X/winds and tail wheel airplanes.
"Tail Heaviness" in terms of physically lifting the tail doesn't say much about the aircraft in the air. All it says is that its a heavy aircraft, and that possibly the main gear is relatively far forward of the C.G. The Helio Courier comes to mind 
I don't think a common landing gear configuration means two aircraft should be flown the same way, or that multiple landing techniques are applicable to any and all aircraft with that configuration. The Luscombe Sedan comes to mind now, and bonus points to those who know that story.
I do think The500man's comment is the best in the thread - a tail wheel endorsement is a largely meaningless scribble in a pilot's log book. What's actually required is to learn to fly each individual aircraft as it comes into your experience. You don't actually learn by following a syllabus created by somebody else anticipating an experience base different than your own, or by accumulating scribbles in log books.
Desert185 - I sure agree about loaning your stuff. After you've learned to operate it, the risk of breaking it is much reduced. Why tempt fate by letting somebody else go through that cycle with your stuff?!
I don't think a common landing gear configuration means two aircraft should be flown the same way, or that multiple landing techniques are applicable to any and all aircraft with that configuration. The Luscombe Sedan comes to mind now, and bonus points to those who know that story.
I do think The500man's comment is the best in the thread - a tail wheel endorsement is a largely meaningless scribble in a pilot's log book. What's actually required is to learn to fly each individual aircraft as it comes into your experience. You don't actually learn by following a syllabus created by somebody else anticipating an experience base different than your own, or by accumulating scribbles in log books.
Desert185 - I sure agree about loaning your stuff. After you've learned to operate it, the risk of breaking it is much reduced. Why tempt fate by letting somebody else go through that cycle with your stuff?!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Vancouver Island
Posts: 2,517
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Tail Heaviness" in terms of physically lifting the tail doesn't say much about the aircraft in the air. All it says is that its a heavy aircraft, and that possibly the main gear is relatively far forward of the C.G. The Helio Courier comes to mind
About fifteen years ago I converted my Cessna 150 Aerobat to a Texas Taildragger with the long gear on it.
That sucker sure was tail heavy due to how far forward the main wheels were.
The biggest problem with such a configuration is controlling yaw during take off and landing, but it did what I wanted it to do, it made for a good little tail wheel trainer because it was demanding on the runway.
I once flew a tailwheel converted C 150. It had the original tube main gear relocated and a POS Maule tailwheel and the ground handling was the nastiest I have ever experienced.
Cessna made a wonderful two place taildragger......Its called the C 120/140
I personally don't see the point of the C 150 taildragger conversion
Cessna made a wonderful two place taildragger......Its called the C 120/140
I personally don't see the point of the C 150 taildragger conversion
One of my neighbors has a C150 converted to tailwheel. It is an early one that has the flat spring gear. She likes it. Says the biggest gain is the real flaps. They also own a 140 and have restored a bunch of 120/140's.
Bryan
Bryan
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Vancouver Island
Posts: 2,517
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Let me share some background facts here.
When I was in the flight training business I was looking for a dual purpose inexpensive trainer, I had a Cessna 150 Aerobat and looked at it and decided to convert it to a tail wheel machine, after much research I bought the Texas Taildragger kit and STC because I was aware of the problems using the original main gear.
When I finished the conversion I was very pleased with the results and for me it was worth the cost of the conversion.
I learned to fly on a Cessna 140 and am very familiar with its handling qualities.
The Aerobat with the long gear handled almost the same as the Cessna140 except it was a bit more demanding in yaw on the ground.
It was about half way between a Citabria and a Pitts for ground handling so for my needs at the time it was a very good choice.
Cost wise it served the purpose I needed, I would have preferred a Fleet Canuck because in my opinion it is the best little tail wheel trainer I have ever flown.......but.......I needed an airplane that was certified under the aerobatic category and sadly the Fleet Canuck is not.
I sold it some years ago to a friend and he loves the thing.
When I was in the flight training business I was looking for a dual purpose inexpensive trainer, I had a Cessna 150 Aerobat and looked at it and decided to convert it to a tail wheel machine, after much research I bought the Texas Taildragger kit and STC because I was aware of the problems using the original main gear.
When I finished the conversion I was very pleased with the results and for me it was worth the cost of the conversion.
I learned to fly on a Cessna 140 and am very familiar with its handling qualities.
The Aerobat with the long gear handled almost the same as the Cessna140 except it was a bit more demanding in yaw on the ground.
It was about half way between a Citabria and a Pitts for ground handling so for my needs at the time it was a very good choice.
Cost wise it served the purpose I needed, I would have preferred a Fleet Canuck because in my opinion it is the best little tail wheel trainer I have ever flown.......but.......I needed an airplane that was certified under the aerobatic category and sadly the Fleet Canuck is not.
I sold it some years ago to a friend and he loves the thing.
Of course, it is quite logical to require me to train a person in all aspects of tail-wheel operations to gain the required tail-wheel endorsement so that the pilot may then go off and fly any tail-wheel aeroplane he/she is legally entitled to.
CASA's new Part 61 supposedly being implemented in September will probably (I don't know as the Manual of Standards is only a draft) require three pointers as well as wheelers.
(The standard to execute short take-off and landing is much more exciting but that is not the topic of this thread.)
Interestingly, the set of notes for training in the Decathlon that was developed by some-one back in the late '70s and used by many local flying schools to the present day says don't do wheelers in it.
So, when the new rules are implemented I will follow them, of course, however I will recommend that pilots go elsewhere to get a tail-wheel endorsement then get back to me for aerobatics and spinning plus learn to land the Decathlon. Rather than waste lots of $ doing circuits in the Decathlon they will be able to get a much cheaper tail-wheel endorsement per the new regs on a C140 or something.
CASA's new Part 61 supposedly being implemented in September will probably (I don't know as the Manual of Standards is only a draft) require three pointers as well as wheelers.
Land tail wheel aeroplane
Selects and identifies aiming point.
Lands aeroplane at a controlled rate of descent, aligned with and above the
runway centreline (tail wheel within 2 metres of centreline), within a specified
area (±400ft/120 metres for PPL, ±200ft/60 metres for CPL) beyond a
nominated touchdown point, without drift, maintaining directional control, and
stops within the available runway length.
Minimises and controls ballooning and bouncing.
Lands aeroplane in the following profiles:
o main wheels and tail wheel simultaneously (three-point landing)
o wheel landing (main wheels only on touchdown)
o flapless landing
Performs after-landing checks in accordance with approved checklist.
Selects and identifies aiming point.
Lands aeroplane at a controlled rate of descent, aligned with and above the
runway centreline (tail wheel within 2 metres of centreline), within a specified
area (±400ft/120 metres for PPL, ±200ft/60 metres for CPL) beyond a
nominated touchdown point, without drift, maintaining directional control, and
stops within the available runway length.
Minimises and controls ballooning and bouncing.
Lands aeroplane in the following profiles:
o main wheels and tail wheel simultaneously (three-point landing)
o wheel landing (main wheels only on touchdown)
o flapless landing
Performs after-landing checks in accordance with approved checklist.
Interestingly, the set of notes for training in the Decathlon that was developed by some-one back in the late '70s and used by many local flying schools to the present day says don't do wheelers in it.
So, when the new rules are implemented I will follow them, of course, however I will recommend that pilots go elsewhere to get a tail-wheel endorsement then get back to me for aerobatics and spinning plus learn to land the Decathlon. Rather than waste lots of $ doing circuits in the Decathlon they will be able to get a much cheaper tail-wheel endorsement per the new regs on a C140 or something.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Vancouver Island
Posts: 2,517
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interestingly, the set of notes for training in the Decathlon that was developed by some-one back in the late '70s and used by many local flying schools to the present day says don't do wheelers in it.
I was given these notes when I first flew a Decathlon in the late '70s.
I am sure that we both agree, Chuck, on the silliness of that reason - I guess that some-one bent a Decathlon in the early days by bouncing and bouncing and bouncing .... and the boss said don't do wheelers so it has remained as tribal knowledge ever since.
Up to the early '70s in Aus we had endorsements on individual types and I had previously flown Austers but was not taught wheelers on them either.
I got my CPL/instructor rating late in life (a corrupt life mainly flying things like the Pitts) then bought a Decathlon. CASA got rid of the old silly simple Aus-specific flight manuals and people then started to look at the FAA approved flight manual.
Still quite a few schools here using Decathlons and their instructors don't even know how to do wheelers.
As I said, if/when it is mandated that I teach wheelers for a tailwheel endorsement in a Decathlon I will comply but I will tell the punters beforehand that it is the most expensive way to achieve their objective.
Wheel landings are NOT recommended for the Decathlon due to the increased risk of striking the propeller on the ground.
Up to the early '70s in Aus we had endorsements on individual types and I had previously flown Austers but was not taught wheelers on them either.
I got my CPL/instructor rating late in life (a corrupt life mainly flying things like the Pitts) then bought a Decathlon. CASA got rid of the old silly simple Aus-specific flight manuals and people then started to look at the FAA approved flight manual.
Still quite a few schools here using Decathlons and their instructors don't even know how to do wheelers.
As I said, if/when it is mandated that I teach wheelers for a tailwheel endorsement in a Decathlon I will comply but I will tell the punters beforehand that it is the most expensive way to achieve their objective.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Vancouver Island
Posts: 2,517
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am sure that we both agree, Chuck, on the silliness of that reason - I guess that some-one bent a Decathlon in the early days by bouncing and bouncing and bouncing .... and the boss said don't do wheelers so it has remained as tribal knowledge ever since.
Using that thought process why not just ban all flying.
The Decathlon is one of the most benign tail wheel airplanes ever certified for flight, if a training pilot can't wheel land one maybe they should get further flight training and once they can fly the Decathlon maybe try teaching again.
The Super Decathlon is quite a high workload in the circuit for a fresh PPL and the dual rate is about double that of a Eurofox locally. In my opinion, a Citabria is much better for tail-wheel training and still quite a bit cheaper than a Super Decathlon.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Vancouver Island
Posts: 2,517
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Super Decathlon is quite a high workload in the circuit for a fresh PPL
The Decathlon is a very easy airplane to land using both three point and wheel landing methods. Period.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 3,325
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've quite a bit of experience in Citabrias having had them available as club aeroplanes, and then part owning one for a while. I know the Decathlon is more capable, but it's basically the same airframe isn't it? Is the Decathlon much different to fly, or is it just VP prop etc?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Vancouver Island
Posts: 2,517
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I used to fly a Super Decathlon that belonged to Wings Over Holland and as far as landing goes the gear was much softer than a Citabtia and prone to bouncing if you did not touch down smoothly doing wheel landings....but ...it was easy to land using either method....and it was a lot more expensive as it had inverted fuel etc for aerobatics.
I just remembered I used to fly a Citabria fitted out for aerial application and it had more room inside than a Super Cub...It did nice wheel landings which made it easier to land on narrow farm roads etc.
I just remembered I used to fly a Citabria fitted out for aerial application and it had more room inside than a Super Cub...It did nice wheel landings which made it easier to land on narrow farm roads etc.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: across the border....
Posts: 181
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The POH for the Decathlon CS I flew specifically said to three point it - crosswinds weren't a problem with big ailerons (with spades), rudder and elevator there was always plenty of control authority.
Whilst having wheeled a few types on I could never see the supposed advantages in a crosswind - two pointing with the into wind wheel and tailwheel first works as well on most types, in fact for some - Robin 221, Jodel, Emeraude - it's the recommended way.
And do wheeler landings reduce the overall landing distance?
7700
Whilst having wheeled a few types on I could never see the supposed advantages in a crosswind - two pointing with the into wind wheel and tailwheel first works as well on most types, in fact for some - Robin 221, Jodel, Emeraude - it's the recommended way.
And do wheeler landings reduce the overall landing distance?
7700
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Vancouver Island
Posts: 2,517
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And do wheeler landings reduce the overall landing distance?
From my own experience flying tail wheel airplanes the best example I can think of is the DC3.
If I wanted to really land it short I found wheeling it on at minimum airspeed and once on the ground / runway use forward pressure on the elevators to increase weight on the wheels allowed for maximum braking and thus a short landing.
I never managed to get one stopped in the same distance when three pointing it.
Whilst having wheeled a few types on I could never see the supposed advantages in a crosswind
Conversely should directional control be lost at the stall or after the stall you have to accelerate back to flying speed to reject the landing...
Last edited by Chuck Ellsworth; 29th Mar 2014 at 01:12.
Since most GA aircraft need more runway to takeoff than to land I don't think it matters, although I think for your average Citabria type, plopping it on 3 point and then standing on the brakes will give the shortest distance.
But all of them will stop off a normal landing, 3 point or wheel landing in well less than the length of most runways will little to no braking so I don't think the length of the landing roll is going to dictate the type of landing in very many instances.
Personally I almost always 3 point the light taildraggers (Cubs,Citabrias, C 140/170 etc) and wheel the heavy ones like the Twin Beech.
But all of them will stop off a normal landing, 3 point or wheel landing in well less than the length of most runways will little to no braking so I don't think the length of the landing roll is going to dictate the type of landing in very many instances.
Personally I almost always 3 point the light taildraggers (Cubs,Citabrias, C 140/170 etc) and wheel the heavy ones like the Twin Beech.
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Vienna
Age: 50
Posts: 359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whilst having wheeled a few types on I could never see the supposed advantages in a crosswind.
