Tail Dragger Conversion

[Choxolate]

I have recently bought into a tail dragger group (Condor). Up until now I have only ever flown normal tricycle type aircraft (Piper PA28, Cessnas).

I have booked with a qualified instructor to do a tail dragger conversion - he reckons 4 to 5 hours.

As a holder of a JAR-PPL for SEP (Land) is there anyhting LEGALLY to stop me just jumping in and going for a flight (NOT that I intend to - I'm stupid but not THAT stupid) - just wondered what the legal position is.

Also what would the insurance position be?? and finally does the conversion have to be done by a qualified insructor or could it be done with any PPL who has already got his/her conversion?

No doubt all the answers can be found in the depths of some CAA publication but I cannot find anything relevant in my searches.

Cheers.

[waldopepper42]

Not entirely certain, but doesn't this come under "Differences training"? I would certainly expect it to. Certainly far less significant difference like constant speed prop and retractable undercarriage require such training.

From memory, I think tailwheel was not included in the original draft of differences training requirements, prompting an very experienced instructor friend of mine to contact the CAA to voice his disgruntlement!!

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

No, you can't legally fly it until you've been signed-off by a suitably qualified instructor (not just a PPL) for the tailwheel 'differences' endorsement.

SSD

[Monocock]

No, I don't believe there is nothing that can LEGALLY stop you jumping in and going for a flight.
However, your fellow group members might be a little chavved off when you bent it on landing/takeoff. Also, it is unlikely that the insurance company would cough up when they discovered your lack of tailwheel experience.
A tailwheel conversion takes as little as 3 hours.
I suggest you keep sitting in it making engine noises until you've been checked out

[robin]

SSD is right.

Practically, there is nothing to stop you, but the law is clear - you need differences training and a sign-off by an instructor (I assume the instructor needs to be suitably qualified too, but...?)

If you have bought a share and try to fly it without such a rating, you will become highly unpopular. Most groups (as mine has) have rules that clearly state you need to adhere to the legal and group rules - and flying a tailwheel aircraft without the necessary sign-off will invalidate the insurance.

If the CAA don't get you, the other members will:=

[Dope]

You will be quoted c. 5 hours for the training - but if you have the ability and are aware of the differences you can be signed off sooner. I was expecting 5 hours and got signed off in 1.5

[Choxolate]

Thanks for all the answers, as I said I have NO intention of flying without the conversion training but was interested to find what the LEGAL requirements were.

Chox

[DubTrub]

Well done Chox for seeing the light...you won't regret it.

Mono is "not quite right" :rolleyes: but the others are :D .

Good luck, and let us know how you get on.

[S-Works]

I am pretty sure that the 5hrs is now a requirement not a recommendation. In the old days it was just sufficient training to achieve the standard. When I did mine it was an hour of circuits. I will have to dig out the guidance notes.

[foxmoth]

Unless there are rule changes I have not seen, there is no minimum time for differences, in fact my understanding is an instructor can even sign differences off with a briefing - I think the only one this might be half sensible for is retracts, even then best to do a few circuits. With the right ability it is possible to cover tailwheel conversion in an hour or less but 5 hours is realistic for most people, especially if you cover all the bits that should be in this:- three pointers, wheelers, crosswind.:}

[GK430]

Foxmoth
Please explain wheelers? I would have hated to have missed out on these!

I did a tailwheel conversion last Sept. Insurance company required 15 take-offs & landings, not touch & go's prior to solo flight. Other limitations were put in place until 25 hours on type.

[foxmoth]

Wheelers are touching down mainwheels only in a level attitude, you then hold the tail up until you run out of forward stick. Wheelers are particularly useful in gusty conditions and many tailwheel pilots prefer them for crosswinds as it keeps the rudder in the slipstream until the tail finally drops at a very low speed. IMHO anyone converting to tailwheel should at least learn this technique even if you choose not to use it (I will not sign a tailwheel endorsement off without it).:rolleyes:

n.b. Touch and goes will normally be acceptable for TO & Ldgs - or had they specified that tis was not OK?

[Mike Cross]

Chox
In answer to your original question, JAR–FCL (http://www.jaa.nl/publications/jars/607069.pdf)1.215 Class ratings (A) states:-
[(1) Class ratings for aeroplanes will be issued according with the associated administrative procedures accepted by the JAA. In order to change to another type or variant of the aeroplane within one class rating, differences or familiarisation training is required.];
LASORS (http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/LASORS_07.pdf) Appendix E to Section F gives guidance on differences training.
No minimum times are specified.

Mike

[tacpot]

When I bought share in a taildragger, the insurer set their own criteria for the experience required to fly the aicraft solo. I forget how many taildragger hours they wanted, but I didn't have them, so they specified I had to do 15 landings in the aircraft with an qualified instructor.

Have you seen your Insurance Policy? If not, you should see it before you fly the aircraft to make sure you are aware of all its provisions.

good luck - its a great feeling to have mastered the dreaded taildragger!

tp

[GK430]

Foxmoth
Tks for explanation - didn't do any. Fly level, stick back......hope for the best:{
Only done onc tricycle light aircraft landing since....best ever or close to it.

Tacpot Ain't it just;)

[Lucy Lastic]

Foxmoth

I've got around 300 tailwheel hours and was never taught or used the 'wheeler' technique. I've landed safely in strong cross-winds in a variety of tailwheel aircraft using the fully held-off/wing-down method and fail to see what benefit the wheeler has.

My real problem is taxying, and, for that, landing technique is irrelevant

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

Foxmoth
Tks for explanation - didn't do any. Fly level, stick back......hope for the best

Not quite. Wheel it on in a level attitude (or vey slightly tail-low), then slight forward stick to 'hold' it on as the mains touch the ground (not enough to raise the tail above the fuselage-horizonatl position). As the speed bleeds off, more forward stick is required to maintain the level tail-up attitude. In the Chippy, with about 30 knts down the strip, you can come to a stop with the tail up, whereupon despite full forward stick it will gently lower the tail to the ground.

Even if you don't need to do one, they are great fun!

SSD

[3 Point]

Lucy,

If you were never taught to do wheelers and have never done them it's not too surprising that you fail to see the benefit. Foxmoth is spot on; wheeler landings are a very valuable technique and I believe they are a required part of a t/w pilot's repitoire (I won't sign off difference training without doing wheelers). They are much more comfortable in a strong X wind on some types and will alow you to land in crosswinds which would be impossible (or at least unwise) for a three pointer. remember, "taildraggers" is used as a blanket term but they don't all fly (and land) the same so it's important to have a detailed understanding of what works best on any particular type before you fly it. What types do you fly?

Some of the characteristics an aeroplane exibits during taxying and during landing can be similar so I'd suggest that a full understanding of the possibilities and requirements of how to land your aeroplane might be relevant to taxying too!

3 Point (and wheeler too when required!!)

[foxmoth]

GK430, If you have not done wheelers I suggest you learn how with someone that knows WIHIH, idealy an instructor.
In addition to xwind landings, wheelers are useful in gusty conditions because you have a bit more speed and control up to touchdown.:ok:

[Monocock]

Oops.

Sorry chaps:bored:

So, is my self endorsed IMC rating also illegal?:}

[foxmoth]

Yes - and the PPL produced on your Home PC:eek:

[l_reason]

A tail wheel checkout is not complete without 2 and 3 point touchdowns. If you can not do both you should try one or go get some more training.
At the end of my video you can see a few REAL wheelers. 4:04 of some fun Luscombe flying!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DvucXMFdhFs

[waldopepper42]

Lucy Lastic:

"Fail to see the benefit of wheelers..."

One benefit is that you don't come close to the stall during the roundout. No issue there, then, unless you get to fly something like the DH Dragon Rapide. This aeroplane (and others) is apparently prone to tip stalling - VERY pronounced wing drop at the stall. This is fine as long as you arrive in the correct three point attitude at the correct height above the runway EVERY TIME! For the rest of us mere mortals, a much safer approach is to get the main wheels down at a much safer (faster ) speed and let the speed decay whilst on the runway. More rudder control during the rollout and less danger of a ONE(wingtip) point landing!

This is not my own opinion/experience, by the way (I've never flown this aeroplane), but that of a very experienced friend who advocates the tail down wheeler every time in such a/c.

I believe this is also the case with the DC3!

[GK430]

Foxmoth
Are you insinuating that I would not go about this in a responsible manner?

I understand the principle, but you are therefore suggesting a higher than normal IAS on the approach for a "conventional" tailwheel landing? Yet, I thought I was trying to back the speed off to reduce any further momentum once the stick comes back to avoid climbing again.
Its been hard enough to feel safe at 65 kts over the fence;)

I shall speak with my tutor and colleague who flew it around the world:D

[foxmoth]

Are you insinuating that I would not go about this in a responsible manner?

No insinuation, but not knowing you I was just adding a sensible note of caution.
As far as speeds go, you fly the approach much as you normally would do, the difference comes in the hold off - fly level just above the runway and you will touch down not much below your normal approach speed. (not going fully into the technique here)

[High Wing Drifter]

Good old Wolfgang (Stick and Rudder author) says that a wheeler landing should not lengthen the LDR, he recommends shoving the stick forward to get the mains firmly pressed on to the ground. Have to say that I really haven't got the hang of this, my wheelers usually involve a bounce and lots of fumbling. I guess practice makes perfect.

[J.A.F.O.]

HWD

Are you saying that they shouldn't involve bouncing and fumbling? Damn.

[Gipsy Queen]

Quite right, WaldoPepper.

There are lots of entries in very faded ink in my books and referring to the DH89A. Like all DH aircraft, lovely to fly but those pointy wing tips could stop working very quickly and you never knew which wing would drop. Kept you on your toes.

In strong cross winds - I don't remember the limits but invariably they were exceeded - the technique very definitely was to make a slipping, powered approach for a main wheel landing but keeping the speed at normal +10 so that the downwind wing tip did not stall when the rudder was kicked to bring everything onto the centreline. Tail was kept up for as long as possible and occasionally, the upwind engine could be opened up a smidgeon to help the rudder.

Trying a 3-pointer in any strong cross wind more than 15deg. off the bow is asking for a ground loop in many aircraft types. Did I hear someone say "Beech 18 . . . "? :eek:

[Andy_RR]

I'm still unconvinced with this wheeler thing, despite everything I read.

GQ, if you are doing a slipping approach (i.e. wing down) why do you need to kick the rudder in to straighten it? Surely you are already parallel to the centreline?

There is a nice bit of footage on the One-Six Right website, under the videos section - Flight - that follows a DC-3 in for a wheeler. Watch the guy working the rudder on the roll-out! :eek:

Anyway, the way I understand it (the theory, anyway), is the only time you'll ground loop it is when your wheels are on the deck. Eventually you have to transition the airspeed region where you have no rudder/tailplane control authority, so surely you're better to do this with the tailwheel firmly on the deck?

A

[foxmoth]

so surely you're better to do this with the tailwheel firmly on the deck?
The big difference is that instead of the tailwheel being on the deck at (say) 40kts it is not on the deck until about 15 or so, and as has been said, in a decent wind many aircraft can be brought to a stop before the tail goes down, groundloop at these sort of speeds and you are not going to cause the aircraft much of a problem. One thing I do know is that, using this technique, I have had no problem crosswind landing a number of types that I have been told "It is a real pig in a xwind!" As far as LDR goes I agree it will not take much (if any) more, instead of doing the slowing down in the air you are doing it on the ground where you can use the brakes, which will definitely give a shorter landing distance, though many do not have the nerve for this with the tail up (again, read Stick & rudder).

[Daysleeper]

One of the problems not mentioned with the DC-3 (and probably many other large tailwheel types) is the wing masks the airflow over the tail. There is no tailwheel steering on the Dak so by doing a wheeler you keep the tail up in the airflow and maintain directional control. Likewise take off getting the tail up early. At low speeds the locking tailwheel and differential power should keep you straight ish.

[Gipsy Queen]

Andy-RR,

You are correct in your observations - usually one adopts one cross-wind technique approach or the other, often depending upon whether high or low wing but my comments supposed a beam wind close to or above placarded limits.

The lower wing of the Rapide was not far off the ground and one did not want too much angle of bank close to the round-out - particularly in gusty conditions. I have to admit that a slipping approach, crosswind or not, was very much a standard approach with older types of aircraft, many of which did not have flaps. The Rapide (at least the later "A" suffix DH89) had flaps but these were fairly rudimentary devices and not at all powerful. The sideslip was an accepted and usual method of losing height.

Additionally, given the restricted (compared with modern aircraft) ability to see forward of the cockpit, the sideslip, usually accompanied by a nose-down attitude, gave a much improved view forward; not so necessary in the Rapide, I admit, as the forward visibilty was good and the pilot sat on the centreline. Try a no-slip, powered approach in a Percival Prentice and you'll see what I mean.

The question of wheelers is an interesting one but in the case of the Rapide, they were very much de rigeur in certain conditions. As Daysleeper points out, when required, the tail was kept up to keep it in clean air and maintain rudder control for as long as possible - there was no propwash to assist. Twin-tailed kites were a lot better in this regard (naturally!) which is one of the reasons so many multi-engined tail wheel aircraft were multi-tailed too.

I am in several minds about steering tail wheels. In some respects they inhibit ground manoeuvering but they are better than a fixed wheel, particularly on initial take-off roll and in cross winds. There was a lot to be said for the old skid - on grass, anyway. In something like the DC3 with a fixed wheel, it was important to accurately line the aircraft up with the runway centreline (if there was one) and set the DI on take-off as forward vision was nil until the tail came up. Incidentally, we usually were made to pay for the broken shearpin following a failure to mumble something about "tail wheel un-lock" on the downwind leg.

Happy days!