're all waiting with baited breath to see who bets what next.
In article <lXSx4.1345$624.1...@news.flash.net>,
Michael <cre...@flash.net> wrote:
>highflyer <high...@alt.net> wrote
>> Pure unadulterated bullshit here. Now only was I landing on paved
>> runways with 25 know gusty crosswinds with less than 20 hours total
>> flying time, all of it in small taildraggers, but so was every OTHER
>> student pilot I knew. It just isn't any big deal.
>
>Then why is it that even at the best of schools I see today, when these
>are the prevailing conditions all the taildraggers are on the ground? Why
>do all the taildragger pilots only visit my home field when the winds are
>right? Why do most of the people who decide to base taildraggers there
>quickly move? Are they all incompetent tailwheel pilots?
>
972
wrote:
hell, but very utilitarian and tough. Surprisingly they can fly really
slowly; when you look at them they aren't anything special except for
the unusually thick wing with marked dihedral, on the outer panels
only. Getting a bit dated now. Until about a month ago there was one
parked outside my hangar, the last of six from a cropduster who sold
up. I'll have a look to see if I have any photos. There's also an
AgCat parked a bit further down and a few Dromaders at a council strip
about 20k away.
The big-money professionals working the cotton fields up north are
using Thrushes and Texas Taildraggers.
972.
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
Craig Sims
>
I once saw an flat-black painted OV-10 with a spray system on it at Austin
Mueller (AUS). Asked the pilot what it was for and he started mumbling.
"...mumble, mumble, herbicide, mumble, mumble, Central America, mumble..."
Interesting looking bird, to say the least.
Craig (who didn't ask too many more questions)
John
>"...mumble, mumble, herbicide, mumble, mumble, Central America,
mumble..."
Paraquat on the coca fields, I'd wager. JG
John
Dylan Smith
> Taildragging, I've noticed, is almost a religion. The people who
> believe in it believe in it fervently, and facts will not sway them.
I think I know why.
Landing a C150 in a 15G25 crosswind is like kissing your sister. Landing a
C140 (or a C170 for more fun) is better than..err...well, this is a family
newsgroup!
Training with a nosewheel is all very well. My instructor taught me all
about positioning the controls, how to do a crosswind landing, and all about
flying it till you tie it in a C172. I followed his advice. But in a C172,
you're just going through the motions, because let's face it, a C172 almost
lands itself. Cessna didn't call it Land-o-Matic gear for no reason (I saw
the adverts for the then new C150 in an old copy of 'Flying' someone had at
the airport). When I got in the C170, I found I knew what I had to do with
the controls, but I didn't really know the magnitude. The 170 taught me the
magnitude. I'm sure it's made me better in the C172 as a consequence. (Put
it this way, I pulled off a really nice full stall landing in the C172 the
other day, and I hadn't flown it for months...I even had two witnesses on
board!)
Even if the original poster never flies a tailwheel aircraft once his
initial training is over, he will know something on a deep, subconscious
level that his nosedragger compatriots have only heard about.
I don't think it's necessarily that new instructors are worse, per se, than
the ones in the early days. I think a lot of that is the good 'ol "they
don't make cars like they used to" syndrome. (I'm damned glad they don't
make cars like they used to - I'd take my '95 Ford truck over that '57
Chevrolet any day). I'm sure there were plenty of low hours instructors
around 40 years ago. Just as today, back then it was probably better to
learn with a crusty old instructor. I learned with a crusty old instructor
myself - but in a C172 (but our club didn't have a tailwheel plane at the
time).
That notwithstanding, if the instructor has never flown a tailwheel plane
they can teach the correct use of the controls all they want - but they
don't actually KNOW the effects on a subconscious level - they have never
observed them! They don't even KNOW they are sloppy because of that - the
plane doesn't provide that feedback. You can grossly misposition the
controls when on the ground in a nosedragger and be none the wiser. I think
that's what makes a taildragger a better primary trainer even if you never
fly one ever again afterwards - it teaches you something on a visceral level
you CANNOT ever get if you never fly a tailwheel plane.
Well, that's been my experience anyway!
Morris Bernstein
>Is it better to jump in at the deep end and do my PPL on a taildragger, or
>stick with the C152 and possibly do a tailwheel conversion at a later date?
That's a personal decision, one size does not fit all.
I went the usual route, learning on trikes, then getting a tailwheel
endorsement. Big problem with learning on the tail wheel is that
there aren't a lot of people doing primary instruction on them.
If I could do it over again, I'd prefer to learn on the tailwheel
first. Might be harder to get the hang of it, but you learn the good
habits from the beginning. Transitioning to the trike is practically
a no-brainer. Going the other way is hard(er).
I learned to drive on a manual transmission, then easily transitioned
to an automatic. My Highly Significant Other learned on an automatic,
and had great difficulty learning to use the clutch. It was like
learning to drive all over again for her (I taught her and we're still
together, so it must be True Love). That'd be the closest analogy I
can think of.
>Thanks, and sorry for so many questions I've been posting recently.
Hey, that's what we're here for.
Morris
--
When all other means of communication fail, try words.
Dylan Smith
> The only other thing I'll toss into the discussion is a comment made by
> a guy who has given more than 10,000hrs of dual in taildraggers when asked
> "How long will a tailwheel checkout take?". His response was, "In my
> experience, the more Cessna time you have, the longer it takes".
ROTFL!
Cessna made taildraggers too. Cessna taildraggers are the only taildraggers
I've flown so far. I have about 80 tailwheel hours divided between the C170
and the C140.
Dylan Smith
> Dylan Smith <usenet...@alioth.net> wrote
> > Personally, I would fly my C140 any day I'd fly a C150...
> > However, I agree entirely with Michael that nosedraggers are much easier
> to
> > land on a squirrely, crosswind gusty day.
>
> So which is it? They're much easier to land but you'd still use the same
> wind/runway limits for both? That hardly sounds sensible.
That's because I think I can safely land both in the same conditions. I also
have more time in Cessna 140's than Cessna 150's. The Cessna 140 tends to
stay down when it's done flying also (which makes it much easier to land
than the 170) However, the roll out probably will be a lot less legwork in
the C150. I usually don't use the same runway conditions - at SPX, I'd land
the 150 on the pavement always. However, the grass between the runway and
taxiway at the 31 end has been serving well as an unofficial taildragger
strip when the wind gets up. It's wider than the actual runway, and as you
know it's ten times easier to land a tailwheel aircraft on grass when it
gets squirrely.
The one nice thing I've noticed about our C140 is that we aren't getting
nearly as many propellor nicks as the club's C150 (our prop still looks
brand new) - I suspect this is a function of having a good amount of prop
clearance!
AlexY
>I learned to drive on a manual transmission, then easily transitioned
>to an automatic.
> That'd be the closest analogy I
>can think of.
You know, following this thread, I have been thinking about the same
analogy. I love driving a manual transmission car -- more involvement
and control in the process. On the other hand, it is an anachronism
for most modern cars. Most of the traditional advantages of a manual
transmission for everyday use are no longer true. The automatic can be
just as efficient, and while a manual and handbrake are much better
for control on snow and ice, even that advantage is going away with
traction control.
All of that said, my main dislike of my current car is that it is an
automatic. Why? (1) I like the involvement and decision-making
inherent in a manual. (2) There is a little bit of Luddite in me (same
reason I enjoy using hand woodworking tools for some operations even
when a machine may do a better job).
I wonder if the same reasons apply for pilots who prefer tail
draggers.
--
Alex
Transpose first two letters of return address to reply by email.
Rick Macklem
: You know, there's a big aerobatic school/FBO at LaPorte, TX. Lots of
: Pittses live out there, both rentals and personal aircraft. On nice days
: when the winds are not too bad, you can see them all out in the skies to
: play. When it gets windy (and mind you, LaPorte has big wide runways
: without obstructions) they all go hide in the hangars. It gets a bit
: windier
: and the Decathlons and Citabrias are grounded too. I've owned my
: TriPacer three years and have NEVER grounded myself for excessive
: winds, nor have I ever felt like I bit off more crosswind that I could chew.
That's very weird. Admittedly, I found you got rusty enough in the Pitts,
that you had to watch it, even after a couple of weeks without a landing,
which might explain it.
But the Pitts is a wonderful airplane to land in a stong wind. I found
the worst wind to land a Pitts in was no wind at all. That's when it
touches down three point just wizzing along on its little wheels and is
outrageously sensitive until it slows down. Now, winds at 90 degrees I
could understand being a problem, but a stong wind 45 degrees off the
runway works fine. (It reduces the touchdown speed, so that that first
few seconds of high speed rollout is avoided and you can put those little
wings "way down into wind".)
I think they might need a really experienced Pitts instructor to help them
out. (The one around here that took me up dual when the tower was reporting
the winds 50 degrees off the runway gusting to 46knots has over 7,000 hours
of dual given in his S2A. At the time I had six hours in a Pitts and about
150hrs total time. The result wasn't exactly pretty, but I learned a lot that
hour:-)
But I do have trouble imagining a student soloing a Cub or Champ when the
winds are up much past 15knots (flame suit on).
Good luck with the debate, rick
David B. Schober
the ground, we'll still be towing gliders with the PA-18 and PA-20 or I'll be
giving rides in the Howard. Go figure!
Michael wrote:
> Rick Macklem <rmac...@uoguelph.ca> wrote
> > Well Michael, I have to commend your tenacity.
>
> I have my reasons. I've found the exchange educational.
>
> > For the person
> > considering training on a taildragger, that might imply that they will be
> > stuck on the ground on nice but windy days, when others get to go flying.
>
> Ah, so I'm not the only one to notice this effect... You know, the
> effect is real. Whether the cause is that the taildragger can't handle
> the winds without inordinate pilot skill or that today's taildragger pilot
> (myself included) simply doesn't know how is open to debate - I've
> heard some very experienced taildragger pilots argue both sides of
> it. But I think that given the flying people do, training in high winds
> will be of greater use than training in a taildragger.
>
> > I will also note that lumping all taildraggers to-gether is a bit foolish.
>
> Of course it is. Just as lumping all trikes together is foolish. They
> don't
> all fly and land the same. But we're talking primary trainers here. I'm
> sure a DC-3 can take more crosswind that a Cessna 150 but what the
> hell does that prove?
>
> > For example, I'm not comfortable taxiing a J3 in 25knot winds but I'd
> > take a Pitts out on a day when all the Cessnas are safely nestled in
> their
> > hangers.
>
> You know, there's a big aerobatic school/FBO at LaPorte, TX. Lots of
> Pittses live out there, both rentals and personal aircraft. On nice days
> when the winds are not too bad, you can see them all out in the skies to
> play. When it gets windy (and mind you, LaPorte has big wide runways
> without obstructions) they all go hide in the hangars. It gets a bit
> windier
> and the Decathlons and Citabrias are grounded too. I've owned my
> TriPacer three years and have NEVER grounded myself for excessive
> winds, nor have I ever felt like I bit off more crosswind that I could chew.
>
> Maybe you're a very unusual Pitts pilot. I know that I'll soon be helping
> repair a Starduster wing that a very experienced biplane ferry pilot
> scraped on a runway while trying to land in 20 kt winds. Good thing
> it's an experimental, or the owher might be looking at some real money.
>
> > The only other thing I'll toss into the discussion is a comment made by
> > a guy who has given more than 10,000hrs of dual in taildraggers when asked
> > "How long will a tailwheel checkout take?". His response was, "In my
> > experience, the more Cessna time you have, the longer it takes".
>
> Well, I don't have that much Cessna time. Less than 150 hrs at the outside.
> Maybe that made my transition easier?
>
> Michael
--
*****************************************************************************
David B.Schober, CPE
Instructor, Aviation Maintenance
Fairmont State College
National Aerospace Education Center
1050 East Benedum Industrial Drive
Bridgeport, WV 26330-9503
(304) 842-8300
When once you have tasted flight, you will always walk with your eyes
turned skyward, for there you have been and there you will always be.
--Leonardo da Vinci
Michael
> I think they might need a really experienced Pitts instructor to help them
> out.
The FBO is Harvey&Rhin. Somehow I have a feeling there are some
very experienced Pitts instructors there. I've heard some very experienced
instructors with lots of Pitts time say that 10 kts is about all the
crosswind
component you ever want to take in a biplane. Obviously your opinion
differs.
> But I do have trouble imagining a student soloing a Cub or Champ when the
> winds are up much past 15knots (flame suit on).
When I did my tailwheel transition, we took the Champ out on a day when the
winds were 15+ kts, all cross, and gusty - on a narrow but grass runway.
My instructor told me up front it was probably a lousy day for it, what with
my 3 hours tailwheel time, but he was willing to give it a go if I was.
We spent over an hour doing nothing but landings. As long as I was in
the air, everything was fine. Every moment I spent on the ground I felt
like we were at the edge of disaster. Often we would land with
nearly full rudder, and just as often I would need to use differential
braking to stay on the runway. I was working so hard I didn't even
notice that the instructor wasn't saying anything. Eventually, in the air
(I certainly couldn't divert enough attention on the ground) I asked him
why. He told me that he didn't feel like he had anything to add, that I
was doing as well as the conditions allowed, and that were it not for the
insurance requirement (5 hours tailwheel) he'd let me solo it now.
I think that day crystallized my feelings about tailwheel flying.
I was a novice at tailwheel flying, yet I really had all the skills I
needed -
learned in hundreds of hours of tri-gear flying - to do as well as the
conditions would allow. I wasn't even really doing anything new - I
was just doing more of it, to tighter tolerances. The level of effort
and attention my TriPacer demanded only in the flare and touchdown,
the Champ demanded every moment we moved on the ground. I
felt like I was constantly on the edge of disaster - and my (very
experienced) instructor felt I was doing just fine.
Michael
ShawnD2112
I think you've got part of it right. The involvement is different and, I
find, more gratifying, and, as has been said before many times in this
thread, more fun.
By the way, standard transmissions only seem to be things of the past in the
US. Most of the rest of the world is predominantly standard. In fact, it's
kinda tough to find an automatic here in the UK just like it's kinda tough
to find a stick in the US.
Shawn
AlexY wrote in message ...
ShawnD2112
Thank you! You've been able to put into words what I've been trying
unsuccefully to. You've got it in one, there, I think.
Shawn
Dylan Smith wrote in message <8aavkr$8kc$1...@ausnews.austin.ibm.com>...
--
Ditch
>instructors with lots of Pitts time say that 10 kts is about all the
>crosswind
>component you ever want to take in a biplane.
I'm an experienced Pitts instructor and I disagree with that. The Pitts is a
wonderful machine when the wind is blowing. I've landed it in 20 kt crosswinds
without so much as batting an eyelash. It's no wind in the Pitts that will get
you...
-John
*You are nothing until you have flown a Douglas, Lockheed or North American...*
Michael
> I'm an experienced Pitts instructor and I disagree with that. The Pitts is
a
> wonderful machine when the wind is blowing. I've landed it in 20 kt
crosswinds
> without so much as batting an eyelash. It's no wind in the Pitts that will
get
> you...
You know, one of the really interesting things about some facets of
aviation is the amount of disagreement that can exist between
very experienced people on some very concrete things. It's one
thing to be disagreeing about how lift works - is there suction on
the top wing, or is the air pushed downwards, or whatever -
because in the long run it just doesn't matter that much for actually
flying airplanes. But here are just a few of the opinions, all expressed
by some very experienced people, that I've collected.
25 kts is too much wind for a Champ or Cub - even an expert
is taking a terrible risk.
It's too much wind for a C-150 too - you'll flip it over.
It's no big deal for a 20-hr student in a Champ or Cub.
It's way too much for a Pitts or similar biplane.
It's better than no wind for a Pitts or similar biplane.
A trike can take more crosswind than an equivalent tailwheel.
A tailwheel can take more crosswind than an equivalent trike.
A tailwheel is a superior off-field aircraft, and a necessity some places.
A tailwheel is not necessary for any flying in the lower 48.
It's not necessary in Alaska either.
Every one of these statements I've heard come from a very
experienced tailwheel pilot - either here or in person. WHY?
Clearly they can't all be right.
Where I haven't seen one of the above posted here, I've
added it to the mix myself. The reactions were interesting.
What it all means I don't know - but one thing I'm certain
of. I have yet to get an explanation that makes sense and
covers all the observed facts from ANYONE, myself
included. So I think it's time to start getting past all the
talk, and look at how the airplanes are actually being
used.
I'm not really interested in debating the people whose sole
argument is that taildraggers are more fun to fly, which really
means more fun to land. If taking off and landing is what
flying is about for you, and if you're spending a big chunk
of your flying time taking off and landing, that's cool - maybe
you should have a tailwheel. What I'm interested in is hearing
from people who actually go somewhere in their airplanes -
not local hops for hundred dollar hamburgers and the
occasional jaunt on no particular schedule, but people
who actually use their planes to go somewhere they want
to get to, when they want to get there - business trips,
transportation to places you want to get to, etc. I'm interested
in hearing from any such people who selected a taildragger
for that purpose, and the reasons behind that. See, if you're
not really going anywhere in particular on any particular
schedule, you have a lot of latitude about what sort of
conditions you will land in. You can decide to change
your destination to someplace with a wider runway, fewer
obstructions, grass instead of (or in addition to) pavement.
Thus all the talk about the equal (or greater) flexibility of
the taildragger can be just... talk. People who have a real
need to be at a specific place at a specific time don't have
that luxury. I'm interested in hearing from at least one
person who operates an airplane that way who chose a
taildragger for that equal (or greater) flexibility.
Michael
Dave Stadt
Michael wrote in message ...
Kinda sad you think going from point A to point B is the only type of flying
that counts. Many of us consider flying and not having to go anywhere in
particular "real" flying. What you are talking about is simply
transportation. Yuck, how horrible!
Bottom line is in the hands of an accomplished pilot a Cessna 180 will get
in and out of more places under more difficult weather conditions than will
a 182. Same with a Cessna 140 compared to a 150. Same for any two
comparable airplanes who differ only in where the small wheel is located.
Yes, each has strong and weak points but the overall results remain the
same. If you only transport into and out of long wide paved runways stick
with your land-o-matic. We won't know you are around because we will be at
some grass strip having breakfast.
AlexY
>People who have a real
>need to be at a specific place at a specific time don't have
>that luxury. I'm interested in hearing from at least one
>person who operates an airplane that way who chose a
>taildragger for that equal (or greater) flexibility.
Or for that matter, anyone in that category who chose a light single
with the small wheel at either end rather than flying commercial.
AlexY
>By the way, standard transmissions only seem to be things of the past in the
>US. Most of the rest of the world is predominantly standard.
Yeah, I don't know where car makers got the idea that all Americans
have their left leg amputated once they make enough money to buy a
$30,000 car.
Cub driver
>airplane, Terri pointed out that when it's pitched up onto the
>mainmounts, the propellor tips are only twenty-two inches off the
>runway. That was extremely impressive to me: the picture of a prop
>strike was horrifying to me (and still is), and I handle that first
>move very gingerly.
My first wheel landing in a J-3 was so firm (I was determined not to
bounce) that the bungee cords stretched out and there was a distinct
whump! I asked the instructor if I should taxi up to the pump and
check the gear for damage. He said no, I'll take it around and you
follow me on the controls. Which he did, and I did. But when I then
taxied up to the pump and shut down, behold! there was a droop at the
end of each blade. That was a $2,200 mishap, tho neither of us had
noticed any vibration or degradation of performance on the trip around
the pattern.
Actually, I think most of the advice was wrong. I trained in the Cub
and loved it so much that I got a recreational license so I wouldn't
have to leave it for the aluminum can. But I think for somebody
interested in doing more than farting about the countryside ought to
train in a trike and get on with life. (I'm 68; I don't have to worry
about that.) The Super Cub I suppose is an excellent aircraft, but
it's a 1950s airplane. The world is set up for trikes. You might as
well learn on one.
all the best - Dan Ford
Warbirds (remembering the planes and bloody politics of
World War II and the Cold War) http://danford.net/warbirds.htm
Billy Beck
cubd...@britannica.com (Cub driver) wrote:
>Actually, I think most of the advice was wrong. I trained in the Cub
>and loved it so much that I got a recreational license so I wouldn't
>have to leave it for the aluminum can. But I think for somebody
>interested in doing more than farting about the countryside ought to
>train in a trike and get on with life. (I'm 68; I don't have to worry
>about that.) The Super Cub I suppose is an excellent aircraft, but
>it's a 1950s airplane. The world is set up for trikes. You might as
>well learn on one.
I disagree, for all the stated reasons having to do with grasping
fundamentals.
It's easy enough to take that bag of skills and then go fly a
nosepusher.
Billy
VRWC Fronteer
http://www.mindspring.com/~wjb3/promise.html