The real poop on ground loops?
Gordon Hanka
I am a new pilot and am buying a plane for IFR training. I have decided
that a plane must be, above all else, exciting. In my price range (low)
that seems to mean a tail dragger. My question: How common are ground
loops, really? Does anyone have any hard numbers?
In leiu of accident rates, does anyone know the difference in in-flight hull
insurance rates for the conventional and tricycle versions of a plane like
the RV or Yankee that comes in both flavors?
gordon
TJO87
>that a plane must be, above all else, exciting. In my price range (low)
>that seems to mean a tail dragger.
If you want IFR training, you might want to consider an older (1960's) Cessna
150 or 152. This is not terribly exciting, but it IS reliable, inexpensive, and
good for IFR training. If excitment is what you are craving, check out the
modified version of the Cessna 172 called the "Aerobat", basically a souped up
172 with a tail wheel and aerobatic capablilities. It is fast, maneuverable,
and would be just fine for IFR training. Unfortuantley, the Aerobat may run at
a higher price.
Bob Moore
>If you want IFR training, you might want to consider an older (1960's) Cessna
>150 or 152. This is not terribly exciting, but it IS reliable, inexpensive, and
>good for IFR training. If excitment is what you are craving, check out the
>modified version of the Cessna 172 called the "Aerobat", basically a souped up
>172 with a tail wheel and aerobatic capablilities. It is fast, maneuverable,
>and would be just fine for IFR training. Unfortuantley, the Aerobat may run at
>a higher price.
Say What!!!!!!!!!!! Aerobats were C-152s.
Bob Moore
ATP, CFIA CFII
Joe Norris
> My question: How common are ground loops, really?
Ground loops are not common at all, *IF* the pilot is properly educated,
trained, and is paying attention. Ground looping is a pilot problem rather
than an airplane problem.
That being said, there have been enough cases of pilots not paying the
proper amount of attention that insurance rates are effected. However,
there are so many variables in insurance rates (pilot experience and
proficiency, aircraft type, where it's based and flown) that it's very hard
to quote firm numbers.
Bottom line: Don't be afraid of a taildragger. Learning to fly one is a
great experience. But don't forget to give the plane the proper amount of
respect either. They WILL bite the complacent pilot!
Joe Norris
TJO87
You are absolutley right I miss-typed!
-Jonathan
Gordon Hanka
piloting can tell that THIS STATEMENT IS COMPLETELY IDIOTIC! I have flown
an aerobat, and it is the opposite of fast, maneuverable, and exciting. It
is also the opposite of a tail dragger (a tail pusher?) as it has a tricycle
gear, and it is not a 172. However, you are certainly correct that it is a
Cessna.
I guess the primary appeal of a tail dragger is that it is frowned on by the
people who tell me to get married, have kids, cut back on sodium, say no to
drugs, pay my taxes, do my homework, and avoid any activity that might
transform my life into something besides a waking nightmare of endless
living death in meek servitude to the tyrant nannies who dream of stifling
every form of excitement.
But I digress. A ground loop would be embarassing, and I would like to know
how hard I would have to work to avoid one.
"TJO87" <tj...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010105190637...@ng-mi1.aol.com...
Stan Prevost
"Gordon Hanka" <gha...@home.com> wrote in message
news:5bt56.190512$j6.23...@news1.rdc1.va.home.com...
> Hi all..
>
> I am a new pilot and am buying a plane for IFR training. I have decided
> that a plane must be, above all else, exciting.
If exciting is what you are looking for, forget IFR training. You will have
a waking nightmare of endless straight and level, climbs, turns, climbing
turns, holds, constant rate and constant speed descents, course intercepts,
and so on, in meek servitude to the tyrant called "accomplishment" and
"perfection" and the "designated pilot examiner". Did I say meek? Let me
add "humbling". And an "exciting" airplane isn't going to help. In fact,
that's exactly what you don't want when things get tough in IMC. When the
going gets tough, you will be be happy to "stifle every form of excitement"
you can possibly manage to.
adam cope
You don't have to be afraid of ground loops. You don't have to do anything
different in a tail dragger that you shouldn't already be doing in the trike.
It's just that in the trike you can give up 5 feet above the ground and probably
be ok. You need to fly the tail dragger until it is tied down. Just keep the
longitudinal axis going in the same direction as your flight path and you'll be
just fine. You shouldn't be landing with a side load in any aircraft.
The only other time you have to worry is in that transition phase of a wheel
landing. Before the tail wheel hits the ground but the speed has slowed to
where the rudder is losing authority. At this point, if you catch a gust the
plane will try to weather vein. Brakes will help, and power is your biggest
asset. Be ready for the go around and lose any get downitis you may have
developed.
As with any airplane, just know your limit and don't push it. Start on calm
days, then push it a few knots here and there until you are nice and comfy.
Don't rush. And if you get any little feeling like you shouldn't fly then
don't.
good luck
adam
--
Adam Cope
http://dcaerobatics.com
Pete Zaitcev
> I am a new pilot and am buying a plane for IFR training. I have decided
> that a plane must be, above all else, exciting. [...]
I prescribe reading of works by Richard L. Collins before bed
every night for 20 minutes.
-- Pete
Tom
"Gordon Hanka" <gha...@home.com> wrote in message news:HPt56.190601$> But I
digress. A ground loop would be embarassing, and I would like to know how
hard I would have to work to avoid one.
>
ground loop. End of story. The only difference between landing a
tailwheel and a tricycle aircraft is a tailwheel is far less forgiving of
mistakes.
2. Call around for insurance quotes. You will, I believe, pay far more for
insurance on a tailwheel then a similar tricycle aircraft. That's because
everyone makes mistakes and ground loops can be expensive to repair.....
Regards,
Tom
Stan Prevost
"Pete Zaitcev" <zai...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:slrn95cc0l....@js006.zaitcev.lan...
Or watching his video tapes...
Now, there's exciting!
Or maybe reading the FAA's Instrument Flying Handbook. But that might be
overstimulating.
HECTOP
news:Iku56.140184$iy3.31...@news1.rdc1.tn.home.com...
> If exciting is what you are looking for, forget IFR training. You will
have
> a waking nightmare of endless straight and level, climbs, turns, climbing
> turns, holds, constant rate and constant speed descents, course
intercepts,
I dunno maybe it's my previous training years ago in an instruments only
sim, or being a computer professional I'm used to staring at all kinds of
dials and screens for hours, but I find all of the above apesh*t exciting,
as opposed to VFR cross-countries that got dull fairly quick, prompting my
escape into the goggles.
HECTOP
RT
Tom <flyb...@hotrmail.com> wrote in message
news:dtu56.1962$Ps.8...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
Especially if it's a trike :-)
rm...@my-deja.com
would be a good family travel plane and something fun.
I ended up buying a Mooney and renting a Cub (I got my private
in a Cessna 140).
Ground loops are actually very common, usually amoung lower time
pilots. I'm happy I have my 100 hours tailwheel now because that's
kind of the top of the curve.
Most FBOs with tailwheels seem to average a ground loop every 5 to
10 years per plane.
However, all tailwheels are different. Landing the Cub is nothing
like landing the Swift, which is nothing like landing the Aeronca.
Some of these are hard to wheel land and easy to 3 pt, others are
hard to 3ptr and easy to wheel land.
Some tailwheel planes require little more than Cessna 150 skills, some
require some really fast foot work.
A Cessna 170 might fit your bill. Lots of them are IFR, they are 4 place
and *EVERY* back country and big city mechanic knows how to work on
the Cessna 170/172.
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
flyi...@my-deja.com
"Gordon Hanka" <gha...@home.com> wrote:
> Hi all..
>
> I am a new pilot and am buying a plane for IFR training. I have
decided
> that a plane must be, above all else, exciting. In my price range
(low)
> that seems to mean a tail dragger. My question: How common are
ground
> loops, really? Does anyone have any hard numbers?
Hi Gordon
Most common tail draggers are not good IFR trainers. Reason being most
are tandem. That means the front of the cockpit has to be covered up or
visibility restricted for your instructor. Not a good thing! The older
ones with side by side seats don't have very modern avionics or
instruments which can be a real hindrance. However, I recall doing
intersection holds using the old VHT-3 "Coffee Grinder" vhf radio and
the greatest improvement was whistle stop tuning!
Keep in mind the resale value of any aircraft you buy. Most have
appreciated. The Citabria I owned (7ECA) back in the late 60's is about
triple the price I paid for it back then!!
You should be able to buy a reasonable C-150/2, or a Cherokee 140 for
your IFR work at near the same price of a reasonable tail dragger.
As for ground loops, one said it is more of a pilot problem than
aircraft and he was correct. I have to guess that I have something like
10,000 hrs in tail wheeled planes and have only had one ground loop as
a result of a mechanical problem. I have done some intentional ground
loops at low speed when running out of allowable runway.
It is a matter of proper training and practice. With over 35 years of
crop dusting and instructing, there is no way I can estimate how many
landings I have made under some difficult conditions all over the
world.
May be a better option to just rent for your instruction unless you
absolutely HAVE to own your own airplane. This is a good forum to get
some advice worth considering. Good luck with your choices.
FlyinRock aka Ol Shy & Bashful
>
> In leiu of accident rates, does anyone know the difference in in-
flight hull
> insurance rates for the conventional and tricycle versions of a plane
like
> the RV or Yankee that comes in both flavors?
>
> gordon
>
>
Jerry Kurata
sleep with Richad Collins" t-shirts at Oshkosh.
"Stan Prevost" <spre...@home.com> wrote in message
news:hzu56.140191$iy3.31...@news1.rdc1.tn.home.com...
wdcjN...@qwest.net
If you are used to toe brakes, DO NOT FLY A TAILDRAGGER WITH HEEL BRAKES!
Heel brakes suck big time. My fat left foot managed to depress the left heel
brake on roll-out after a decent landing, and while at a speed of less that 30
mph, the Super Cub ground looped to the left. Full right rudder and right
brake was applied, but not soon enough.
stuart
those who are about to.news:5bt56.190512$j6.23...@news1.rdc1.va.home.com...
Dan Luke
> I dunno maybe it's my previous training years ago in an instruments only
> sim, or being a computer professional I'm used to staring at all kinds of
> dials and screens for hours, but I find all of the above apesh*t
You might be an exception, Hec', but how long have you been at it?.
The first few lessons *are* interesting. But when I finally got my instr.
rating, it felt like getting out of jail to me, partly because I had more
freedom in my flying but mostly because I was through wearing the gd foggles
EVERY FREAKIN' WEEKEND.
My buddy in Houston is nearing the end - of his instr. training, his
patience and his money. He and I would agree with the "waking nightmare"
impression of training for the rating.
Dan
N9387D at BFM
WIACapt
>Say What!!!!!!!!!!! Aerobats were C-152s.
>
The first Aerobats were 150's
Craig Prouse
> Please don't take this the wrong way, but even I with my limited hours of
> piloting can tell that THIS STATEMENT IS COMPLETELY IDIOTIC!
Like buying an exciting tailwheel airplane for as little money as possible
and engineering an STC to convert it to a bubble canopy so that you have
something to fly IFR? ;-)
Not idiotic perhaps, but maybe a little schizo. :-)
When you figure out what you really want, I'll be over in
rec.aviation.owning and you can tell me what you finally ended up with.
Everything in aviation is a compromise, and I really am curious how you
choose to resolve these conflicting ideas.
Gordon Hanka
I have learned and inferred:
(1) If you fly correctly, you will not ground loop.
(2) Flying correctly all the time is so much work that nobody does it.
(3) IFR training is boring.
(4) Without IFR rating, one does not often fly in Pennsylvania.
(5) While in actual IMC, boring might be nice.
Implication: Ground loops will continue.
Implication: Real men buy tail draggers, and if they live they have better
stories to tell.
On a related note, why can ground loops not be prevented, or at least
discouraged, by the simple expedient of limiting the castering of the tail
wheel, and/or allowing slight castering of the main gear? I have heard
rumors of such gear, but I have never seen it implemented.
BARR DOUG
But... if you get a GOOD checkout, and that means crosswind landing
practice also, stay CURRENT, and are careful, they need never
happen. It took me 15-20 hours of practice to get solo proficient
in a taildragger, and about 100 hours to get comfortable. At about
250 hours things seem normal, but it is NEVER as relaxing and
casual as landing a nosewheel. You can never relax in a taildragger,
on the ground. You need to find an instructor with time in the type,
not always easy to do.
In flight, it is very similar, the tailwheel does not affect the handling
at all.
Difficult landings are what makes tailwheels so much fun! It's like being
a green student again!
In article <5bt56.190512$j6.23...@news1.rdc1.va.home.com>,
Gordon Hanka <gha...@home.com> wrote:
Roger Hamlett
"Joe Norris" <jnorri...@tznet.com> wrote in message
news:mut56.11028$n5.2...@news6.giganews.com...
>
> > My question: How common are ground loops, really?
>
> Ground loops are not common at all, *IF* the pilot is properly educated,
> trained, and is paying attention. Ground looping is a pilot problem
rather
> than an airplane problem.
The problem is that the taildragger configuration is inherently unstable
when decelerating. Now while in 99% of cases, this can happily be
countered by a trained pilot, counteracting quickly, there are odd 'rare'
occasions, where physical conditions create a situation that is
'unavoidable'. An example would be landing in a thermic wind, and getting
a cross wind gust, just at the moment when rudder authority is at it's
minimum. Fortunately at these sort of speeds, and with most high wing
taildraggers, little if any damage will happen (except to the pilot's
pride...).
The situation was less of a problem, when runways were grass, and allways
'into wind'.
Now 95% of 'groundloops' are pilot induced, but the other kind can
happen!.
> That being said, there have been enough cases of pilots not paying the
> proper amount of attention that insurance rates are effected. However,
> there are so many variables in insurance rates (pilot experience and
> proficiency, aircraft type, where it's based and flown) that it's very
hard
> to quote firm numbers.
>
> Bottom line: Don't be afraid of a taildragger. Learning to fly one is a
> great experience. But don't forget to give the plane the proper amount
of
> respect either. They WILL bite the complacent pilot!
Yes.
Best Wishes
Cub driver
>I am a new pilot and am buying a plane for IFR training. I have decided
>that a plane must be, above all else, exciting. In my price range (low)
>that seems to mean a tail dragger. My question: How common are ground
>loops, really? Does anyone have any hard numbers?
I fly out of an airfield that uses two Cubs for training and where
other Cubs, a Taylorcraft, and an Aeronca are based, with other Cubs
flying in from time to time. (There was a ski-plane there yesterday.)
I have never seen or heard of an actual ground loop where the wingtip
touched the ground.
That said, when I was learning, I once got into an incipient ground
loop that the instructor had to correct. And over the past three years
two Cubs have been wrecked: one flipped onto its back when a student
applied brakes during a fast taxi; the other landed short on an early
solo flight (that one was repairable).
>In leiu of accident rates, does anyone know the difference in in-flight hull
>insurance rates for the conventional and tricycle versions of a plane like
>the RV or Yankee that comes in both flavors?
I rent. There is no difference on insurance in my case--the question
isn't asked.
The taildragger's bible is Harvey Plourde:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0963913700/annals
all the best - Dan Ford
Remains (a story of the Flying Tigers)
http://danford.net/remains.htm
Cub driver
>On a related note, why can ground loops not be prevented, or at least
>discouraged, by the simple expedient of limiting the castering of the tail
>wheel, and/or allowing slight castering of the main gear? I have heard
>rumors of such gear, but I have never seen it implemented.
I've never heard of such an approach, but I think it underestimates
centrifugal force. If the tail wheel didn't caster, the swing would
tear it off, I suspect.
Castering front gear used to be fairly common. It's called tundra
gear. From Harvey Plourde's description, it sounds awful. Here you
are, rolling down the runway for takeoff, with the a/c canted 10
degrees to the side ....
Cub driver
>I guess the primary appeal of a tail dragger is that it is frowned on by the
>people who tell me to get married, have kids, cut back on sodium, say no to
>drugs, pay my taxes, do my homework, and avoid any activity that might
>transform my life into something besides a waking nightmare of endless
>living death in meek servitude to the tyrant nannies who dream of stifling
>every form of excitement.
To me, the appeal is the J-3. It is sheer delight to fly, and it
happens to be a taildragger.
>But I digress. A ground loop would be embarassing, and I would like to know
>how hard I would have to work to avoid one.
A bad landing in a 172 is obvious only to someone watching closely. A
bad landing in a J-3 is obvious to the whole world, including the
pilot. Those rudder inputs are so necessary in a J-3 that you learn
very quickly. (I learned very slowly, but I think that's because of my
age and klutz factor.) You have to be good on takeoff also, so being
good on landing doesn't come as much of a shock.
Cub driver
>Having been in a ground loop in a Super Cub last year, I can offer this advice.
>If you are used to toe brakes, DO NOT FLY A TAILDRAGGER WITH HEEL BRAKES!
I fly a J-3, which has heel brakes. They seem normal to me. When I get
into a 172, the brakes are ridiculously wrong.
It's all in what you're used to.
Tom
"> Tom <flyb...@hotrmail.com> wrote in message
> news:dtu56.1962$Ps.8...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> > "Gordon Hanka" <gha...@home.com> wrote in message news:HPt56.190601$>
But
for
> > insurance on a tailwheel then a similar tricycle aircraft.
That'sbecause
> > everyone makes mistakes and ground loops can be expensive to repair.....
> Especially if it's a trike :-)
Ground looping a tricycle gear...now that's impressive! Even your run of
the mill lousy ham handed pilot can't ground loop a trike without trying!
HECTOP
news:e2w56.521$Df.2...@bgtnsc06-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> "HECTOP" wrote:
> You might be an exception, Hec', but how long have you been at it?.
twenty something hours into it and fairly complete ground study. But I'd say
on top of the things I've mentioned, reading adventure stories under a
blanket with a flashlight as a kid really must've helped too ;)
> EVERY FREAKIN' WEEKEND.
I try to fly at least twice a week, even three, but with the weather we're
having here lately, I'm lucky if getting to fly even once. I'm in the
goggles from 500' to 500' most of the time, and pretty busy to not even
notice the time pass (other than those timed segments, and partial panels
with no clock i.e one one-thousand, two one-thousand, three one-thousand
counted turns). But I paid my dues doing private, I had enough simulated
engine-outs over nowhere, diversions and trying to grasp the concept of
short/soft field landings as a student, that anything afterwards would be a
breeze.
Regards
HECTOP
RT
<rm...@my-deja.com> wrote in
> Ground loops are actually very common, usually amoung lower time
> pilots.
> 10 years per plane.
Hmmm. Once every 5 - 10 years = "very common"?
And the incidence of wheelbarrowing in a trike is?
HECTOP
news:937fl1$nne$1...@spider.cqu.edu.au...
> And the incidence of wheelbarrowing in a trike is?
Out of idle curiosity I was doing NTSB look-ups on all the 172's that I've
flown, an average 20 y.o rental Skyhawk had at least one firewall bent due
to "runway excursion", that covers a whole group of incidents. Of course
less damaging excursion probably do occur a lot more often and since they
don't result in property damage, they don't even get reported.
HECTOP
bruce...@my-deja.com
My two cents -- I flew hundreds of hours in
cubs, aeroncas, Stinsons, never came close to ground looping. Never
saw one, either. There were airplanes around that were reputed to be
prone to such things, namely Luscombs and Swifts, supposedly due to
narrow landing gear. I don't think that's anything to be concerned
about at all. Now finding one with reasonably modern IFR equipment,
that could be difficult. Bruce
Ditch
>happen!.
>
In 2000+ hours of tailwheel flying (Cubs, Citabrias, Pitts, Beech-18's, etc...)
I have had two groundloops. One was when I was a 10 hour tailwheel pilot (and
18 years old to boot) who thought I was skyking....I screwed up.
The 2nd one was in a Steen Skybolt when the right brake failed and the airplane
departed off the left side of the runway. About 100 feet beyond the edge of the
runway, the dirt was plowed. Rather than go into that and maybe on to my back,
I decided to suck the stick back as far as it would go and apply left rudder
and left brake. Did about 300 degrees in the loop and stopped. No damage to the
airplane. Ah....the fun never ends.
-John
*You are nothing until you have flown a Douglas, Lockheed, Grumman or North
American*
TJO87
Perhaps -- but you will sue be glad you have it when you have to fly an
approach into a busy airport at minimums with a 20 knot crosswind!
-Jonathan
Dan Luke
[snip]
>...(other than those timed segments, and partial panels
> with no clock i.e one one-thousand, two one-thousand, three one-thousand
> counted turns).
Ugh! I've really got to start sharpening up on this stuff again. Not so much
because I fear death; more because I fear what my instr. instructor will say
on my BFR in May if I hose up the partial panel workout.
>But I paid my dues doing private, I had enough simulated
> engine-outs over nowhere, diversions and trying to grasp the concept of
> short/soft field landings as a student, that anything afterwards would be
a
> breeze.
That's what I thought. Ha!
Hope yours goes easier than mine.
Dan
N9387D at BFM
HLAviation
>
>
I'll try again: Ithought they were 150s and nose draggers. You have to get a
tailwheel conversion.
HLAviation
>
>You are absolutley right I miss-typed!
>
I thought they were 150s
HLAviation
>discouraged, by the simple expedient of limiting the castering of the tail
>wheel, and/or allowing slight castering of the main gear? I have heard
>rumors of such gear, but I have never seen it implemented.
>
Locking tailwheels do help considerably as evident on the C 188 with and
without them. Castering mains were available on C-140s and 190/195s
HLAviation
>centrifugal force. If the tail wheel didn't caster, the swing would
>tear it off, I suspect.
>
Most larger tailwheel planes have locking tailwheels.
HLAviation
>how hard I would have to work to avoid one.
Keep your feet and brain working and you'll be fine.
Roy Smith, CFI
> Most larger tailwheel planes have locking tailwheels
Out of curiosity, what is the largest taildragger ever made? My first guess
would be the B-17, but that's just a wild guess.
Any taildragger jets?
--
Roy Smith, CFI-ASE-IA
stuart
"Roy Smith, CFI" <r...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:roy-2178CB.1...@news.panix.com...
HECTOP
guess
> would be the B-17, but that's just a wild guess.
While maybe not the biggest, but Tupolev's ANT-20 "Maksim Gorky" (
http://hep2.physics.arizona.edu/~savin/ram/ant-20.html ) was almost twice
bigger than a B-17, with 206 feet wingspan vs 104 feet. But if not Russian,
then Germans probably build a bigger monster in the late '30's as both had
serious megalomaniac flu at the time.
> Any taildragger jets?
Actually yes, imho there were a couple, first ones to come to mind are
German Me-163 "Komet" -
http://www.s-dn.de/blick/Flugzeuge/Me_163_g/me_163_g.html
Russian Bi-2 - http://hep2.physics.arizona.edu/~savin/ram/bi.html
and there were quite a few more, mostly experimental non-production types in
the US, UK, Germany, Russia and Japan
Regards
HECTOP
Craig Prouse
ma...@remove.maxho.com wrote on 1/6/01 6:42 AM:
> reading adventure stories under a
> blanket with a flashlight as a kid really must've helped too ;)
You mean when I was a kid, reading "Run Silent, Run Deep" under the covers
with a flashlight, there were little Russian kids with flashlights under
their covers, reading similar accounts of their grandfathers' roles in the
Great Patriotic War?
Wow. No wonder the wall came down. Russians were people too, after all.
Jonathan O.
I believe the early Aerobat's were 150's, and then with the release of the 152
they became modified 152's. Not like there's much difference...
-Jonathan
Gordon Hanka
"HLAviation" <hlavi...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010106174839...@ng-fe1.aol.com...
stuart
Yeah sure, easy for you maybe. Remember a song from the 60's? Goin Dancin'
man, Goin Dancin' Man..The rudder pedals on the Stearman are around 30"
apart I think. A rythymic oscillation type of dance helps. The goal as I see
it, is to progressively narrow the swings with less and less alternating
foot movement until you are just kinda dancing with your tippy top
toes.Sometimes I close one eye and fixate on a point, on take-off and keep
the nose pegged on that, whatever it takes. Other times, on a x-wind
take-off, I'll pick up the downwind side wing and apply a bit of opposite
rudder let it lally-gag a bit sidewards rolling on the one main wheel, into
the upwind direction. Other times I really don't know what the hell I'm
doing at all.
Actually a ground loop isn't that hard to avoid. Most tailwheels I have
flown, you really have to let it get pretty far off the beam before it gets
away on you. Trick is to keep your feet and brain working, as the gentleman
says.....
Stuart:)
"HLAviation" <hlavi...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010106175101...@ng-fe1.aol.com...
HECTOP
news:B67CE705.E677%cra...@apple.com...
> You mean when I was a kid, reading "Run Silent, Run Deep" under the covers
> with a flashlight, there were little Russian kids with flashlights under
> their covers, reading similar accounts of their grandfathers' roles in the
> Great Patriotic War?
And if you'd ever know how much our old-timers are alike, you'd wonder how
could the Cold War ever happen :-)
couldn't help ;>
Actually was more into reading MT's "Tom Sawyer & Huckleberry Finn", HW's
"War of the World's", and ACD's "Sherlock Holmes". Out of all the WWII
propaganda books and movies that were thrust upon us, I actually dearly
cherish and own both a screenpaly book and a videotape of "Only the
seasoned do the battle" about a figher pilot squadron, not too unlike the
"Black Sheep Squadron" with a central character of sorts of Pappy Boyin
which is my all time favorite too.
For a kid growing up in the USSR my shelves were rather full of Mustang,
Corsair and Hellcat 1/72 scale models for every MiG or Tupolev ;)
regards
HECTOP
stuart
in jeopardy.news:GJN56.193438$j6.24...@news1.rdc1.va.home.com...
BARR DOUG
due to maintenance problems and the wierd, wierd feeling of landing
crabbed. Also they work, but have some strange side effects (landing
on the downhill side of the crown is tripple wierd) etc.
Cub driver <9...@danford.net> wrote:
>>On a related note, why can ground loops not be prevented, or at least
>>discouraged, by the simple expedient of limiting the castering of the tail
>>wheel, and/or allowing slight castering of the main gear? I have heard
>>rumors of such gear, but I have never seen it implemented.
>
>I've never heard of such an approach, but I think it underestimates
>centrifugal force. If the tail wheel didn't caster, the swing would
>tear it off, I suspect.
>
>Castering front gear used to be fairly common. It's called tundra
>gear. From Harvey Plourde's description, it sounds awful. Here you
>are, rolling down the runway for takeoff, with the a/c canted 10
>degrees to the side ....
>
Bill Watson
it for 300 hours, equipped it, got my IFR ticket in it, and fly it every
weekend. Haven't groundlooped yet (now I'm jinxed). Have 550 hours now.
Cheap? No. The Maule had 30 hours on it so I got it kinda new. It was very
cheap for new.
Preventing groundloops and just plan keeping the thing where I want it on the
ground keeps the juices flowing. I only had 80 or so power hours from 20 years
ago. But flew 1000+ hours in gliders since. Using my feet wasn't new. But the
trick is only half stick and rudder. The other half is thinking about where you
do what, when. Like refusing landings on the active runway when there's a
little runway right into the wind at the big city airport. Or anticipating the
wind breaking around the too-close-to-the-runway hangar.
The IFR in a taildragger is a non-issue. The IFR generally begins and ends when
the taildragging ends and begins. They don't overlap much. I find both
'exciting'.
I say go for it if it feels right. Felt right to me.
Gordon Hanka wrote:
> Hi all..
>
> I am a new pilot and am buying a plane for IFR training. I have decided
> that a plane must be, above all else, exciting. In my price range (low)
> that seems to mean a tail dragger. My question: How common are ground
> loops, really? Does anyone have any hard numbers?
>
> In leiu of accident rates, does anyone know the difference in in-flight hull
> insurance rates for the conventional and tricycle versions of a plane like
> the RV or Yankee that comes in both flavors?
>
> gordon
Bob Moore
>Yes, it is called crosswind landing gear and has largely been abandoned
>due to maintenance problems and the wierd, wierd feeling of landing
>crabbed.
Jeeze....... I never noticed any of my students feeling wierd while
landing crabbed. Except maybe after I had hit them over the head
again. :-)
Bob Moore
stad...@my-deja.com
You would be surprised. Anyone that doesn't know what to do with their
can ground loop anything without really trying.
HLAviation
IIRC the Comet took off with a dolly, dropped it on take off and landed on a
belly skid, although it may have had a small tailwheel to protect the tail on
landing,
HLAviation
>
Roger, on some planes you have a separate handle, on others you push the stick
forward to release (Air Tractor)
HECTOP
the US trying to build several of those based on original German blueprints
but using modern composite materials instead, same was talked about building
a few copies of the 737's grandfather Me-262 :-) I think it was at
www.aero-news.net within past three months or so.
HECTOP
"HLAviation" <hlavi...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010107010610...@ng-mc1.aol.com...
Robert Hall
its side up against the tower and hanger (in the corner). Apparently the pilot
had taxied out to the runway but came back because he decided that the winds
were too strong. Only he forgot to reverse his control inputs for the way back,
go lifted and blown into the building on his side.
Regards,
Robert Hall
ELLX
Ditch
>run of
>> the mill lousy ham handed pilot can't ground loop a trike without
>trying!
>>
I've seen a Sabreliner groundloop up at Minden, NV back in 1990. Must have been
a helluva ride for the people in back.
Ditch
>a few copies of the 737's grandfather Me-262 :-) I think it was at
>www.aero-news.net within past three months or so.
The ME-262's were being built in TX, but last I heard the project has been
moved somewhere else (I think Oregon). The 1st was supposed have been flying
real soon.
stuart
Here's a link to a page with a photo of the ME 262 tailwheel prototype.
http://www.stormbirds.com/warbirds/history/history.html
Stuart
Cub driver
>There was some noise recently in aviation press about some fellow here in
>the US trying to build several of those based on original German blueprints
>but using modern composite materials instead, same was talked about building
>a few copies of the 737's grandfather Me-262 :-) I think it was at
>www.aero-news.net within past three months or so.
I've never heard of the 163, but the 262 project is real enough. I
think Aero-News Propwash had an item on it, pointing out that the
third one (I think it's three) didn't yet have a buyer and that if you
hurried you could nail it down for a figure that had a lot of commas
in it.
Why is the 737 a descendant of the 262, any more than all the jets
that carry their engines in pods?
(Incidentally, Willi Messerschmitt hadn't realized that the pods would
serve as convenient air dams. He chose that method of mounting engines
because he had to build the airframe before anyone knew what engine
would power it. In fact, the 262's test flight was with a recip in the
nose.)
all the best - Dan Ford
Flying Tigers: Claire Chennault & the American Volunteer Group
http://www.danford.net/book.htm
"War history as it should be written." (The Hook)
HECTOP
"Cub driver" <9...@danford.net> wrote in message
news:3a584cfd...@news.MA.ultranet.com...
> Why is the 737 a descendant of the 262, any more than all the jets
> that carry their engines in pods?
Just an extreme external commonality, don't look for a scientific nit here.
Just look at both from top and profile view. Other than size, Me-262 and the
original series of 737's with engines in pods do actually look an awful lot
like they could've been developed in the same house. There's quite a chance
that former Messerschmitt engineers were actually employed by Boeing in the
US (like many rocket scientists were) or even some in Germany. Wonder why
Lufthansa was the launch customer for the type? ;)
Don't look to pick a nit in the above, it's just a guess based on my
somewhat substantiated knowledge of aviation history. But Boeing name covers
a lot of ground, a lot of teams of people who work in all segments of the
design, nowadays the latest birds components are built all over the world,
even in Japan (747-400 wings?). So whoever brought their knowledge aboard at
the time of 737's inception must've had a look at the good parts of the
Me-262 design which was way ahead of it's time. It took Brits, Russians and
Americans a few years to catch up to the idea of swept wings, after finally
giving up on straight wing jets (of course there are aplenty modern
straight-wing jets like some Citations for example, but that's whole
different wing design as opposed to the one's inherited from WWII)
For example a lot of speculation about Russian civil aircraft being rip-offs
of their western counterparts as in Tu-154 vs B-727, Il-62 vs VC-10 for
example. What most speculators do not observe that other than having the
same placement of engines (one is a tri-holer, another has four
rear-mounted) the aircraft are extremely different in size, design
structure, russian were built to withstand many eniromental and
unsophisticated service conditions that would've ruined their western
counterparts in a matter of months. 154 is a _lot_ larger than a 727, so is
Il-62 vs VC-10. And while you may rest assured that a healthy dose of
espionage have taken place at the time and obviously benefited certain
technologies, it would benefit all kinds of innards like electronics and
control systems a lot more than external appearance of an aircraft. There
are certain solutions in technology that simply have to be taken along the
same lines in order to achieve similar tasks like Tu-144 vs Concorde, they
do look an awful lot alike to an average eye. But similarities end right
there, I recommend reading Howard Moon's "Soviet SST - The Technopolitics of
Tupolev-144" to anyone willing to discuss this further. Nowadays as recent
as 1996 the 144 was flying around with Boeing, Rockwell and NASA logos on it
in a sponsored test program, life's ironic ain't it? FMI:
http://oea.larc.nasa.gov/PAIS/TU-144.html
Regards
HECTOP
HECTOP
Jonathan O.
>>how hard I would have to work to avoid one.
Juat fly with a CFI until you are comfortable. You have to get rated in a
tailwheel, anyway.
-Jonathan
Steven P. McNicoll
> guess would be the B-17, but that's just a wild guess.
>
The B-17's older brother, the XB-15 was considerably larger than the B-17.
Several other experimental or limited production taildraggers, particularly
German and Soviet, were even larger. The largest taildraggers to have
production runs of any significance were probably the Curtiss C-46 and Focke
Wulf Fw 200, which were only inches apart in length and span.
>
> Any taildragger jets?
>
The first jet, the Heinkel He 178 was a taildragger, as was the
Caproni-Campini N.1. The first four Me 262s were taildraggers. The YAK-15
and Supermarine Attacker were taildraggers, and there are probably more I
can't recall right now. And of course, there's Jimmy Franklin's Waco UPF-7.
Steven P. McNicoll
"HECTOP" <ma...@remove.maxho.com> wrote in message
news:0AN56.2895$8O3.7...@typhoon2.ba-dsg.net...
> >
>
> Actually yes, imho there were a couple, first ones to come to mind are
>
> German Me-163 "Komet" -
> http://www.s-dn.de/blick/Flugzeuge/Me_163_g/me_163_g.html
> Russian Bi-2 - http://hep2.physics.arizona.edu/~savin/ram/bi.html
>
Those were not jets, they were rocket powered.
HECTOP
Here's the company that's doing the Me-163 in the US -
http://www.xcor-aerospace.com/
And there was a European glider replica as well, which was supposed to be
engined eventually -
http://www.kolibri.lr.tudelft.nl/people/students/fun/rob/163repl.htm
HECTOP
stuart
the classic sense, however the ME 262 prototype was a classic tailwheel
airplane, and was powered by turbojet engine, but I imagine you already
know that.
Stuart
"Steven P. McNicoll" <ronca...@writeme.com> wrote in message
news:t5h6r51...@corp.supernews.com...
HECTOP
Yeah technically you're right about Me-163, and Bi-1, but the latter
eventually graduated to actual ramjets
http://hep2.physics.arizona.edu/~savin/ram/bi.html
In a way both aircraft could be looked at as early jets, even if their
thrust wasn't produced by a turbo-jet, but still by a jet of exhaust as
opposed to a prop. But above all they definetely were airplanes, rockets
just don't glide ;) (What the heck is Space Shuttle then?)
Enough for nitpicking.
HECTOP
Ditch
>tailwheel, anyway.
It is an endorsement, not a rating.
HECTOP
http://www.soton.ac.uk/~genesis/Level2/Planes/Germany/Me262.htm
and
http://www.airliners.net/open.file?id=34424
http://www.airliners.net/open.file?id=133190
The 737 and 262 carry just way too many similarities to be dismissed, just
look at that wing ;)
HECTOP
"HECTOP" <ma...@remove.maxho.com> wrote in message
news:wB%56.3818$bR3.1...@typhoon2.ba-dsg.net...
Rick Macklem
: I am a new pilot and am buying a plane for IFR training. I have decided
: that a plane must be, above all else, exciting. In my price range (low)
: that seems to mean a tail dragger. My question: How common are ground
: loops, really? Does anyone have any hard numbers?
Since the other responses haven't mentioned this, I figure I'll throw it
in. I've only witnessed one groundloop (and heard of a few others). Haven't
done one yet, myself (typed while touching wood in several places:-).
The more common tailwheel gotcha around here seems to be nose
overs and runway excursions due to misuse of or faulty brakes. (These old
airplanes have some really old brake systems.) Also, there is an almost
irresistible urge to get on the brakes to make that taxiway turnoff, which
has to be resisted. And beware the high speed taxi when the tower gives
you the "Keep it rolling to the end, minimum delay".
From my limited experience (about a dozen types), it also seems that there
is a big difference between one type of taildragger and another. Some are
real pussycats and it seems that you have to really bone up to groundloop
them, while others can be a real handful sometimes and might get even the
best on the wrong day.
Mostly though, others said it better than I could have, rick
Jonathan O.
>been
>a helluva ride for the people in back.
A Sabreliner??!
David CL Francis
<r...@panix.com> writes
>would be the B-17, but that's just a wild guess.
>
Lancaster but the Lancaster was quite a bit heavier by around 12,000 lb
at around 70,000lb auw. The enlarged Lancaster called the Lincoln was
120 ft span and had an auw of 75,000lb.
>Any taildragger jets?
I believe so but I cannot find a reference at the moment.
--
Francis E-Mail reply to <fli...@dclf.demon.co.uk>
stuart
Once again here's your link;
http://www.stormbirds.com/warbirds/history/history.html
"David CL Francis" <fli...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:9CE6NaAc...@dclf.demon.co.uk...
> In article <roy-2178CB.1...@news.panix.com>, Roy Smith, CFI
> <r...@panix.com> writes
> >hlavi...@aol.com (HLAviation) wrote:
> >> Most larger tailwheel planes have locking tailwheels
> >
> >Out of curiosity, what is the largest taildragger ever made? My first
guess
> >would be the B-17, but that's just a wild guess.
> >
> The B17 had about a foot more span (103 against 102 ft) than the
> Lancaster but the Lancaster was quite a bit heavier by around 12,000 lb
> at around 70,000lb auw. The enlarged Lancaster called the Lincoln was
> 120 ft span and had an auw of 75,000lb.
>
>
Ditch
>
Yup...kinda weird seeing it going backwards with the engines spooling down
(coming out of reverse) with the pilots eyes as wide as saucers.
The skid marks it left on the runway were interesting to look at too. I think
my friend took some pictures of the skidmarks....I'll email him and ask.
RT
>
> >A Sabreliner??!
> >
>
> Yup...kinda weird seeing it going backwards with the engines spooling down
> (coming out of reverse) with the pilots eyes as wide as saucers.
> The skid marks it left on the runway were interesting to look at too. I think
> my friend took some pictures of the skidmarks....I'll email him and ask.
Bet he had the control column firmly in his guts for every landing after
*that*! :-)
Actually it's Mooneys that seem to like to wheelbarrow best - or so I've
heard :-)
George R Patterson
Cub driver wrote:
>
> I've never heard of the 163, but the 262 project is real enough.
There was a seminar at Oshkosh at which the subject was the 163 project.
I saw it on the schedule, but did not attend. Based on that, I'd say
that it's a serious endeavor. I strongly doubt, however, that they will
use the same fuel as the original.
George Patterson, N3162Q.
George R Patterson
stuart wrote:
>
> > Those were not jets, they were rocket powered.
> The Komet was powered by a rocket powerplant, but it wasn't a taildragger in
> the classic sense, however the ME 262 prototype was a classic tailwheel
> airplane, and was powered by turbojet engine, but I imagine you already
> know that.
The Me-262 prototype was a non-powered glider and was destroyed when
another aircraft cut it off in the landing pattern.
George Patterson, N3162Q.
Dale
<fli...@dclf.demon.co.uk> wrote:
The Boeing B-15 would be in the running. 149' wingspan, 92,000 gross weight.
> >Out of curiosity, what is the largest taildragger ever made? My first
> >guess
> >would be the B-17, but that's just a wild guess.
> >
> The B17 had about a foot more span (103 against 102 ft) than the
> Lancaster but the Lancaster was quite a bit heavier by around 12,000 lb
> at around 70,000lb auw. The enlarged Lancaster called the Lincoln was
> 120 ft span and had an auw of 75,000lb.
>
> >Any taildragger jets?
>
> I believe so but I cannot find a reference at the moment.
--
Dale L. Falk
Cessna 182A
N5912B
There is nothing - absolutely nothing - half so much worth doing
as simply messing around with airplanes.
http://home.gci.net/~sncdfalk/flying.html
Steven P. McNicoll
"George R Patterson" <grpp...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:3A592466...@earthlink.net...
>
> The Me-262 prototype was a non-powered glider and was destroyed when
> another aircraft cut it off in the landing pattern.
>
Never heard of an Me 262 flown as a glider, do you have a reference for
that?
The Me 262 V1 was flown for the first time on April 18, 1941, power was
supplied by a Junkers Jumo 210G 12 cylinder liquid cooled engine in the
nose. BMW 003 turbojets were added and the aircraft flew in a three engine
configuration for the first time on March 25, 1942. The V2, V3 and V4
prototypes had Jumo 004 turbojets fitted and like the V1 were taildraggers.
The V5 was the first tricycle gear prototype, but had a fixed nose gear.
The V6 was the first Me 262 to have a fully retractable tricycle
undercarriage.
Cub driver
>Just an extreme external commonality, don't look for a scientific nit here.
>Just look at both from top and profile view. Other than size, Me-262 and the
>original series of 737's with engines in pods do actually look an awful lot
>like they could've been developed in the same house. There's quite a chance
>that former Messerschmitt engineers were actually employed by Boeing in the
>US (like many rocket scientists were) or even some in Germany. Wonder why
>Lufthansa was the launch customer for the type? ;)
The history is actually more straightforward than that. Boeing sent
people on Operation Paperclip in the spring of 1945, in which we
looted the German aircraft industry (just as the Russians were looting
it from the rest). Boeing at that time had the XB-47 on the drawing
boards. It was a straight-winged aircraft and I think (but don't know)
that its engines were wing-mounted, as were the earlier two bombers in
the forty-series, the XB-45 and XB-46. When the Boeing reps in Germany
saw the work the Germans had been doing on jets and rocket planes,
they cabled back to stop work, and when they got home they redesigned
the 47.
Boeing's preeminence in heavy jet a/c began that moment. The other
forty-series bombers were dropped or phased out, and the B-47 became
the progenitor of the B-52 and the C-135, which became the 707, and so
on down to the 777. I never heard there were any German engineers in
Seattle, though there may have been. As the Japanese demonstrated
again and again, it doesn't take an American to beat American ideas in
electronics--or in cars, for that matter.
Cub driver
>Since the other responses haven't mentioned this, I figure I'll throw it
>in. I've only witnessed one groundloop (and heard of a few others). Haven't
>done one yet, myself (typed while touching wood in several places:-).
>The more common tailwheel gotcha around here seems to be nose
>overs and runway excursions due to misuse of or faulty brakes. (These old
>airplanes have some really old brake systems.) Also, there is an almost
>irresistible urge to get on the brakes to make that taxiway turnoff, which
>has to be resisted. And beware the high speed taxi when the tower gives
>you the "Keep it rolling to the end, minimum delay".
On Friday I flew off a glare-ice runway for the first time, and very
quickly lost my enthusiasm for landing at the ice runway at Alton Bay
NH.
Back-taxiing on the runway I drifted off into the bushes. On my second
land I turned off the runway, hit more glare ice (Bonnie the CFI was
ice-skating in front of me!) and drifted out onto the runway again,
while a Cessna was setting up for takeoff at the other end.
A couple experiences like that will remind you of the folly of using
brakes on a taildragger.
rm...@my-deja.com
wdcjN...@qwest.net wrote:
> Having been in a ground loop in a Super Cub last year, I can offer
this advice.
> If you are used to toe brakes, DO NOT FLY A TAILDRAGGER WITH HEEL
BRAKES!
>
> Heel brakes suck big time. My fat left foot managed to depress the
left heel
> brake on roll-out after a decent landing, and while at a speed of less
that 30
> mph, the Super Cub ground looped to the left. Full right rudder and
right
> brake was applied, but not soon enough.
I got my private in a Cessna 140 (toe brakes) and did most of my
time building in an Aeronca (heal brakes). I can tell you that
every time I've really needed to get on the brakes (about 25%
of my landings in the J-3 now) my feet are on the brake before my
brain realizes it. You have to be FAST! :)
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
Michael
> I am a new pilot and am buying a plane for IFR training. I have decided
> that a plane must be, above all else, exciting. In my price range (low)
> that seems to mean a tail dragger. My question: How common are ground
> loops, really? Does anyone have any hard numbers?
Common enough that hull insurance on a Pacer costs double what it
costs on a TriPacer, double on a 180 over a 182, and so on. Pick
two equivalent production airplanes, one tri-gear and one tailwheel,
and the tailwheel will likely need twice as much repair for accidents.
That's the way it is. The reasn is obvious - the taildragger is inherently
unstable. Landing one is a constant game of manually returning an
unstable system to equilibrium, while knowing full well that there
will be times when you won't have enough control authority to do it.
Sure, it gets exciting at times. Sure, it's fun. Hell, landing an open
cockpit biplane is both exciting and fun (when it's warm) and they
can be had for the same price as a decent 172, but don't pretend
like it's not dangerous.
There used to be one very high time pilot around here who
would argue the point that ground loops are inevitable, claiming many
thousands of hours of accident-free tailwheel flying - and then he put
a wingtip in the dirt. A wingtip that normally spends its time 8 ft in the
air, I might add. There are two kinds of tailwheel pilots - those that
have, and those that will. I'm at 100 hours tailwheel and am still in
the latter category. If I'm really careful AND lucky I may stay there
for a good long while.
A taildragger for IFR training is fine, but IMO is a dumb idea for a
serious all-weather airplane. That became crystal clear to me the
day I had to shoot a localizer approach into Caldwell.
The weather was reported at 1100 and 2 1/2, well above circling
minimums. I was cleared to circle to land, because the alternative
was to land with a quartering tailwind and I don't do that when I
can avoid it. I did indeed break out at 1100 or so, but at that
altitude the visibility was about 1/4 - I could only see straight down.
The continuous light rain did not help matters.
Descending far enough that the visibility was adequate for circling
in basically unfamiliar territory (I had last flown there years before,
and that was VFR) put me too low to circle. I contacted tower
and received an amended clearance to land straight in. In my tri-gear
airplane that was not a big deal. In a taildragger, I'm not sure what
I would have done. Maybe when I have 1000 taildragger hours (if
ever) I'll think nothing of landing one on wet pavement with a
quartering tailwind, but at 100 it seems like an accident waiting to
happen.
There are indeed people who fly IFR in taildraggers, but they are a
tiny, tiny minority - and most of them have no pressing need to be
anywhere in particular at any particular time.
Michael
Pete Zaitcev
> There are indeed people who fly IFR in taildraggers, but they are a
> tiny, tiny minority - and most of them have no pressing need to be
> anywhere in particular at any particular time.
>
> Michael
What about An-2 pilots who do scheduled spoke service around
Salekhard and Tiksy Bay, in conditions nearing polar haze :0
-- Pete
HECTOP
planes as well as DC-3 and C-47's (taildraggers, eh?), they don't sit around
waiting for CAVU either.
HECTOP
"Pete Zaitcev" <zai...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:slrn95jgd4....@js006.zaitcev.lan...
stad...@my-deja.com
And all those people flying twin Beeches around all night hauling
freight and checks.
Bill Watson
One pilot's serious all-weather airplane is another's dumb idea. Single vs
Twin, piston vs turbine, fixed gear vs retract, etc. Gordon's dream doesn't
seem to include a serious all-weather airplane but rather something that let's
him train for IFR, keeps his juices flowing when flying VFR, and perhaps let's
him touch aviation's past. And tailwheels are not dangerous, just a bit more
challenging and risky. I don't think groundloops kill many people.
My Maule hauls 1,000lbs of fuel and passenger, 9Gals/hour, 113knots and drags
tail. The approach certified Garmin 300, VOR/GS, and backup Vac makes it a
great first personal transport machine. It's simplicity in flight makes
surviving the steeper parts of the learning curve less risky than other
choices. But insurance was 2X an equivalent tri-gear (gone down since).
I do 150 to 200 hours of traveling a year. The IFR rating is the key. I'm a
long way from 'serious all weather machine' but so is a 172, 140 or 152. I do
a lot of serious travel in a lot of weather. Just can't do it all.
Your example is a good one but I still maintain that, "The IFR in a taildragger
is a non-issue. The IFR generally begins and ends when the taildragging ends
and begins".
Of course, my excuse is living on a turf field with plenty of mud. But my real
reason is that it fits my dream.
Michael
> Gordon's dream doesn't
> seem to include a serious all-weather airplane but rather something that
let's
> him train for IFR, keeps his juices flowing when flying VFR, and perhaps
let's
> him touch aviation's past.
And I did say that as an IFR trainer it was fine.
> And tailwheels are not dangerous, just a bit more
> challenging and risky. I don't think groundloops kill many people.
Depends in what. It's all a question of how fast you're going and what's
there to hit. It's pretty hard to kill yourself groundlooping a Maule. The
landing speed is low enough that by the time you've run out of rudder,
all you're likely to do is bend the tubing.
> My Maule hauls 1,000lbs of fuel and passenger, 9Gals/hour, 113knots and
drags
> tail. The approach certified Garmin 300, VOR/GS, and backup Vac makes it a
> great first personal transport machine. It's simplicity in flight makes
> surviving the steeper parts of the learning curve less risky than other
> choices. But insurance was 2X an equivalent tri-gear (gone down since).
Yup, I'd agree with all the above. By choosing a Maule over, say, a 172XP,
(or even a tri-gear Maule - they do make them) you're not really putting
life and limb at risk - just the airframe. And that's the reason for the 2x
insurance. The insurance would have gone down in the trike too.
> Your example is a good one but I still maintain that, "The IFR in a
taildragger
> is a non-issue. The IFR generally begins and ends when the taildragging
ends
> and begins".
So how would you have handled that situation in your airplane? Circle in
low
vis and take your chances? Here you are risking life and limb. Land with a
quartering tailwind on wet pavement in a Maule? Highly unlikely to kill
you,
but the chances of groundlooping go up. Divert? Yeah, you can do that, but
the whole point of going IFR is getting where you want to go when you want
to get there.
> Of course, my excuse is living on a turf field with plenty of mud. But my
real
> reason is that it fits my dream.
And that's fine. You SHOULD fly the airplane that fits your dream. You
SHOULD fly the kind of airplane that for the first few months you own it
you walk by it, look at it, and sort of do a double take - like "Wow, is
that
airplane really mine?" Just don't try to pretend like it's not a
disadvantage
when flying low IFR.
Now don't get me wrong. I certainly have nothing against
the Maule - it's a good design. Rugged and simple, the lines reveal the
Piper heritage - the earlier models resemble a Pacer so much that even the
old hands need to get closer to be sure. Once in flight, it's stable and
easy to
handle on instruments. The systems are kept to an absolute minimum, and
the result is minimum downtime for service and maximum enjoyment in
the air. If you must have a taildragger, it's a fine choice for a first
airplane -
simple enough for a low time pilot to handle but with enough utility to
travel.
But the gear configuration will limit your choice of instrument approaches.
Michael
jga...@hotmail.com
"HECTOP" <ma...@remove.maxho.com> wrote:
> "Cub driver" <9...@danford.net> wrote in message
> news:3a584cfd...@news.MA.ultranet.com...
> > I've never heard of the 163
>
> Here's the company that's doing the Me-163 in the US -
> http://www.xcor-aerospace.com/
>
Of what possible use is an improved version of the Me-163? There are
no more B-17s left to shoot down.
Maybe I'm missing something, but I can't imagine what kind of a market
there would be for something like this. Someone please enlighten me!!!
John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)
BARR DOUG
no problems. Now much above that, and yeah, you are taking a risk,
but some tailwind is ok. Leave a little power in and use the brakes.
In article <2Or66.39378$bw.26...@news.flash.net>,
HECTOP
about the International Space Station and they shown a rocket/glider they
dropped of a B-52 that was intended as a working model of a rescue ship for
the ISS crews. Now letting my imagination run wild here, I could say that
the Me-163 is worth a look at as a sorts of runabout shuttle/rescue thingie
or whatnot, besides obviously catering to thrillseekers of all sorts. Oomph
what else, remember that article about the B-2 bomber airborne for 30 hours
or so, Pizza Hut or Domino's could use those to deliver hot oven-baked
pizzas right up there without forcing the crews to land.
On a serious note, there probably could be some practical use in that bird,
just wait till the need arises. Until then it's just a cute as a knob little
piece of history that could find itself a job in the future.
HECTOP
<jga...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:93dop2$lll$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
Bill Watson
Michael wrote:
> > Your example is a good one but I still maintain that, "The IFR in a
> taildragger
> > is a non-issue. The IFR generally begins and ends when the taildragging
> ends
> > and begins".
> Michael wrote:So how would you have handled that situation in your airplane?
> Circle in
> low
> vis and take your chances? Here you are risking life and limb. Land with a
> quartering tailwind on wet pavement in a Maule? Highly unlikely to kill
> you,
> but the chances of groundlooping go up. Divert? Yeah, you can do that, but
> the whole point of going IFR is getting where you want to go when you want
> to get there.
>
Bill Watson
IMC operations options have been materially effected. At least I haven't FELT
like my options have limited. You ask what I would do in your example. I
thinks it's a question you asked yourself on that approach and you came up with
a suitable option. I would do the same. Risky to do a downwind landing? Yes.
Risky to continue the circling approach? Yes. Time to miss and divert?
Perhaps. Would a trike make some of the options more attractive? Yes, but the
answers could easily be the same with a tailwheel, they would just require a bit
more proficiency and entail a bit more risk. Given the range of options
provided by various steeds, the difference between a 172 and a Maule is pretty
small compared to say turbocharging and nonturbo. Or the benefits provided by a
Stormscope or icing equipment.
In fact, runway selection vis-a-vis wind is about the only consideration. So
far, the things I'd like to add to my toolkit have more to do with T-storm
avoidance, speed and altitude than wheel configuration. More experience may
give me a different perspective.
Having said that, there is no reason for anyone to fly tailwheels other than
they want to. There is no advantage, only a challenge and the satisfaction of
meeting it..
I wrote:
> > Your example is a good one but I still maintain that, "The IFR in a
> taildragger
> > is a non-issue. The IFR generally begins and ends when the taildragging
> ends and begins".
>
> Michael wrote:
> So how would you have handled that situation in your airplane? Circle in low
> vis and take your chances? Here you are risking life and limb. Land with a
> quartering tailwind on wet pavement in a Maule? Highly unlikely to kill
> you,
> but the chances of groundlooping go up. Divert? Yeah, you can do that, but
> the whole point of going IFR is getting where you want to go when you want
> to get there.
>
Tramm Hudson
Bill Watson <Four...@ibm.net> wrote:
> .... Given the range of options
> provided by various steeds, the difference between a 172 and a Maule is
> pretty small compared to say turbocharging and nonturbo. Or the benefits
> provided by a Stormscope or icing equipment.
While the Stormscope and known ice equipment make an enormous difference
in the weather that can be tolerated, and the turbocharger gives an
measurable performance boost at higher altitudes, the differences between
a 172 and a Maule are still fairly high. Useful load, climb rates, takeoff
and landing distances are the parameters that occupy the minds of many
light plane owners.
Comparing a Maule to a Skyhawk just isn't fair to the poor Cessna trainer.
So let's look at a turbocharged T182 versus the naturally aspirated 182R
of the same year (1985), and an Maule M6:
T182 T 182 R M6-235
Displacement: 540 cid 470 cid 540 cid
Horsepower: 235 230 235
Cruise: 158 kts 142 kts 129 kts
Ceiling: 20000 feet 14900 feet 20000 feet
Rate of climb: 965 feet/min 865 feet/min 1900 feet/min
Takeoff: 1475 feet 1515 feet 540 feet
Landing: 1350 feet 1350 feet 440 feet
Useful load: 1360 pounds 1373 pounds 950 pounds
It doesn't appear that the turbocharging is all that useful --
it only adds to the cruise and service ceiling, but barely
changes the climb or takeoff performance and actually reduces
useful load.
Meanwhile, the Maule with the same size engine outclimbs by a
factor of two, takes off and lands shorter by a factor of three,
and has the same service ceiling as the turbo 182. The cruise
performance on the Maule is quite poor from the unaerodynamic
design, and the useful load is due to a lack of certification
paperwork on the part of Maule Aircraft.
So I would say that the difference between a Skylane and a Maule is
far greater than that between a turbocharged and naturally
aspirated Skylane. Or were you thinking of some other parameters?
> Having said that, there is no reason for anyone to fly tailwheels other
> than they want to. There is no advantage, only a challenge and the
> satisfaction of meeting it..
Other than insanely short take off runs (150 feet), less drag (sort of),
and clearance for larger props, there are no advantages to tailwheels...
Disclaimer: I own and fly a Maule M5-235.
Performance data links from Trade-A-Plane:
http://www.tradeaplane.com/protected/cgi-bin/perfdb.pl?make=CESSNA&model=T182+SKYLANE+T+%2785&showspecs.x=Continue
http://www.tradeaplane.com/protected/cgi-bin/perfdb.pl?make=CESSNA&model=182R+SKYLANE+%2785&showspecs.x=Continue
http://www.tradeaplane.com/protected/cgi-bin/perfdb.pl?make=MAULE&model=M6-235+SUPER+ROCKET&showspecs.x=Continue
Tramm
--
o hud...@swcp.com hud...@turbolabs.com O___|
/|\ http://www.swcp.com/~hudson/ H 505.323.38.81 /\ \_
<< KC5RNF @ N5YYF.NM.AMPR.ORG W 505.986.60.75 \ \/\_\
0 U \_ |
Mike Rapoport
6000' MSL airport on a 90F day. Do it with enough fuel to get to a
destination 300nm away with three people on board. A problem with your
comparison is that you used gross weight numbers but the useful loads are
different, thus the 182s will not be at gross while the Maul will be given
the same flight profile.
Mike
MU-2
Tramm Hudson wrote in message <93e365$479$1...@sloth.swcp.com>...
Tramm Hudson
Mike Rapoport <rapo...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> Tramm Hudson wrote in message <93e365$479$1...@sloth.swcp.com>...
> > measurable performance boost at higher altitudes ...
>
> To get an idea of what turbochaging is good for, compare the three at a
> 6000' MSL airport on a 90F day.
Which is what I meant by the higher altitude statement. Now my Maule
is still fairly spry at AEG at 5,830 MSL while the 172's around here are
limited to two people and half fuel during the summer when density
altitude easily reaches 10,000. If I climb to 12,500 (no oxygen),
the performance goes down quite noticably, while the 172's have
trouble getting even close to that altitude. I haven't actually
flown a T182, so I don't know how it performs at its rated ceiling.
All of the numbers quoted are sea level, because that is what the
aircraft makers provide. They want their planes to appear as powerful
and capable as possible, without actually lying about the performance.
Yes, as you climb higher the wings are less efficient, the engines
are less powerful, etc.
> > T182 T 182 R M6-235
> > Useful load: 1360 pounds 1373 pounds 950 pounds
>
> ... A problem with your
> comparison is that you used gross weight numbers but the useful loads are
> different, thus the 182s will not be at gross while the Maul will be given
> the same flight profile.
The useful load numbers that I quoted were listed gross weight minus
listed empty weight. You can check my math with the numbers from
Trade-A-Plane, cited in my previous post.
Mike Rapoport
the aircraft with the larger useful load. If two aircraft have the same
performance at gross then the one with a higher useful load will have better
real world performance (neglecting differences in fuel requirements), flying
the same mission. Three people and enough fuel to fly 300nm might be gross
weight in a Maul but might be about half of gross in a G-V.
The rated ceiling is not the same for turbocharged and normally aspirated
aircraft. Most non-pressurized aircraft have a published ceiling of about
20,000' which is a function of regulation, not capability. My first plane
was a Turbo Lance with a certificated ceiling of 20,000. At 20,000' it was
still climbing almost 1000fpm.
A turbocharged plane has almost the same performance up to its critical
altitude (usually 12-16,000'), as it does at sea level.
Mike
MU-2
Tramm Hudson wrote in message <93e8k2$5a8$1...@sloth.swcp.com>...
Bill Watson
so to a 182.
Even though I'm an eastern flyer, I can appreciate the real benefits a turbo gives western flyers. It is of little
use here in NC.
I was wondering about the comparision between your M6 and my M7-180. I have all of the TO (and Landing) performance I
could ever want in my M7. While it's clear that even my 180 can haul more than 1,000lbs, it's difficult to load it
and keep it from being tailheavy. And as you pointed out, the Maule is draggy. What kind of fuel consumption do you
get with speeds at 120+ knots? I really do get 113knots and 10gals/hour for the first and 9/hour after. But that's
it without sitting on engine redline.
My impression is that the big engine Maules are great floatplanes, a good bush land planes, and a good glider tow but
that the 180 is a good 'civilian' transportation machine with moderate STOL characteristics. What's your thinking?