The latest - and hopefully final - update on the tailskid saga.
My Turbulent has a curved tailspring which means that the end of it is in the right position but at the wrong (increased) angle relative to the ground. This means that with the first assembly the pivot of the tailwheel is canted somewhat forward (as you follow it down) - somewhat akin to the front forks of a bicycle.
According to the plans, the tailwheel should sit with the pivot of the tailwheel canted only very slightly forward. With the aircraft loaded, it then points slightly backwards.
This meant that the tailwheel 'liked' to sit in front of the pivot, at least at low speed. At speed the original tailwheel assembly performed admirably, but on slow taxiing or trying to pull the aircraft out of the hangar, it was always conflicted between trailing and leading the pivot, making it hard to control.
Mk. II assembly is now adjusted to allow for the non-standard tailspring, with the geometry of the tailwheel assembly relative to the ground (angle of the pivot) now matching the plans. It works much more happily at low speed - at high speed they're about the same.
Monday saw 3.5 hours of happy flying - alas, on tarmac a tailwheel is clearly the way to go. The tailwheel changes the 3-point attitude quite a bit and there's clearly more drag than with a skid. I had one dodgy landing where I would doubtless have lost it, had I been using the tailskid. As things were, it was highly inelegant but came nowhere near a ground-loop. For one 2 hour flight I throttled back to 2000 rpm, about 70 kts indicated (I'm still uncertain about the accuracy of the ASI) then refilled the tank with just 14 litres.
Still getting used to the brakes. For landing I can cover the right brake pedal and the rudder together quite easily with the right foot, and I can cover the left rudder and brake pedals with the left foot. Differential braking for steering is quite easy. For run-ups I can use one foot on both pedals. But using both brakes to slow down is still beyond me!