PDA

View Full Version : Training - Taildragger Vs Tri gear


Julian
27th Jun 2006, 18:56
Just been reading my July issue of flying which has come through the door. On the back page where they look back at 'past articles' is this snippet....

We compared a 1946 Cessna 140 to a new 152 and wondered which one would train better pilots. Once nostalgia was overcome, we concluded that the taildragger 140 could not teach a new pilot any more about proper flying than the tricycle gear 152. But it is certainly harder to fail a lesson gracefully in the taildragger.

Discuss......

nzmarty
27th Jun 2006, 19:35
having done all of my training in 152/172/archers, with a little time in a super cub, i am now learning to fly a pitts.

it's still an aeroplane, but it's a lot harder to make the landing look easy :eek:

englishal
27th Jun 2006, 19:58
I flew a '46 C140 the other day. "Flying" it there was no real difference between flying it, a C152 or a C172 (apart from the power obviously), so I agree that during the actual airborne flying you wouldn't notice a whole lot of difference.

I didn't land it as I didn't own it, but I got the distinct impression that on the ground it was a lot more of a handful than a tricycle and that it was on a mission to fling us over.

As the saying goes:

In a tricycle, you thank god when you land. In a tail dragger, you thank god when you take off;)

shortstripper
27th Jun 2006, 20:01
A taildragger is no more "difficult" to fly than a tri gear ... it's just different. If you've learnt to fly a taildragger you wonder what all the fuss is about, if you are a half decent tri gear pilot and later convert to tailwheel ... you'll also wonder what all the fuss was about!

SS

Pitts2112
27th Jun 2006, 20:13
Concur with the above except the bit about the Pitts. It's a real beast that only the finest, and best-looking, pilots can fly (come on, we've got to maintain the mystique of the type!)

Pitts2112

Shaggy Sheep Driver
27th Jun 2006, 20:23
Just been reading my July issue of flying which has come through the door. On the back page where they look back at 'past articles' is this snippet....
Discuss......


What a load of cock. Flying should know better. As others have said, there will be little if any difference in the air. But especially landing, a taildragger is far less forgiving of sloppy technique. It will teach correct 'fully held off' landings, and also demand proper use of rudder for directional control. Tri-gears are far too forgiving in these repects and studes can and do get away with not learning to do it correctly. And if they do not later do a tailwheel conversion they may NEVER do it properly (just watch, at any GA field, all those 3-point arrivals of C172s and PA28s).

IMHO ALL pilots should train in taildraggers at least up to early solo stage, just so they learn how to land properly. It would save us all a fortune in expensive insurance premiums brought about by broken nosewheels caused by pilots not holding off properly - or even landing nosewheel first.

Learning to do it correctly is no more difficult than getting it wrong - but it produces a more skillful pilot who can fly a wider range of aeroplanes and will be far less likely to break them.:ugh:

SSD

eharding
27th Jun 2006, 20:48
Concur with the above except the bit about the Pitts. It's a real beast that only the finest, and best-looking, pilots can fly (come on, we've got to maintain the mystique of the type!)
Pitts2112
The Pitts is a pussycat to land, just as long as
a) you don't mind not being able to see where you're going
b) you don't mind not going where you thought you were going
c) you don't mind going where you thought you weren't going
d) you don't mind interating between (b) and (c) about 3 times a second.
Bodmin last weekend was a hoot - uphill into 31 with a tailwind. I think
everybody went round at least once during the comp....

Pitts2112
28th Jun 2006, 06:12
Bodmin last weekend was a hoot - uphill into 31 with a tailwind. I think
everybody went round at least once during the comp....

There were no other options? Groundspeed on landing is fast enough in a Pitts. It usually doesn't need the help of a tailwind. I was in a 7 ship Pitts formation one time, which had already broken for landing and so were in long trail in the circuit, and it turned out, after the first two landed, that we were landing into a bit of a tailwind. We had the option of taking the opposing runway so we went through quite a lot of pain to get everyone set up on it just to avoid the tailwind. Wouldn't want to do that again, but also wouldn't like to land with a tailwind, either. Rock and hard place spring to mind.

Pitts2112

Them thar hills
28th Jun 2006, 06:31
Obviously the tailwheeler will produce a better handling pilot.
But it's the instructor's job to do the teaching is it not.
I can't think I'd have got too far on my first ever lesson ( in a Condor) unless Frank Morgan had been sat by me!
TTH

EGBKFLYER
28th Jun 2006, 07:30
I concur with Shaggy Sheep - see also Harvey Plourde's excellent book 'The Compleat (sic) Taildragger Pilot' for an explanation of why taildraggers are more demanding than trikes...

I don't think that teaching everyone on taildraggers is the answer to sorting out landing techniques though. If instructors taught landings well and didn't accept sloppy technique, shouldn't matter where the wheels are on the aircraft.

High Wing Drifter
28th Jun 2006, 08:13
Discuss......

The differences are obviously only confined to the ground, trying to leave it and then getting back on it in an orderly fashion. The theoretical additional forces (P factor, etc) in the 65-150hp range that I have flown seem to be almost non-existant really. Perhaps in a Harvard or a Corsair with 13' prop blades, things would be different. The crosswind limits are lower, certainly I feel near my limit with a mere 8 knots in a PA17, whereas 20kts in a tri-cycles is obviously not undemanding, but doesn't seem to be an issue. T/D landing roll, can be interesting. Our group asks that you get checked out on tarmac runways specifically. Not sure if this is over zelous or sensible. I'm quite happy to go with the flow on that. I've seen some comments that relate the need to use the rudder to taildraggers, from memory, the PA18 does seem to have a little more adverse yaw than a PA28. The PA17 with its little wings doesn't exhibit much at all.

All in all, for a new student I would summise that the tri-gear is better because it permits some rough handling and mistakes (particuarly on landing) without being soul destroying, aricraft damaging or downright scary, I don't see any advantage to making things difficult at the ab-initio stage. Also the tri-gear probably permits perfectly safe operations in a wider ranger of wind conditions, which is good for any student. Everything else: circuit, climb, descend, unusual attitudes, navigation, S&L, PFL, etc, etc is exactly the same.

If difficulty is seen as the best ab-initio training aid, then why not start with an Extra 300 and then progress to a PA28 once mastered :}

EGBKFLYER
28th Jun 2006, 08:37
I'll back the Extra 300 to PA28 idea, so long as I get all the ab-initios to train:}

Shaggy Sheep Driver
28th Jun 2006, 09:56
If difficulty is seen as the best ab-initio training aid, then why not start with an Extra 300 and then progress to a PA28 once mastered :}


It's not 'difficulty' that is the desired ingredient, HWD, it's teaching the correct skill. If the aeroplane demands it be done correctly, it will be. If the aeroplane accepts sloppy technique, then sloppy technique will prevail. Up until the 1960s, pretty much all pilots were trained on tailwheel aeroplanes, and they managed to solo the likes of Tiger Moths and Austers in surprisingly few hours. Difficult it's not.

Learning how to hold off, and to use the rudder correctly, are not esoteric post-PPL skills such as one might practice in an Extra. They are basic airmanship skills that should be taught from day one.

And, in reference to an earlier post, the X-wind limit of a taildragger is at least as high as that of a tri-gear. One could argue that it is higher, since tailwheel gear is inherantly much tougher than tri-gear (that's why bush planes are tail wheel), so it will accept more abuse before breaking.

SSD

jonnoboy
30th Jun 2006, 23:22
I learnt on a tri and am now doing tail wheel training on a Super Decathlon. I love it, and went solo for the first time last week. I can only speak for this aircraft, but it is certainly harder to control (or should I say takes more care and pre-empting and preventing what is about to happen next) on the ground. Take offs require more directional control and landings are less forgiving and speeds are more critical (particularly in the Decathlon with no flaps).

I know it is improving my flying skills no end, and I am sure it will get rid of some bad tri habits of landing a little too flat.

As the other chaps have said, it really comes down to what is available to you, how much you have to spend (I guess taily's a generally a little more expensive as less common these days), and most of all on the instructor. If you are taught well in a tri, changing over to a taily should not be an issue. I went solo after 2 circuit sessions.

I have also found doing this after has brought more excitment into flying. I cant imagine it the other way round, ie converting onto a tri after learning on a taily (IMHO).

either way, enjoy.

JB

RatherBeFlying
30th Jun 2006, 23:43
My first taildragger was on paved, narrow taxiways and runways and heel brakes -- my legs ached afterwards.

Grass and toe brakes make it a whole bunch easier.

Chuck Ellsworth
1st Jul 2006, 17:22
I probably should not comment on this subject, but it just drives me nuts to read these discussions about conventional gear v/s nose gear airplanes.

If flight instructors were forced to fly conventional gear airplanes before being issued a license to teach the subject would never show up on these forums.

Chuck E.

EGBKFLYER
3rd Jul 2006, 09:02
Not sure I understand your point Chuck - are you inferring that if instructors were all taught to fly tailwheel that would somehow stop all pilots discussing which was best/ easiest etc etc?

Jonnoboy - taildraggers are not always expensive - the school I work at has a Piper Cub, which is one of the cheapest aircraft to fly. Higher cost taildraggers are usually vintage or ones which do aeros ...

robin
3rd Jul 2006, 09:17
I think that Chuck's point ( and it is well made), is that there are few instructors at commercial clubs that have tailwheel experience and are therefore able to speak authoratively on the subject

Nosewheels tend to flatter your flying, esp in landings, so bad and sloppy habits don't have too many consequences.

Tailwheels call for a little more thought. You are much more aware of crosswinds and the effects of control inputs. For some instructors, this is only a theoretical aspect of flying, as they probably never come across the situation of a low-speed ground loop in C172s, or the prop strike when the tail is lifted during a downwind taxy.

Flying a nosewheel aircraft after a period of tailwheel flying, I now find my hold-offs are not quite as held-off as before, I am less bothered by crosswinds and no longer need to ask for landing on a more into-wind runway.

It's not that one is better than another. In the air, they are much the same, but on and near the ground is where the difference appears

captainflash
24th Jul 2006, 00:08
I just finished my differences trainning down in Clacton last week and found it marvelous fun.

As a low houred PPL with previous powered experienced limited to trikes I'd have to say that the take-off and landings are quite different. Particularly two areas.

Directional Control - During the take off roll once the tail is lifted and the landing run. Both require more rudder input then trikes.

V Speeds - The landing speed is critical for the perfect three point landing. Although I stick to the speeds in trikes, I am aware they are more forgiving. Try landing 5knots + or - in the taildragger and the effects will be felt more.

I don't claim to be an expert - as per experience - however I do feel that the tail dragger makes you fly the aircraft off the ground as opposed to jumping into it in the trike. Conversly the landing truely is not finished at touchdown ...rather when the aircraft is parked in the hangar!

I think my conversion wasn't a shock because I have taken many aerotow lauches in gliders. The skills for a taildragger t/o and landing are extremely close to those deployed during the aerotow. My gliding experience made it easier then the powered ppl trike teaching.

Just the views of a newbie guys.