Citabria addicts and wheel landings
jacjohn
The pathetic Citabria junkie just learned wheel landings today, and had some
interesting experiences. I'm almost there, with 25 or so landings (the club
requires 30). Everything is coming together extremely well. I tell you what,
you have to whip that 'ol plane into shape, 'cause it allows ZERO
sloppiness, unlike it's spam can brethren. Old school flying is the best.
Wheel landings are extremely interesting. I'm still trying to get the
whole "Push the stick forward as soon as you touch" routine. Feels kind of
odd, considering that the wrong amount of pressure will send the prop into
the pavement.
Seriously though, I feel that tailwheel training has made me an
exponentially better pilot, unlike the cookie cutter spam can, tailwheels
DEMAND respect and a real feeling for the plane. You must "be one with the
flying machine".
I can't wait until I'm signed off for this thing!
John Y.
PP-ASEL
Borislav Deianov
>
> The pathetic Citabria junkie just learned wheel landings today, and
I'm curious - what technique are they teaching you for wheel landings
in the Citabria?
One CFI taught me to make a normal (power off) approach, then raise
the nose to a level flight attitude and add power to arrest the
descent, followed by forward stick on touchdown. Another showed me a
different technique - the approach is made at a slightly higher speed,
the energy from which is used in the flare to arrest the descent.
This is more like a normal landing, except you allow the mains to
touch without bleeding off all the excess airspeed. I found this
second method easier to execute because pitch allows me finer and more
immediate control over the descent rate than power.
Borislav (another Citabria junkie)
BTIZ
so my TailWheel instructor told me...
Learned in a J-3 over 20 yrs ago..
recurrent this winter in a Super Cub
and now flying Pawnee 235
TZ
"jacjohn" <jac...@whidbey.net> wrote in message
news:v7d7r52...@corp.supernews.com...
jacjohn
amount of power to control the descent.
John Y.
PP-ASEL
Tina Marie
jacjohn <jac...@whidbey.net> wrote:
> Wheel landings are extremely interesting. I'm still trying to get the
>whole "Push the stick forward as soon as you touch" routine. Feels kind of
>odd, considering that the wrong amount of pressure will send the prop into
>the pavement.
Opinions on this vary. I was taught not to wheel land a Citabria for
just that reason - it's just too easy to put it on the prop.
Every tailwheel pilot has a way they prefer to land. I'm not a wheel-landing
fan - my default landing in any tailwheel is always a three-pointer.
Every tailwheel airplane has a way they prefer to be landed. This can
vary even within a type.
True happiness is choosing an airplane that likes to be landed the way
you like to land. But you can make other combinations work. The DE who
did my gilder tow checkout has a Cessna 180. By my third tow, I was making
passable three-pointers in it, but I could tell the plane was unhappy.
Sure enough, it wanted to be landed on the mains (and he told me this,
of course, _after_ my tow checkout was done).
Anyway, listen to the plane. If you've got a Citabria that wants to
be wheel-landed, wheel land it. But if the plane is unhappy that way,
and it sounds like yours is, then don't do it on a regular basis.
Tailwheels are a lot like women that way. :)
Tina Marie
--
Life is like an analogy. http://www.tripacerdriver.com
Rick Durden
Next time you are going to fly the Citabria get two people to assist
you with the airplane. Move the prop until it is straight up and
down. Get in the seat, strap in, then have the two lift the tail
until the prop is about a sixteen of an inch off of the ground. That
will give you a good idea of the pitch attitude you will assume just
before you hit the prop.
That being understood, pushing the stick forward on a wheel landing is
not necessarily the way to go about the process. Go to avweb.com and
read the Pilot's Lounge columns on tailwheel ops. A wheel landing can
and should be made by approaching at a normal speed, flaring to break
the descent and then letting the mains roll. At that time you simply
relax the back pressure on the stick (you might want to have a little
extra nose down trim in place). You don't need to push the stick
forward, the trim will handle that, and there's less chance of
overdoing it if you think of just relaxing back pressure rather than
pushing forward.
The Citabria does fine wheel landings when you get used to it. With
time you'll find out that you can wheel land or three point virtually
all tailwheel airplanes based on your choice. It's only a question of
skill level. An exception is the Swift, which has some aerodynamic
quirks that make an attempt at a three point landing something that
isn't fun at all, but it makes up for that by being almost completely
unpredictable. (The modified ones with fairings on the landing gear
wells don't have the problem.) Also, those who claim they can
consistently three point a DC-3 are generally lying to you or have a
selective memory.
Have fun with the Citabria and three point it and wheel land it to
your heart's content. You will find that it can handle very strong
crosswinds using either technique. It's a good little airplane.
All the best,
Rick
"jacjohn" <jac...@whidbey.net> wrote in message news:<v7d7r52...@corp.supernews.com>...
Bob Gardner
into the pavement. Stick and Rudder has an excellent explanaion on pages
307-309...."You need not be afraid of pushing forward on the stick. You
won't nose over. This is the most important fact concerning wheel landings
and must be clearly understood..."
Bob Gardner
"jacjohn" <jac...@whidbey.net> wrote in message
news:v7d7r52...@corp.supernews.com...
Paul Sengupta
practise for the Lancaster. They used to train and train until
they could consistently three-point the DC3 and the Lanc, but
were having real problems getting that good.
Then they took a veteran for a ride in the Lancaster and he was
absolutely astounded that they were even attempting to three
point the Lanc, as in his day no one did, or indeed was able to
do that!
Paul
Rick Durden wrote in message ...
Henry and Debbie McFarland
What a wise woman you are! My experience has taught me to pay attention to
what the particular airplane wants.
Deb
--
1946 Luscombe 8A (His)
1948 Luscombe 8E (Hers)
1954 Cessna 195B, restoring (Ours)
Athens, Ga.
"Tina Marie" <ti...@tripacerdriver.com> wrote in message
news:2D53B0708DA5576A.18B6A14C...@lp.airnews.net...
Michael
> you with the airplane. Move the prop until it is straight up and
> down. Get in the seat, strap in, then have the two lift the tail
> until the prop is about a sixteen of an inch off of the ground. That
> will give you a good idea of the pitch attitude you will assume just
> before you hit the prop.
There's only one problem with this. The gear will spread and give on
a hard landing, reducing the prop clearance by inches. It's supposed
to do that - that's why it's made with spring steel. No worries, it
will return to shape and throw you back into the sky for another
attempt (since you clearly botched this one) unless you get overly
agressive about pinning it on with forward stick because you think
that you can't possibly strike the prop in this attitude.
I know two people who had that fascinating (and expensive) experience.
Interestingly, both were under instruction when this happened.
Michael
Eric Rood
> you with the airplane. Move the prop until it is straight up and
> down. Get in the seat, strap in, then have the two lift the tail
> until the prop is about a sixteen of an inch off of the ground. That
> will give you a good idea of the pitch attitude you will assume just
> before you hit the prop.
For a real interesting view over the nose, try that in a Stinson 108.
(Although you will need the assistance of eight strong men to lift the
tail.) The cowl of the Stinson 108 slopes downward from windscreen to
front cowl. Makes for interesting landings/takeoffs on uphill and
downhill runways.
Dan Thomas
rough or uneven fields. The scenario of raising the tail until the
prop just clears the pavement doesn't allow for a firm arrival and
consequent gear and tire flexing.
The Citabria POH recommends wheel landings, claiming they're
easier. They're not, of course; the Citabria and it's Grandpa, the
Champ, don't really care for them. The 180/185, on the other hand,
don't like three-pointers, and it seems to be the low stab mounting;
the ground effect interferes with elevator control and raises the tail
just as you get it into the right attitude for a three-point landing
unless the CG is way back. The Glastar does the same thing.
Wheel landings don't have to be really tail-high; the tailwheel
can be just a couple of inches off the surface. It's still difficult,
as the tail will want to come down when the mains touch, and the
wing's AOA suddenly increases and the airplane leaves the ground
again.
I read once about an aerobatic airshow pilot who made a
high-speed low pass in his taildragger. Just for fun he touched the
wheels to the runway, and the high friction of the tires at that speed
created enormous drag, which caused a pitch-down, more friction and
more pitch-down, and the airplane and pilot disappeared in a cloud of
debris.
The Citabria is lots of fun. Has a stick, which is the mark of a
real airplane, along with the conventional gear. I spent nearly two
hours in ours today. It's the right colour, too: yellow.
Dan
Anthony Connor
:P
"Bob Gardner" <bob...@attbi.com> wrote in message news:<mBKda.161443$qi4.74094@rwcrnsc54>...
G.R. Patterson III
Paul Sengupta wrote:
>
> Then they took a veteran for a ride in the Lancaster and he was
> absolutely astounded that they were even attempting to three
> point the Lanc, as in his day no one did, or indeed was able to
> do that!
The Lanc had a real reputation for "swinging" as the tail was raised or
lowered.
George Patterson, N3162Q.
G.R. Patterson III
Michael wrote:
>
> There's only one problem with this. The gear will spread and give on
> a hard landing, reducing the prop clearance by inches.
Dunno about the Decathalon, but the manual for my Maule says that the ground
clearance for the prop is over 9" in flight attitude. The MX-7-180A has less,
but still has over 6". You're gonna have to go some to spring the gear that
much.
George Patterson, N3162Q.
Brian Burger
> "The pathetic Citabria" Yes it is pathetic. No need to say more.
>
> :P
On this newsgroup, those are very dangerous words, you know. Lots of
Citabria addicts...
I got my fix last Sunday, though (my first tailwheel a/c takeoffs &
landings - v. cool...) so I'm stable - but I can't answer for all the
addicts here...
:>
Brian
PP-ASEL, Night
jacjohn
You know what, ours is yellow, too!
Where are you from?
John Y.
PP-ASEL
jacjohn
PPPFFFT!!
I to believe you are sorely mistaken. =)
John Y.
PP-ASEL
Rick Durden
Good point about the gear spreading and increasing the risk of hitting
the prop. However, you really have to screw up a wheel landing to do
that.
Years ago when the club I was in had a 7KCAB another instructor and I
were doing checkouts. He managed to get the prop twice with students.
I found out that he was teaching students to "pin" the airplane on
the ground with forward stick as soon as it "hit". Naturally, the
student was always a little late and would try to drive the airplane
onto the ground after a bit of a bounce. I've always taught that the
procedure was to simply relax the back pressure. Reducing the angle
of attack just a half a degree is all that's needed.
All the best,
Rick
crwd...@hotmail.com (Michael) wrote in message news:<449a3d6e.03031...@posting.google.com>...
Andrew Boyd
> Guys HAVE struck the prop by getting the tail too high
I know of a Pitts S-2B which struck the prop on pavement
at KLVK. Maybe he read the same book which said it was
impossible.
Apparently the guy made a "firm" landing which spread the
bungees, added power which spread the bungees some more,
and that was enough for a prop strike. Don't know how
old the bungess were.
New propeller: $12K. The crankshaft was cracked: $13K
for a new one, plus more $$$ to overhaul the engine. I'd
guess it was at least a $40K mistake.
Pretty expensive wheel landing.
On the IAC list a few years ago, the subject of wheel landings
(in the Pitts) was discussed, and one person said that Gene Soucy
used to wheel land his Pitts, but he would also do snap rolls
on short final to loose airspeed. Are you a good enough pilot
to safely perform descending snap rolls moments before landing?
highflyer
Generally speaking, airplanes should be landed about as slow as you can
safely go. In a taildragger, that should be determined by the designer
to be the three point attitude. Normally the three point attitude
corresponds to an airspeed of about 1.1 Vso. That is enough to be about
as slow as you can safely go, and still fast enough so that you are not
likely to encounter the stall break while still high enough to make you
attempted three pointer into a "one point" arrival! :-) Also, having
the tailwheel firmly on the ground when you first touch down makes it
very unlikely that your inertia in your descent will lower the tail more
and increase the angle of attack to the point where you begin flying
again with marginal airspeed. :-)
In a wheel landing the tailwheel is always clear of the runway. You
must be descending or you wouldn't have reached the runway. It is
essential that you do something to counter the descending inertia of the
CG, which is behind the main gear, at touchdown so that the angle of
attack can't increase and put you back into the air. This is generally
accomplished with a little well timed nose down pressure to cancel that
inertia. ie "Go forward on the stick." How much? Just exactly enough
to cancel the inertia and NOT enough to poke the tail in the air and
ding the prop. It is very difficult to get the prop at landing speed.
The tail just doesn't want to go that high! After all, there is a lot
of wind blowing it all back down! :-) Of course, when you slow down a
bit it becomes easier to get the darn tail up too high. But by then,
there is no inertia trying to increase the angle of attack and get you
back in the air. Also, you speed has generally decreased to something
well below flying speed at any obtainable angle of attack! :-)
Which landing is best? Well, it depends ... :-) In most light
taildraggers, like Citabrias, J-3's, Champs, T-Karts, Luscombes, etc.
the lower landing speed and the reduced likelihood of inadvertently
dropping the tail on touchdown make the three pointer the landing of
choice. Even if you do B.D. Maules favorite "double whomp" landing
where you plant the tailwheel FIRST and then drop the mains on, you are
not likely to break anything. In fact, with these lighter aircraft it
is better to get the tailwheel on the ground too soon than too late!
:-) As long as the tailwheel is on the ground when the mains touch, the
airplane will probably STAY on the ground once it arrives there! :-)
As your taildragger get larger, heavier, and the landing speed increases
the three point landing becomes less desireable. It is really something
for that tiny little tailwheel to accellerate to 90 mph and then track
true without spitting rubber all over the place! My tailwheel shows a
bit of excoriation from my tendency to three point the Red Lady! :-)
With big heavy taildraggers, the landing of choice becomes a "tail low
wheel landing" which allows touchdown at close to stall speed but allows
the tailwheel to remain off the runway until the speed decreases a bit.
:-)
I don't usually "go forward on the stick" but I do usually trim the
airplane at the beginning of my approach when the airspeed is about 1.3
or so Vso. I then leave th e trim there, and slow for short final and
touchdown by merely holding a bit of backpressure on the controls. When
the mains kiss the runway, I merely relax this backpressure and the
airplane sticks there. I may then, after I am securely on the runway
with the mains, hold the tail up enough to allow a bit of forward
visibility and keep the tailwheel from having to accellerate to the
higher landing speeds. Before too long I have to set the tail down
because I really can't keep it up in the air any longer. I can't hold
it up much below about forty mph. This is a lot different than a J-3,
where an experienced pilot can hold the tailwheel off the ground as long
as the engine is running! :-)
Some of the older airplanes with flaps can be tricky to three point
because the flaps can blanket the rudder in the three point attitude and
reduce directional control at a critical time. This is particularly
true with aircraft that do not have a steerable tail wheel. For
example, the older SR-7 Stinson Reliant can be nasty to threepoint for
this reason and likes a tail low wheel landing. My own, later model
Stinson Reliant is a couple of feet longer in the fuselage and three
points nicely with good directional control until you are slow enough
to use the brakes instead of the rudder and ailerons. :-)
However, I do have a problem with the tailwheel wanting to shimmy if I
set it down too soon. It does not do this if I hold it off for a little
while on landing. It tends me toward considering wheel landings over
three pointers! :-)
--
Highflyer
Highflight Aviation Services
highflyer
When I land, even if I should decide to carry a bit of power on final, I
remove all power before I roundout and flare. The only difference
between a wheel landing and a threepoint landing occurs AFTER I have
completed the roundout and am flying level just above the runway a few
inches. If I am going to make a three point landing I ease back on the
controls enough to attain my three point attitude before I let the
airplane settle onto the runway. If I am going to make a wheel landing
I let it settle slowly easing back on the controls just enough to keep
the descent rate low enough to minimize the inertia in the descending
mode. Then, when the mains touch I relax the back pressure and let the
airplane stick on with the tail off the runway. The approach, roundout,
and initial flare are identical. :-)
It is all an excercise in putting the airplane where you want it at the
attitude that you want it to have. :-) It takes a little practice but
it isn't difficult. However, it can be a bit difficult to do it exactly
right every time! :-) I sure don't!
Dan Thomas
Three Hills, Alberta, Canada
Dan
Henry and Debbie McFarland
8E on the down hill runway and still have the tail up when I stop with the
stick full forward. I don't know if it's the wind, the slope or the
airplane. It's kinda cool.
I typically three-point. My husband typically wheel-lands his 8A which is
200 lb. lighter. He three-points my 8E if he flies it and I wheel-land his
8A if I fly it. Strangely, this was not a conscious decision on our part.
Nor did we discuss it. It seems our airplanes prefer one over the other, and
we came to this decision separately.
My trim is an issue when landing. Three points are better with full trim
while a wheel landing needs neutral. If not, things get interesting. The 8A
trim is more for the consummate pilot who wants to land with a lighter
touch. I seldom use it, but after 2400 hours in that airplane, Henry does
religiously.
In general, I try to pay attention to what Lester is telling me and follow
his lead. If I don't, he doesn't hesitate to show me his displeasure ;-).
Michael
> the prop. However, you really have to screw up a wheel landing to do
> that.
Kind of depends on how much prop clearance there is in the first
place. I did part of my tailwheel transition in a 7ECA champ. This
is basically a stock Champ with a Citabria engine/prop combination and
extra fuel tanks to feed it. It's generally a wonderful airplane - if
you can close the doors on it, it will fly. Since the stock engine is
65 hp and the replacement engine is 115 hp, the prop is longer. The
oleo gear gives readily, and really wasn't made for the higher weight
anyway. It doesn't take much of an error to ding the prop on a
wheelie.
On the flip side, I never quite figured out how you would prop strike
a Scout. There's so much prop clearance you can't do it even by
shoving the stick full forward - and in fact I actually know someone
who believes the stick SHOULD be shoved full forward, on every (wheel)
landing.
> Years ago when the club I was in had a 7KCAB another instructor and I
> were doing checkouts. He managed to get the prop twice with students.
> I found out that he was teaching students to "pin" the airplane on
> the ground with forward stick as soon as it "hit".
Yeah, I've seen that approach and was even taught it at one point. I
don't care for it.
> Naturally, the
> student was always a little late and would try to drive the airplane
> onto the ground after a bit of a bounce.
Yeah, that's why I don't care for it. If you bounce on the mains, you
bounce on the mains. You can usually reflare to a three point, or,
worst case, go around. Pinning it on can get real expensive real
quick.
> I've always taught that the
> procedure was to simply relax the back pressure. Reducing the angle
> of attack just a half a degree is all that's needed.
Actually, I found this quite natural when transitioning to the Champ.
A slight relaxation of back pressure after touchdown is fairly common
when landing among most tri-gear pilots (some planes actually require
it!), and landing a taildragger that way will yield a very nice tail
low wheel landing.
Then there was the Starduster Too that absolutely could not be wheel
landed without shoving the stick full forward (and didn't like it even
then), but that's a different story.
Michael
Borislav Deianov
>
> It would take major mishandling of the stick and brakes to drive the
> prop into the pavement. Stick and Rudder has an excellent explanaion
> on pages 307-309...."You need not be afraid of pushing forward on
> the stick. You won't nose over. This is the most important fact
> concerning wheel landings and must be clearly understood..."
Not so fast. Let me quote a couple more passages:
Page 306, caption of ``An extreme "wheel" landing'':
...``It is true that the airplane will easily nose over when the tail
is lifted too much because center of gravity then moves forward of
wheel, but this is when airplane is rolling slowly or standing still.''
Page 308, first paragraph:
...``In a "wheel" landing, the airplane is in fast forward motion -
rolling on the ground at approximately take-off speed? And in that
condition, you probably couldn't nose over even if you rammed the
stick all the way forward! You might however dig your propeller tips
into the ground - so don't try it.''
This makes it clear that when Langewiesche says you won't nose over he
does't mean you can't drive the prop into the pavement.
Regards,
Borislav
Rick Macklem
: Dunno about the Decathalon, but the manual for my Maule says that the ground
: but still has over 6". You're gonna have to go some to spring the gear that
: much.
I do know a school up here in Canada that had a prop strike in their
Citabria that way. Apparently the technique is to jam the stick way
forward when the wheels are still 6 inches off the ground. It slams on
with enough force to splay the gear and...whwhwh (I hear its kind of a
whistling sound).
Maybe not easy, but doable, rick
RM
> > Good point about the gear spreading and increasing the risk of hitting
> > the prop. However, you really have to screw up a wheel landing to do
> > that.
>
> Kind of depends on how much prop clearance there is in the first
> place.
This brings up a tangent that I've been wondering about.
I've repeatedly heard that tailwheels are better for rough strips because
of their greater prop clearance, but as soon as the tail comes up, that
advantage goes away. Then it can take a very fine hand to prevent going
too far forward.
So why is a tailwheel better? More manly, to be sure, but more practical?
G.R. Patterson III
RM wrote:
>
> I've repeatedly heard that tailwheels are better for rough strips because
> of their greater prop clearance, but as soon as the tail comes up, that
> advantage goes away. Then it can take a very fine hand to prevent going
> too far forward.
So, with a rough strip, don't bring the tail up. Simple.
George Patterson, N3162Q.
Rick Durden
I'm curious about the Starduster story as I'm hoping to be in the
market for a fliver this summer and the Starduster is on my short
list. I'd appreciate any thoughts you have because I've never flown
one.
All the best,
Rick
crwd...@hotmail.com (Michael) wrote in message news:<449a3d6e.03031...@posting.google.com>...
Michael
> market for a fliver this summer and the Starduster is on my short
> list. I'd appreciate any thoughts you have because I've never flown
> one.
Well, the tail on this airplane was VERY heavy. It was IO-360 powered
- sort of. The engine was actually the straight-valve O-360 but with
a fuel injection system grafted on to it so it could run inverted fuel
(yes, it also had inverted oil). You could run it up at 1700 RPM
without touching the stick and with no worries about striking the
prop.
On takeoff, you might manage to get the tail up around 45 mph at best.
I usually waited for 55-60 for more positive control, because the
tailwheel was steerable. On landing (idle power) it would come down
about 65 mph no matter what you did. Touchdown speed in the three
point attitude was about 75. Stall speed (full break) was 60 mph or
so, but at 70 it would mush - I think this used to be called
semi-stalled.
The right way to land it (according to a very credible source) was to
bring it in on a 180 to final at about 90-95 mph, power idle. Line up
with the runway and put it on three point, or maybe even a little
tailwheel first. That actually worked for me. Visibility was about
what you would expect in an aerobatic biplane. I always used to brief
my passengers that they needed to keep their heads straight in case I
needed to look around them. That was a little white lie - I would
actually stare at the back of their heads and make the peripheral
views from either side look the same.
If you tried to wheel it on, the tail would drop, hard, within a
second or so, regardless of what you did. This had a tendency to lift
the mains slightly - then the mains would drop, the tail would come up
slightly - and you're on a bucking bronco ride. If you could keep it
going straight (rudder became totally ineffective at 50 mph or so, and
the brakes were VERY effective, so you had to be careful how much
differential braking you used until you were down to 30 or so) you
could ride it out. Or you could go around. But there was no way to
make a pretty wheel landing in that airplane.
The way to go was to feather the tailwheel on and SLOWLY increase the
back pressure as the mains settled on. 10 mph crosswind was about the
limit on pavement. You never wanted to land it on a narrow,
obstructed runway with a crosswind because if you caught a gust on the
side at 40 mph or so, it was going to be ugly - rudder completely
ineffective, you don't dare use the brakes much, but you're headed for
the weeds. At that point, best thing was to power up and reject the
landing.
Other than that, it was an OK airplane. The roll rate was nothing
spectacular, but it was a sturdy aerobatic mount. It was great for
buzzing low over the bay, doing the helmet, goggles, and white scarf
thing.
Michael
Tina Marie
Michael <crwd...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Well, the tail on this airplane was VERY heavy. It was IO-360 powered
>- sort of. The engine was actually the straight-valve O-360 but with
>a fuel injection system grafted on to it so it could run inverted fuel
>(yes, it also had inverted oil). You could run it up at 1700 RPM
>without touching the stick and with no worries about striking the
>prop.
[this is my old airplane he's talking about.]
This may not have been typical of the type, though. I did not have an
accurate weight and balance on the plane - I discovered long after I'd
bought it that the weight-and-balance paperwork that was filed with the
FAA when the plane was built was actually a xeroxed copy of the sample
W&B that came with the plans.
Lots of other Starduster Too owners told me their tails were lighter.
The company that makes the kit said the tail should have about 80lbs on it -
I think mine was closer to 100, plus both Michael and I are both
large enough that we were constantly operating near the aft CG limit.
In a nutshell, every one of them is different. I certainly wouldn't buy
one without a test flight. And, if it were me and I was buying anything
in that class again, I'd have the airplane weighed as part of the
pre-purchase inspection.
Boy, on nice days with blue skies and no wind, I really do miss her.
highflyer
>
> rdu...@compuserve.com (Rick Durden) wrote
> > I'm curious about the Starduster story as I'm hoping to be in the
> > market for a fliver this summer and the Starduster is on my short
> > list. I'd appreciate any thoughts you have because I've never flown
> > one.
>
> Well, the tail on this airplane was VERY heavy. It was IO-360 powered
> - sort of. The engine was actually the straight-valve O-360 but with
> a fuel injection system grafted on to it so it could run inverted fuel
> (yes, it also had inverted oil). You could run it up at 1700 RPM
> without touching the stick and with no worries about striking the
> prop.
>
I suspect that the heavy tail is typical of the Starduster. I have seen
several and all were very heavy on the tailwheel. Enough so that I
would consider moving the mains back a bit if I owned one.
Notice that it is NOT "tailheavy." The mains are far enough in front of
the CG to put a relatively large share of the weight on the tailwheel
when the airplane is on the ground.
highflyer
When the tailwheel comes up it is really not hard to control the pitch
attitude adequately to keep the prop out of the dirt. Of course, it is
never necessary to pick up the tailwheel to takeoff. A taildragger that
is properly set up is sitting at the best angle of climb attitude or
nearly so, when all wheels are on the ground. That IS the attitude you
want for a short or soft field takeoff! Or for a rough field takeoff for
that matter. I always treat a rough field as if it were soft. Get the
weight of the airplane on the wings as soon as I can and get away from
that bumpy dirt! :-)
Actually, I generally lift the tailwheel, but only an inch or two. :-)
highflyer
It is usually done by people who totally blow a wheel landing. They get
a good bounce going BEFORE they push the stick forward to kill the
inertia. Then they fly down to the ground nose first and hit hard. :-)
The solution is simple. Whenever you are landing don't push forward.
If you are doing a wheel landing, trim for approach speed and then just
relax backpressure as the mains touch gently. Never rush the airplane
down. Let it settle slowly. :-)
Doug
So if your taildragger has enough prop clearance to wheel on, then learn to
wheel it on. Then decide for yourself whether you want to 3 point or wheel.
I use mostly wheel landings in my Husky. It lands plenty slow even wheeled
on, the visibility is better and it is easier to land smoothly. I also like
it for crosswind. I also wheel on when I land on the prarie up in Wyoming,
as when my mains touch, they kick up rocks that will hit the bottom of the
horizontal stabilizer if I 3 point. Better for golpher holes too, the mains
don't mind them but the little tailwheel does.
I do use 3 point for truly soft field and very short field, and enough
practice to make sure I can do these without problems.
I suggest you and your instructor get out and raise the tail of the plane,
and see how much prop clearance you really have, before you decide to wheel
land (the Husky has PLENTY).
G.R. Patterson III
Doug wrote:
>
> I believe that if the airplane can do it, the pilot should be able to do it.
Mine can swap ends on the ground so fast it'll make your head spin. I prefer
not to learn that particular trick. I'll stick to 3-points as long as I have
a Maule.
George Patterson, N3162Q.
Rick Durden
Thank you for the information. Interesting that the gear geometry was
such that it was difficult to keep the tail in the air on landing.
I knew a guy who had a radial engine on a Starduster...I never got to
fly it, but it looked pretty good.
All the best,
Rick
crwd...@hotmail.com (Michael) wrote in message news:<449a3d6e.03032...@posting.google.com>...