PA18-150 dem x-wind limit?

[stiknruda]

Another POH question!

This stems from tKf sitting on the ground at CLN today waiting for the wind to abate so that he can obtain his tailwheel endorsement, so that I can nip over pick him up, bring him back here and strap him into his VeePee.


The school at CLN have their own version of the POH and it states an 8kt demonstrated cross wind limit.


This seems from memory quite low to me. Is the school imposing a lower limit than Piper?

Thanks

stik

[shortstripper]

Stik,

I can't answer for sure, but it does seem low to me? I remember flying in some quite brisk crosswinds when I was there.

SS

[Arclite01]

Stik

At Redhill the X-Wind limit for the PA18-135 was 15Kts.

For my L4 it is 15Kts but 10 Kts imposed by Syndicate rules (sensible)

The one I flew in the states was 17Kts so I guess you pay your money and take your choice.

I would suggest 10Kts for a beginner, depends if it is gusty too (as you well know).

Is it 90 degrees X-Wind as this is a big factor too, I've found that anything up to 20 degrees off is not too bad, beyond that it's a whole new ball game.

Arc

[bookworm]

Can't speak for the Cub, but most FAA-certificated aircraft have a "maximum demonstrated crosswind component" which is not considered limiting. The language you use (i.e. "demonstrated") suggests that it might be that, rather than a limit, which is 8 knots.

Does the value appear in the limitations section of the POH? (or is the Cub too old to have one of those?)

[stiknruda]

15/17 kts seems far more reasonable to me. I have no issue whatsoever if the club/school impose a lower limit - just that poor tKf's frustration is beginning to show.

Oh well, had he learned on a taildragger as I kept suggesting, he would not be in this predicament!

Hangar out of bound to visitors until that visual obscenity has departed.

Stik

[Flyin'Dutch']

I have no PA18 (bad news) so don't have a POH for them at hand.

I suspect that they are so old though that this Demonstrated Xwind malarky had not taken off yet.

Therefore think that everyone just does their own thing.

Wish tKF all the best!

[Aerobatic Flyer]

8 kts seems a bit silly, but if it's your first day of taildragger training it's probably as well to have not to have a crosswind to make life difficult. I can understand why clubs that rent out taildraggers impose a low limit; a not very current rental pilot landing on a hard runway in a crosswind is a recipe for a groundloop and tears.

[MLS-12D]

My PA18 POH is at home right now, so I can't reference it right away. However, I do know that it is a pretty skimpy document, without much detailed information; so I would not be surprised to see that it doesn't have anything in it about x-wind limits.

You might find this thread (http://www.supercub.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=2233) to be somewhat helpful. As you will see, there isn't really a consensus about the top x-wind limit.

[PPRuNe Pop]

We used 15/17kts in the Tiger at Redhill and I cannot see why 8kts is being used on a tin can. All too low to me. I would get the book at and see what the demonstrated X wind is. They can't argue with that.

[Rod1]

Not many months ago I was flying the Clacton PA18 around in 13k crosswind????

I do not remember the “official” limit of hand, but 15-17 ish probably.

Rod1

[FlyingForFun]

The POH of those I used to fly all give a maximum demonstrated crosswind of around 15kt. (I have 3 different PA18-150s in my logbook, and they all had the same 15kt in their respective POHs).

As far as practical limits are concerned, I would say that for a suitably experienced and current pilot, 15kt is fairly sensible for 3-pointers. It's possible to handle much more (well over 20kt) with wheel-landings, but only if you are very current at cross-wind wheel-landings.

8kt does seem very low to me. For contrast, the school from which I rented when I was hour-building several years ago would not have let me fly their PA18s solo had I not been capable of handling 15kt crosswind without having to put too much effort into it.

FFF
-------------

[Flyin'Dutch']

I am obviously not as experienced as some on here but find that with winds much above 15KTS in a tailwheel aircraft that the taxying becomes the challenging bit, not the take-off/landing.

[PPRuNe Pop]

Quite right WR. I like your description. I think I was thinking of PA-28 at that moment - but I think the limit is still too low. The PA-18 is very responsive to rudder and taxying is not a problem if taught to do it correctly - and......you can use aileron!

[Chuck Ellsworth]

Just a couple of comments.

The school is being reasonable in having a low x/wind limit for initial training.

If you cannot demonstrate profficiency in wheel landings in high x/winds you should not be allowed to do anything except taxi a Cub.

If you lose directional control during a take off or a landing you can wreck the airplane.

If you lose control and wreck your airplane during taxiing you are taxiing to fast.

Chuck

[DubTrub]

Chuck, not wanting to re-ignite the old "3-point or wheel" debate, I doubt if a school here in the UK would require the demonstration of wheel landings for the purposes of "checking someone out" to get a tailwheel endorsement...

WR If the wind is that strong (especially at Wellesbourne's wide runway) then land into wind.

[MLS-12D]

Chuck and I have previously discussed wheel landings vs. 3-pointers. While I personally favour the latter for most conditions, I agree with all of his comments posted above.

I doubt if a school here in the UK would require the demonstration of wheel landings for the purposes of "checking someone out" to get a tailwheel endorsement...I don't want to 'shoot the messenger', but this makes absolutely no sense to me; what kind of check-out is that? It would be like omitting sideslips.

[DubTrub]

MLS :

That's just my experience...wheelers are often not considered necessary this side of the pond for the purposes of the endorsement (but sideslipping would generally be included...perhaps not in a Pa18-150 'cause it has flaps..and they're not necessary if you can sideslip...oops, another digression!).

I personally do not teach wheelers because in the types I fly they are unnecessary (but then I only teach in a limited few types, so I bow to the greater experience of others).

WR : do you still have the Aeronca?

[Tinstaafl]

Wheelers not required in the UK? That's interesting. In Oz I had to be able to do both - and in x-winds - for my tailwheel endorsement.

[Chuck Ellsworth]

Oh Boy, I guess I went and did it again. ( comment on flying tail wheel airplanes. )

Rather than argue on and on about this subject I would just like to comment one more time about why I have the opinions I do on this subject.

I learned to fly on tail wheel airplanes in 1953 and have about ten thousand hours in tail wheel aircraft form a tiny little early 1920's Powell Racer biplane to the Douglas C117.

I never flown a tail wheel airplane that I couldn't wheel land, but there were several I did not three point such as the Beech 18, Grumman Turbo Goose, Anson Mk5, DC3, C117 to name a few.

One of the reasons I did not three point those airplanes was due to the difficulty in keeping them straight on touch down.

So in my opinion I personally would not even think of checking out a pilot unless they could demonstrate the wheel landing and do so with precision.

In fact I teach wheel landings first then the three point.

Remember the above is only my opinion and each of you are free to do as you think best. :ok:

Chuck E.

[stiknruda]

Chuck, Fifty three years of taildragging - what would you know?:D

WR - with just a couple of hundred hours in my Aeronca Chief, I only ever wheeled it on in x-winds and agree that the 3pointer does have a shorter roll.

As for the DC3 - I only have 20 hrs in the RHS and all landings into hideously short African bush strips to deliver maize where made tail up.

The original point of the post was to ascertain whether the school were imposing a lower limit. As I stated in a subsequent post, I have absolutely no issues with that!

Stik

[Chuck Ellsworth]

If you are trying to do the shortest landing the best way is to wheel it on and touch down as close to the start of the runway as possible, once the wheels are on the runway you lower the nose to put as much weight as possible on the wheels so you can use maximum braking.

You cannot use maximum braking in a three point attitude due to wheel skid due to the lift produced by the high angle of attack of the wings.

And Please, please , please dont tell me that is not the way to do it because most of my tail wheel time is in the DC3 and almost all of it on unprepared short strips. And yes I have three pointed the 3 many times just for something different to do, but never with passengers on board.

Chuck

[FlyingForFun]

I was taught to fly tail-draggers in the UK. I was not taught wheel-landings.

On checking out on a tail-dragger (a PA18-150, as it happens) in the US, I was taught wheel-landings. Including, as I said in my earlier posts, wheel-landings in cross-winds well in excess of the max demonstrated cross-wind. It was only then that I realised just how lacking my original training was.

I vowed that when I become an instructor and do tailwheel conversions myself, I will never sign anyone off unless they can do a wheel-landing, assuming they are flying an appropriate aircraft. (I'd disagree with Chuck about there being no aircraft which can't be wheeled on, but the only reason I can think of would be limited prop clearance such as that on the Europa mono-wheel, and, I believe [but I've not had the pleasure of trying it myself yet] some Sukhois. Chuck, do you have any thoughts on that?) Now I'm an instructor, and although I've not yet done any tail-wheel conversions (my boss refuses to buy a tail-dragger no matter how much I pester him about it!) I still stick by this.

FFF
---------------

[MLS-12D]

FlyingForFun, I support your plan to require proficient wheelers as a condition of all tailwheel checkouts.

I agree with Chuck that there are few if any tailwheel airplanes that can't perform wheel landings (IMHO, a Europa doesn't disprove this, since it isn't a tailwheel aircraft). But I suppose there must be a few out there, since (in setting out the criteria for a tailwheel endorsement in the USA) FAR §61.31(i) says:

"The flight training must include at least the following maneuvers and procedures:
(i) Normal and crosswind takeoffs and landings;
(ii) Wheel landings (unless the manufacturer has recommended against such landings); and
(iii) Go-around procedures"

[emphasis added].

I have read that the Globe Swift should not be three-pointed (http://www.airbum.com/pireps/PirepSwift.html) (see also here (http://www.napanet.net/~arbeau/swift/bach.htm)), but don't know if that is actually correct. I do know that when I flew in a Swift last year, the pilot demonstrated both wheelers and three pointers without incident (perhaps he was just lucky).

If you are trying to do the shortest landing the best way is to wheel it on and touch down as close to the start of the runway as possible, once the wheels are on the runway you lower the nose to put as much weight as possible on the wheels so you can use maximum braking.Chuck, you have, what, 50 times more experience than me, so I defer to your wisdom. However, I remained convinced that a relatively low-time tailwheel pilot will almost invariably perform a shorter landing using the three-point method.

[DubTrub]

Chuck

I personally disagree with you there: in my experience the shortest landing roll is achieved by 3-pointing and then raising the tail for the max braking reasons you mention (Extras and the like seem to like this). But this (and indeed your) suggestion should be attempted only by experienced pilots, because of the potential to "nose-over".

Incidentally, the DC3 operating out of Hampton, NH (2300 ft, grass, 80 ft trees each end) appears to operate quite happily without stomping on the brakes.

Not wanting to cast nasturtiums,
most of my tail wheel time is in the DC3 would you at least agree that operating a DC3 is not going to have an awful lot of relevance to the majority of tailwheel pilots? Particularly those who are checking out in a Cub 150? And indeed those on a forum such as this?

Another consideration is that instruction here in the UK also gives much time to teaching when not to fly; keeping eyes on the weather, runway/wind direction at the destination, the pilot's abilities, personal limits, etc. I do not mean to suggest that this is not also the case in BC, what with its own weather being inclement so often, but perhaps here with our unpredictable wx, we give it a little more attention.

I still think that wheelers are not necessary for a tailwheel endorsement, but do agree that they should form part of further training before pilots progress to certain types or for extending their competence (and indeed for fun!).

All of the above posted IMHO by a relatively inexperienced pilot, but who only does wheelers for the fun of it.

[Chuck Ellsworth]

I have to blame myself for all this typing on this key board, but what the hell it is the private pilots forum, so I will just keep giving you my thoughts on this subject.

So, to Flying for fun::

I said that I have not flown a tail wheel airplane that I couldn't wheel land. However when first flying a strange tail wheel airplane I make a note of how high the tail would have to be to have a prop strike.

I am sure there are aircraft out there that would have a prop strike if you got the tail to high, I just have not flown one..

MLS-12D ::

The swift can be wheeled or three pointed with no great difficulty and is a little great toy I just loved it.

Dub Thrub ::

We each have out preceptions and experiences with " How best to fly "

Try thinking about this.

It is easier to place the wheels on a given point, lets say on the first ten feet of a paved runway wheel landing then it is to try and judge the float needed to contact the exact same spot when three pointing the thing. Not to mention that raising the tail after the three point will take more time and eat up more runway to get sufficient weight on the wheels for maximum braking.

Furthermore a wheel landing can be made with the touchdown speed at the stall, you just have to practice.

A tail wheel airplane is a tail wheel airplane, they all have the same take off and landing characteristics, they will of coures have different speeds and may be different in size but they are all the same as far as how to fly them.

I would never allow any pilot to fly a tail wheel airplane unless they were properly trained in how to fly one, if they can only perform three point landings they are are only partially trained.

There is no possible way to convince me that a partially trained pilot is competent.

But hey, we all have our opinions. For all you pilots who were deprived of proper training the fault lies with your instructor.


Chuck

[Rod1]

Ok, you have got me worried. I have about 45 hours tail time out of 800+, and fly about 10 hours tw a year. I have never learned to wheal it on, despite having checked out at a number of clubs with a number of instructors. When I have asked, most people take the view it is not done on the sort of a/c they have. I have very little problem landing 3 point on tarmac up to 15k cw in a Jodel, and have recently managed 13k no problem in a Cub on grass.

Two questions;

What would I gain from doing a wheeler?

How long will it take the average pilot to learn?

Rod1

[Aerobatic Flyer]

Rod,

I was never "taught" either, perhaps because the first tailwheel type I learned to land was a Pitts and you always land them 3 point. (Ref Chuck's comments above, I'd be interested to hear how one could wheel land a Pitts at stalling speed. To stall you need the angle of attack to be quite high, and to achieve that in level flight you'll be in a 3 point attitude, or even more tail low than 3 point.)

However, in Jodels (and Cubs, though I don't have much experience in them) it is easy to do a wheel landing once you are familiar with the aeroplane. I started doing them for the fun of it, and haven't had any problems. The main risk is pushing too hard and nosing over, but that's not something you're likely to do by mistake if you are experienced and current.

[stiknruda]

I've never INTENTIONALLY landed my Pitts on the main gear but it has happened!

Sean D Tucker - now he amazes me with his high speed wheelers and the rest of his display, well...............


Stik

[DubTrub]

AF : I guess you could be in the stall...with a horrendous, gear-damaging, prop-tinkling, rate of descent, but I am sure this is not what Chuck means.

DT

[Chuck Ellsworth]

Hey, I knew I'd get my nuts caught in a wringer if I started to debate how to fly tail wheel airplanes.

So first let me add on to my comment about short wheel landing touch downs. By " at the stall " I mean just prior to the stall.

Stiknruda and Aerobatic flyer, yes the Pitts is a demanding aeroplane to fly, I just started flying a S2B in Holland and for sure it lacks for foward visibility on final approach and in the landing flare. But like most all aircraft it is easy to approach and land in the curving approach to the touch down. ( I used the word "most" to prevent someone from telling me a 747 is not easy to land in the curved approach to the touch down. )

Unless of course you do a steep straight in at 200mph and use the prop as a speed brake just prior to the flare for a wheel landing like Sean Tucker, but who can afford the engine and prop he flys with?

So even including a Pitts, I still have not flown a tail wheel airplane that can't be wheeled on.

Once again it is my own personal opinion that the problem with lack of undersatnding and ability to do wheel landings is instructors that do not fully understand the subject they are supposed to teach. Maybe that is why they get paid peanuts?

OOOOhhh..that comment is going to get me in trouble. :E

Chuck E.

[Aerobatic Flyer]

Once again it is my own personal opinion that the problem with lack of undersatnding and ability to do wheel landings is instructors that do not fully understand the subject they are supposed to teach. Maybe that is why they get paid peanuts?

Possibly, but it's a bit of a generalisation. Most of my tailwheel flying has been in the mountains, taught by career instructors with more experience than I'll ever have (close to 30000hrs tailwheel time in one case) and even with them I've never been taught wheel landings. Admittedly you'd be pretty nuts to do a wheel landing on a sloping mountain airstrip, but they've never felt the need to take me to a flat airfield to practice.

Their view is that if I've been trained to fly by them, I can probably cope and they're happy to let me take the aeroplane where I want. And, as I mentioned above, I found that after doing the mountain flying courses with them I didn't have any problems doing wheel landings on my own.

[DubTrub]

Chuck Once again it is my own personal opinion that the problem with lack of undersatnding and ability to do wheel landings is instructors that do not fully understand the subject they are supposed to teach.

Perhaps no-one taught the instructors? Is there a syllabus? Or is it down to the knowledge of the instructors?

[Rod1]

The concept of PFA coaches was partly brought about due to the lack of tw expertise in instructor land. Anyone know if the PFA have a syllabus, and PFA people care to comment?

Rod1

[Chuck Ellsworth]

Oh my God what have I started here.

Oh well I'm in it this far and I never was one to let well enough alone so let me once again offer my opinion on some comments here..

O.K. ? there will be no hurt feelings? O.K. ?

Dub Trub :

I would guess you are right, no one taught them so therein lies the reason for the lack of knowledge so prevelent in this issue.

Aerobatic flyer :

Here is my generalisation on your comments.

Maybe the problem with the pilots you were taught by "IS" because they are " Career instructors "?

May I suggest that if you teach the same thing three times or thirty thousand times and never evolve past your level of instructing with regard to proceedures ( Three point v.s. wheel landings ) you are exactly what you teach...limited in knowledge and or skills levels?

I am not a career instructor, I am a working pilot who learned to fly by working in a very broad arena of flying both fixed and rotary wing aircraft, including aerial applicating, fire bombing and many years in the High Arctic flying everything from Super Cubs to the DC6 in the High Arctic.

It is beyond my comprehension to even think that anyone could suggest that wheel landings are some kind of black magic that only the high priests of our group are capable of..

Yikes....I'm finished with this subject and will just fade into the background and wait for some other simple problem to come on the screen. :ok:

Chuck

[Aerobatic Flyer]

Chuck,

Yeah - you might have a point there!:) (As usual, by the way...)

In defence of the people I was refering to, the term "career instructors" was perhaps badly chosen. Although they are now full-time instructors, their aviation experience is pretty broad - airline, military, rotary... and their instruction experience includes oddities such as giving annual refresher training to the French fire bombing crews in the winter seasons.

The point I was trying to make (badly) was that limited understanding of the subject by instructors is not necessarily why some people don't get taught wheel landings. The second point was that wheel landings don't seem to be a big deal anyway!

[Chuck Ellsworth]

Yes, it really isn't all that big a deal.

Where do you live in France?

I still have some flying to do with the PBY that is parked in the hangar at Orly.

Chuck

[Aerobatic Flyer]

I live in Lyon, but go to the Alps whenever I can. I have been badly bitten by the mountain flying bug!

Are you taking the PBY somewhere?

[MLS-12D]

I would never allow any pilot to fly a tail wheel airplane unless they were properly trained in how to fly one, if they can only perform three point landings they are are only partially trained. There is no possible way to convince me that a partially trained pilot is competent.... For all you pilots who were deprived of proper training the fault lies with your instructor.Right on, Chuck. :ok:

[shortstripper]

Blimey ... hasn't this turned into an interesting debate from a simple question?

I was taught three point and wheelers when I converted to power from gliders at Cambridge. Also things like taxying unbraked tailskidders downhill, downwind in strong winds ect ect. All this by an ex Lanc pilot and another instructor who was a Lancaster navigator. Converting from gliders I found wheelers more natural at first, but over the years I have almost completely changed to three point as a more natural feeling way to land.

Certainly at my experience level I find three point the best way to land short ... usually by holding the aircraft at the back of the drag curve with power and chopping the throttle at the point of touchdown. This always results in a three pointer in my experience and isn't always the prettiest way to land but then a perfect greaser with a roll out into the far hedge looks uglier in the end! Perhaps not the safest way either if you think about power failure, but very effective if you want to get into somewhere very short. It's certainly not the only method and not always the most approriate but I personally don't think I could land shorter in any other way.

That said, it's easy to get stuck in the habit of three pointers and forget that wheelers are sometimes a better option. I had my first groundloop earlier this year when I landed the Falconar at Thruxton in a brisk crosswind onto tarmac. I could easily have wheeled it on and afterwards wondered why I didn't ... habit! :ugh:

SS

I had the same problem (and still do to a certain extent) with go arounds, having been a glider pilot first.

[shortstripper]

How True :rolleyes:

[1McLay]

Had a look in the POH of our Super Cub

Max demo X/W is 9 knots.


:8

[TheKentishFledgling]

1McLay - which Cub variant is that? A -150? And is it an official Piper POH, or a once "home made" one?

Thanks,
tKF

[1McLay]

Yep its a 150 and it has been STC modified to a pregnant version i.e. enought seating for two people in the rear seat. Yes its an official POH but put together by the MOT.

I would say if you are comforatble with the machine up to 15 knots XW would be manageable.

regards

[Flying Wigster]

The POH max demonstrated crosswind for our 1959 PA18-150 is 10 knots.

A limit of 8 knots for a pilot learning on tailwheel sounds reasonable, we allow 15 knots for more experienced pilots and 20 knots for experienced club instructors, although it will still come down to pilot ability and recency.

With regard to 3 pointers vs wheelers I 3 point unless its more than 15 knot crosswind or very gusty.

[Miserlou]

I'd like to point out the distinction in the quoted FARs that a wheel landing is not the same as a normal landing.

I would also like to take issue with Chuck on the short landing technique but remain non-type-specific.

Short landings most frequently come from three-point touchdowns. With no obstructions, the technique is to remain airborne in the three-point attitude, closing the throttle on reaching the desired touchdown point.

In other instances, correct speed control is essential and side-slipping right to the flare will reduce the speed quickly. Then you can brake as much as you like as long as you don't break the prop.

The wheel landing technique is open to abuse re. speed control and the space used up by flying with excess speed usually exceeds that saved by the alleged braking advantage (if you're lucky enough to have decent brakes). The surface also plays a major role on braking effectivity and we are blessed in the UK with quite a number of beautiful grass airfields. Grass, however, provides a greater rolling resistance than tarmac but is useless if wet which is another thing we are blessed with-plenty of wet.
Furthermore, more energy is used in the flare from a steep approach than from a flatter approach.

I see it time and time again at work; you can tell the difference between those who fly taildraggers in their free time and those who don't.

[Chuck Ellsworth]

Quote :

" I'd like to point out the distinction in the quoted FARs that a wheel landing is not the same as a normal landing. "


............................................................ ............

Hmmm...

You learn something new every day, so it after all those decades and thousands of hours flying DC'3's / C117's / Beech 18's / Ansons / Grumman Goose, to name a few and wheel landing them, I've been doing it all wrong.

Wow .. thankfully I can read these forums to find out that I was not doing " normal " landings..... :{

Even stranger it seemed "normal" to me.

Chuck E.

[DubTrub]

Miserlou

You might perceive from Chuck his interpretation of your opinion. I happen to agree with you, but I have given up arguing Chuck on his opinion.

It's a bit like the old Ceconite/Stits, Nosewheel/Tailwheel, single/twin etc. arguments. We all have our own opinions, but we have to recognise that others have theirs too.

Don't get too wound up about it, just accept that we are all different, and that different aircraft DC'3's / C117's / Beech 18's / Ansons / Grumman Goose
none of which encompass the subject of this thread (sorry, Chuck) require different techniques.

Of course, this being the Private Flying forum, we are all VERY WELL versed in the operation of said types. What say you, Charles?:}

[Miserlou]

Thanks for your very informative reply, Chuck,

I didn't write them but it clearly states the two items as distinct from each other, reflecting the fact that most people would 'normally' perform a three-pointer in normal conditions and wheel landings when circumstances dictate.

Strange, though, that from your vast experience, which you never seem to pass up an opportunity to mention, you fail to address the matters which I brought up.

One wonders what kind of instructor would do that.

DubTrub,

We must have been writing at the same time; I just love a good discussion. I regret though, that I\'ve started this one when I can\'t respond again until thursday. Sorry, Chuck.

Re. original thread. The low limit must be a club limit as I remember the Super Cub having at least 15kts in the book. I have three-pointed it in more without difficulty but I was very current on type at the time.

[Chuck Ellsworth]

O.K. I went back and read all my posts and I found I had made a mistake or at least did not explain it right.

I said most of my tailwheel time is in the DC3 , what I meant to say is I have more time in the 3 than in any other single type.

As to small tailwheel airplanes, I have read all my comments and can't find anything that I feel was not correct from my own experience.....

Yes this is the Private Pilot forum, but I note that some of you are beyond the private pilot stage, anyhow sorry to have made to many references to my background, but, hey, no one here is perfect.

Miserlou...

Quote :

..........................

" Strange, though, that from your vast experience, which you never seem to pass up an opportunity to mention, you fail to address the matters which I brought up. "

" One wonders what kind of instructor would do that. "

......................

Well I am an advanced flight instructor and I have pretty well answered your questions, unless you have something that you really don't understand . :confused:

Remember we are posting opinions here, people can read and make up their own minds on how they wish to fly their airplanes.

How ever when we jump from discussion to remarks like .

" One wonders what kind of instructor would do that. "

We then are getting into a situation where you would have to actually fly with me to find out. :D

Chuck

[slim_slag]

Chuck,

In your experience, what's the actual max possible crosswind component in the supercub?

[Chuck Ellsworth]

Boy, oh boy, thats a tough one to answer here on Pprune where every word is disected and examined for errors.

Most of my Super Cub time was crop dusting and generally there was no wind during those operations, however we did operate off very narrow tractor roads on farms where we had to keep inside the narrow tracks, which of course lent itself to wheel landings for better foward vis on touch down.

I did fly one summer in the Canadian High Arctic with a Super Cub on big wheels, which because of their size made it difficult to wheel land because of the tendency to nose down caused by their being hard to start spinning on touch down.

Back to the X/wind question, it is difficult to say exactly what the actual wind velocity was at any given time as we operated away from airports, but for us the limits were when it got to windy to taxi safely.

So lets use a wind of thirty knots and start there, generally when the wind is that high you can angle across the landing strip to cut down on the wind component, remember your ground speed will be very low the closer into wind you can point so your landing distance is short. The real trick is to touch down in a wheel landing attitude just above the stall in case you f.ck up you can apply full throttle and you are flying again in control of your machine, if you lose directional control in the three point attitude it is far more difficult to regain control.

As far as I can recall we sometimes landed on eskers in the arctic with X/winds in excess of thirty knots with the Super Cub.

However you must bear in mind the fact that we flew these machines almost every day in every concieavable weather condition, so we were very current and comfortable with flying them.

Now I will hunker down and await the incoming flack. :E

Chuck E.

[Nardi Riviera]

Dear Chuck:
Why, EVERYONE'S words are dissected and examined on ANY forum!!! Know-nothing hot-shots may initially feel safe behind anonymity, but if you challenge them on FACTS ONLY they will back off. After a few days new topics are added, and "whatever" is soon forgotten. So-called "hard feelings" never last long in cyberspace. Each individual to his/her opinion. What's the big deal? Anyone are free to contribute.
You have sooo much experience to offer. Especially on water-flying. Why don't you pop on over to SPA Forum again – it is different now that only members can post. No fun and bashing for ages. Quite boring and dry matter-of-fact. Novice seaplane pilots sure could use your sound advice. And oldtimers might enjoy your contributions even more. Like the undersigned. Just be careful about temperamental language (Americans tend to be somewhat touchy in that area), and we'll get the message alright.
Pleeease? :O :p :O

[Chuck Ellsworth]

O.K Nardi R I shall renew my membership in SPA and have another go at their forum..

I should tell everyone about our trip to Lake Como anyhow, my wife and I were guests of Cesare Baj and had a great time at a great sea plane operation.

I return to Holland the second week of March to start the new airshow season and finish the training left over from last year...

..The Dutch have a world class Cat restoration, it isn't far from Norway you should come and visit us, I might even find an empty seat on one of our flights you could fill.

Before I get smacked for highjacking a thread I'll quit.:ok:

Chuck

[Nardi Riviera]

Let's hurry over to the Nostalgia section, then! Wanna show you a PBY that I got a ride in here, about 1975.

Apology to thread-owner and posters, for going off-topic and hijacking Chuck.
:p :oh: :p