Tailwheel rating for a Turbulent

[robin]

FWIW I converted to the Turb after some time flying Cubs

They are very different aircraft as the Turb is very light on the controls compared with Cub esp during landing and taking off.

Nice aircraft and I do miss them. Let me know if we've put you off. I'd buy it off you

[India Four Two]

BBC News - Star Wars actor Harrison Ford joins Shropshire flight club

Good videos here:

[abgd]

Thanks to all for the useful responses. I think I've seen Bob doing air displays so may well venture in that direction.

"What are your plans for the aircraft? You planing on flying in the calm of the evening in the local area or hour building in all the conditions the aircraft could handle?"

I'm still at a stage where I'm not certain what sort of flying is for me. I know the Turbulent's not a 'going-places' type of aircraft but I hope to venture a little further afield than I could justify in the C172 I've been renting hitherto, and also to get comfortable with a taildragger/tailwheel and see where that takes me.

I'm not hour-building for the sake of a commercial license, but I do want to explore the envelope (within the boundaries of sanity and safety). I know the Turbulent is no more an Aerobat than the 172, but what I do know is that I enjoy 'handling'. Most of my flights have a few stalls and spiral descents and maybe a mild bunt or two. Almost every landing is a pfl with a big sideslip and my most enjoyable flight of the year was the first ever one that made me airsick - practicing crosswind landings on a very gusty day."

"How many hours a year do you expect to do?"

I get a day off from work/babysitting every month. I'd envisage doing a few legs of perhaps 2 hours each to an aircraft museum or sightseeing. I'd love to visit the lakes from the air. I'd like to look for white horses in the South of England. So I'm guessing 40-50.

"Are you based on hard for Grass?"

I am currently based at Welshpool which has a grass strip - I fear a little narrow for my liking - and a hard runway. The LAA inspector has suggested replacing the wheel with a skid because he felt it was a bit marginal. I'll be moving on in about 10 months - I don't yet know where.

[Old skool Alex]

Hi congratulations on your purchase! I'm a relitavely low hour ppl with around 85 hours total time, about 60 of those in 172's.
Last month I started flying the turbulent myself and so far racked up a colossal 4 hours on them! Before that I did my tailwheel differences training on a cub and did about 12 hours on that and then about half an hour in a friends cap10 to get a feel for a more "responsive" aircraft.Before my first flight I got a brief from an experienced turb pilot, got someone to swing the prop and off I went. Spent about half an hour getting a feel for it in the local area and practised some stalling/slow flight at a suitable height and then went back to the airfield for a few circuits and landed with a silly smile on my face.Personally I found that my time on the cub and a short session on a more responsive aircraft was more than enough,
In my very short time flying the turb I find it a very fun aircraft to fly, a few usefull points I find are to keep an eye on your speed especialy when on final approach as it can bleed off easily and doesn't have a lot of momentum to gain speed and 'unstall'.Also on take off and landing it doesn't need much rudder input to keep strait compared to the cub and also seems to handle crosswinds very well compared to other larger aircraft.
Hope this helps,I'm sure an experienced Turb pilot will come along and give you some more pointers.
All the breast!
.A

[Genghis the Engineer]

Originally Posted by FleetFlyer

Hi, and congrats on entering the world of aircraft ownership. I fly an LAA administered tail dragger also and its the only way to arrive.

I've flown a tailwheel Thruster and its just too easy, you simply don't need any instruction to be safe in one of those.

Having checked quite a few people out on a syndicate TST I tend to disagree with you.

I also recall the LAA coach* who managed to total a TST some years ago the first time he tried to instruct on it, leading to the LAA quite rightly banning its coaches from instructing on BMAA microlights and telling it's members to use microlight instructors on BMAA microlights.


That said, I have a Condor, which is basically a 2-seat Turbulent, and it flies absolutely nothing like a Thruster. So, I'd still agree that a Thruster is the wrong trainer here. It's a fair point that the Tiger Club are probably the experts in how to learn to fly a Turbulent safely.

G

* Said coach I suspect had no microlight time and an excessive faith in his own abilities. Hopefully one or both of those have been fixed by now.

[BroomstickPilot]

Clarification

Hi Frightened nose gear,

My post was not directed at you - or indeed at anybody in particular. I really must apologise if it gave that impression.

Rather it was directed at a common misconception, that certainly does exist among many trained on tricycle spam cans, that all that is needed to convert from tricycle to tail wheel is just a quick hour in a cub.

Best regards,

BP.

[Fitter2]

With my vast experience of 1 hour in a Turbulent 40 years ago, and rather more time glider towing with a Condor not much more recently, I seem to recall that the Turbulent was delightful and docile, and a Condor would be an ideal aircraft to do some time in before flying the single seater.

Of the types probably more reaily acessible, the Chipmunk springs to mind as appropriate in terms of handling.

Have fun, and keep it straight on the ground. Preferably fly off grass.

[robin]

Always fun to watch someone converting to the Turb.

The PIOs on take-off and landing give a good idea of the sensitivity in pitch

[9 lives]

It is important for tricycle pilots to realize that training in a tricycle does not prepare one for being adequately skilled to land a taildragger. That is separate training, and needs to be taken. Who would think to take their 100 hours in a 172 wheel plane, and jump into a 172 floatplane and go for a circuit with no training on floats? Cessna did not call tricycles "Land-O-Matic" for nothing, they are more forgiving of poor technique. Thus, taildraggers require more, or at least different skills.

A very current experienced pilot might be able to be talked through checking themselves out in a taildragger, if the mentor were effective. If you fly a taildragger with precision and skill, they are not more difficult than a tricycle. But, I observe that many of today's pilots have not been trained to fly with that amount of precision - thus they should expect a taildragger to challenge them.

Ultimately, a taildragger will provide you with greater landing capability, in trade for less tolerance of sloppy technique. I have not known a tricycle only pilot who was easily able to transition to taildragger with only a couple of hours [in a Cub]. Yes, they could fly it, but during a landing, they were at the edge of their skills before they were at the edge of the aircraft's capabilities.

[abgd]

Well, over here it seems you need a rating in order to fly one, so no question of being checked out or not. There was a blooper - promptly corrected - in one of the UK flying magazines to the effect that you didn't need a rating.

I'd confess that my ability is outstripped by the capability of most aircraft I've flown. It's not something I've worried about - surely the idea is just to gain some impression of where the edges of your ability lie in order to be safe enough to practice.

[9 lives]

gain some impression of where the edges of your ability lie

When you have correctly established what control to move in what direction, and reach the point where you have correctly applied that control and reached its full travel, it is likely that your ability is now exceeding that of the aircraft.

A few times, I've wished for more control, but reasoned that the manufacturer's did not intend that I have it, so I must be trying to do something with the plane which it cannot/should not. On two different occasions, while landing modified Grand Caravans in crosswinds exceeding 25 knots, during testing, I had full pedal applied and held to keep it on the runway. My foot would have gone more, but I'd reached the limit of the plane!

[SlipSlider]

Well, over here it seems you need a rating in order to fly one, so no question of being checked out or not.

There is no such thing in the UK as a tailwheel rating. You need differences training and sign-off by an instructor; a rating would perhaps imply a prescribed syllabus, which is not the case for tailwheel.

Turbs are delightful, and too good to risk. I would strongly recommend talking to the Tiger Club Turb team: Turb Team Home and perhaps taking some dual time in a Condor if available, or a low-powered Cub. And unless yours is a canopied version (the one that was advertised for sale recently?) I would also suggest some air time (as passenger is fine) beforehand in something with an open cockpit .... great fun, but a rather different environment to a Tomahawk or Cessna 172.

Enjoy your Turb; I'm more than a little envious ...

[rogcal]

I'm surprised no one has mentioned a Jodel as an aircraft to cut your taildragger teeth on.

After approx 50 hours on nosewheel aircraft, an hour of dual in a Jodel D11 set me up for 3 decades of taildragger flying in variety of tailwheel aircraft.

[abgd]

There's a very good flight test of the Turbulent in the February 1997 issue of Pilot Mag, tells you all you need to know.

Thanks - copy located via Ebay.

['Chuffer' Dandridge]

but I do want to explore the envelope (within the boundaries of sanity and safety). I know the Turbulent is no more an Aerobat than the 172, but what I do know is that I enjoy 'handling'. Most of my flights have a few stalls and spiral descents and maybe a mild bunt or two.

Please tell me you won't even think about doing 'mild bunts' in a Turb.

The first and last person to aerobat a Turb was in the 60s at Biggin Hill. It ended in tears for him and his family.

The g limits are VERY low (can't remember the exact figures), and they will break, I've seen it happen.

If you want to explore the edges of the envelope, buy a Pitts.

[FleetFlyer]

Chuffer, I believe by 'mild bunts' the OP was referring to pushing forward to achieve zero G for a second or two starting from a climbing attitude, rather than outside loops.

[abgd]

Chuffer, I believe by 'mild bunts' the OP was referring to pushing forward to achieve zero G starting from a climbing attitude, rather than outside loops.

Exactly... I can see that you could overspeed if you overcooked things, but I'd have hoped you should be able to do the whole maneuver in 0-2g.

['Chuffer' Dandridge]

Fleet,

I know exactly what 'a bunt' is.. Which is why I advised against doing it in this particular type, a type I have a lot of experience in and a lot of respect for not pushing the limits in. The Pilot mag article from 1997 was written by a very good friend of mine who has shed loads of experience, who has pushed a Turb beyond its limits, and has the scars to prove it. Fortunately, he walked away from it but the aeroplane was written off. That was the result of an over exuberant wingover and turn reversal which ran out of ideas and speed at low level. Lesson learnt.

I wouldn't dream of lecturing anyone how to fly their aeroplane, so by all means, the OP should be allowed to go and explore the envelope..

The aircraft simply wasn't designed, built or stressed for negative g, which a poorly handled 'bunt' can potentially lead to.

Enjoy the aeroplane and remember the famous Norman Jones proverb, 'All aeroplanes bite fools"

[Meikleour]

abgd: Are you comfortable about your engine response to negative "g"?

Could be quite embarrassing!

[9 lives]

explore the envelope

And herein can lie the hidden dragons.... There is no requirement for amateur built aircraft to have a defined "envelope". So although the term is probably used lightly here, it has serious implications if you start fooling around at the corners of a not defined "envelope".

This is one often overlooked aspect of piloting non certified aircraft. Some have magnificent capability, others rather modest machines simply to leave earth for a bimble, and it can be hard to tell one from the other by looking at them. With a certified aircraft you'll have compromise performance and handling, but the envelope is assured.

Look at the era, I judge the Turbulent to be an aircraft to be modestly built in a person's sitting room, to enable a gentle tour around a welcoming sky. At the time, and for the purpose envisioned, I doubt even mild aerobatics were envisioned as an operational need, and so the added cost to enable such capability was not designed in - and builders are not typically capable of including it at any point.