Tailwheel Vs Tricycle [Archive]

heywatchthis

14th Dec 2006, 20:43

What kind of Tailwheel aircraft do they use for training??

I did my initial training in a piper cub, then for PPL Cessna 172 and CPL did it all in the Cessna 180. So I got a bit of mix. My first 1200 hours of flying was dropping meat, and about 500 of that was in Tailwheels, 180/185 & T-Beaver. So it helped me get a start, apart from that there is not too many operators out there with tailwheels, unless you go AG.
Competent tailwheel pilots are a dying breed.

These days with the cost of flight training, my advice would be to take the most cost effective route, if that is in a dragger then score!
If not then do the rating for the experience, you will not be dissapointed!

Enjoy

VH-XXX

14th Dec 2006, 21:10

I think it's a good idea to start in tailwheel, aside from the fact that it may take a little longer to learn, you'll benefit later by having a larger range of aircraft that you can fly.

I don't have tailwheel and I must admit that when someone says, "hey, come for a fly in my Decath" I wish I had it... it will open up some otherwise closed doors for you.

kookabat

14th Dec 2006, 21:18

Does learning on tailwheel make you a better pilot? or does it just mean you can fly a tailwheel??

BOTH!!
Just started my taildragger conversion and I'm learning lots about when and how to use the two things on the ends of my legs that have never really been needed before in the old Cherokee... Cherokees don't have rudder pedals, they have FOOTRESTS!! Would have loved to start off in them - I do know someone who, in the last year or so, first soloed in a Tiger Moth...:D

It'd just get you into good habits from the start.

Ratshit

14th Dec 2006, 22:49

What a load of nonsense!

Do yourself a favour and learn in a trike. It will likely be cheaper and certainly easier.

Then go get a tailwheel endorsement with an instructor who can actually really fly a taildragger - not just take you through the motions of a tailwheel endorsement.

The best taildragger pilots I know all learnt in trikes (cause that's what was used for ab initio!). These guys can make a taidragger talk!

Mastering the little wheel on the arse WILL make you a better stick and rudder pilot - but you don't need to do your ab initio on one to achieve the same result.

R:cool:

Centaurus

14th Dec 2006, 23:13

VH-XXX. I think it's a good idea to start in tailwheel, aside from the fact that it may take a little longer to learn

I don't know about that. Average time to first solo at aero clubs when I learned to fly on Tiger Moths was between 8 to 10 hours. In the RAAF, if you were not solo by 12 hours you were scrubbed - often quite unfairly I might might add.

Have a look at the average time to first solo now and I think you will find it is about 15-20 hours with the occasional student getting away at 8 hours and others as much as 30 hours. That said, much depends on the skill and experience of your instructor.

Chances are the instructor training you on a tail-wheel is more experienced than those instructors with bare instructor ratings and low total hours. The trend towards more hours to first solo has gradually changed over the intervening years and reflects not the perceived compexity of the Cessna 150/172/Warrior trainers, but more a combination of ATC influence in city areas, inexperienced instructors and last but not least the distance to the training area. In Melbourne this means transit times to Bacchus Marsh and Point Cook both of which can add significantly to the cost and additional dual log book hours.

Bendo

14th Dec 2006, 23:57

Bugger me! :uhoh:

...the average time to first solo now ...is about 15-20 hours...

Another good reason to leave the capital cities and learn to fly in the bush. Very few of my students take more than 12 hours to solo with many of them taking less than 10 hours. ALL the students under 30 fall into this second group.

If the "tailwheel only" school is the one in Camden, they have an excellent reputation. That said, 200 hours is a lot of flying training and I am sure you could put a TW endorsement in there somewhere.

My personal bias is towards tailwheels over nosewheels :ok:

bushy

15th Dec 2006, 00:40

We are getting bogged down with all sorts of counterproductive nonsense, in everything to do with flying. It's holding us back.
I learned to fly in a Piper Cub, and went solo the first day, after four hours.
What's happening today is hard to believe.

Delta

15th Dec 2006, 01:53

You called? :}

crack me up!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! hehehe :D :D :D

Wheeler

15th Dec 2006, 02:49

Can anyone suggest there is a better trainer than a C152?

If anything puts you off in the early stages it will be a Citabria - twitchy, nasty unforgiving little things..

BTW what does a tail wheel actually teach you other than you must keep it straight, be well on top of it if looks like going at all sideways and how to land in a three point attitude? You can fly a C152 really neatly too - it just wont punish you as badly if you get it slightly wrong during your early stages, which you will.

Andy_RR

15th Dec 2006, 02:57

What a load of nonsense!
The best taildragger pilots I know all learnt in trikes (cause that's what was used for ab initio!). These guys can make a taidragger talk!

Yeah, but I bet if you asked them now, they'd all wish they'd started on tailwheel.

The down side to learning in something like a Cub, is that everything tricycle and spamcan will be on the slightly dull side.

The up side is that you will learn to land correctly because you can't get away with not doing so, unlike a tricycle where bad habits are less likely to have you bouncing the width of the runway.

Whatever you choose, enjoy! :)

A

slackie

15th Dec 2006, 03:01

You really don't use your feet until you fly a taildragger.

Did 90% of my flying in trikes up until a couple of years ago, and now I do 99% of it in taildraggers (through choice)...whether it be a Cub, Citabria, Maverick, or Pitts....you certainly discover that your feet are useful for more than just walking to and from the aeroplane!!!!

The old addage of "don't finish flying until the aircraft is tied down" is certainly more true of taildraggers....in a trike you pretty much stop flying once you touch down on the runway....but try that in something like a Pitts and it'll bite you...even on the taxiway!!!

Trikes certainly are MUCH easier to handle on the ground (and getting off and back onto the ground:eek: )...in the air there is little difference....except I haven't found a trike yet that handles anything like the Pitts ANYWHERE!!!

As I said in the title....Real aeroplanes have tailwheels

tinpis

15th Dec 2006, 03:55

Bushy
We are getting bogged down with all sorts of counterproductive nonsense, in everything to do with flying. It's holding us back.
I learned to fly in a Piper Cub, and went solo the first day, after four hours.
What's happening today is hard to believe.

Absolutely... same for me... 4 hours 20 minutes

Wombat35

15th Dec 2006, 06:35

Right, time for me to wade in on this one.

As an owner of a tailwheeler and instructor, I would say go learn in a trike first. At least go solo in a trike before moving into a tailwheel aircraft. It would be better value for your money and take a little of the risk out of you ab initio phase.

They are really no different to a Cessna except for the important factor of the C of G, tailwheel relationship and that makes them more unforgiving in some aspect of the take-off and landing. For that reason alone you just need to get some time under you belt first and cut down on the techniques that you need to learn initially.

I feel sorry for you Wheeler mate, simply you have been taught incorrectly to fly them (7GCBC's) if that's you opinion ...:ouch: :ouch: ... (If you are in NZ any time, I'd be happy to set you off again in the right direction :O ).

Hope this helps and good luck with whatever decision you make. Sounds like you are going to have some fun.

Cheers

Wombat

psycho joe

15th Dec 2006, 13:28

tailwheel make you a better pilot? or does it just mean you can fly a tailwheel??

It means you can fly a tailwheel. Tail draggers were made back when they didn't know any better. :}

One of the schools I went to said they insist on instructing on tailwheel aircraft as it makes you a better pilot.

Better than what? If you really want to learn excellent hand/foot coordination then go and learn to fly a helicopter. Or better still learn to fly a trike properly.

M14_P

15th Dec 2006, 19:13

I know of an instructor who owns his own Cub, and is taking on a fresh student next year, who is going to do all his training, start to finish, in the Cub, obviously not IF stuff...What a way to do it though, I wish I had the chance to train on a tailwheel machine from the beginning. It does open new doors one would say, but to whom? Most people have ambitions for the airlines, a tail rating won't be of much use. Personally, the reason why I got one, is down the track, the best aerobatic machines are all light tail draggers, do better to get a feel for it now now than struggle with it badly later...

Aynayda Pizaqvick

15th Dec 2006, 23:24

Learning on taildraggers certainly won't make you fly better - once they're off the ground they are both the same. But if you want to make the bit between dispersal and getting airborne more difficult then go for the taildragger.
Taildraggers are an inherently unstable design, hence why they are very rarely found on modern military or civil aircraft these days, but if your goal is to fly off bush strips and the likes in a C185 then it is obvious which way should lean.
I would say go with a trike until you find a NEED or develop an overwhelming desire to fly a taildragger. If you decide you just want something to get your feet moving and make you a better pilot then do an Aerobatics rating - this will greatly assist your hand eye coordination as well as your ability to handle an aircraft near its limits while AIRBORNE! In my opinion this would be far more useful!

Mount'in Man

15th Dec 2006, 23:29

It means you can fly a tailwheel. Tail draggers were made back when they didn't know any better. :}

Better than what? If you really want to learn excellent hand/foot coordination then go and learn to fly a helicopter. Or better still learn to fly a trike properly.

Any old Joe can fly a tricycle, psychotic or otherwise! Tail-draggers? Now there is a challenge.
There was a time when they were commonly known as ‘conventional’ undercarriage. You folk seem to think they are unconventional. Not so, just more demanding if you have only ever flown a tricycle.
Lets shoot down some myths. Back in the days when they were conventional very few folk got their butts into a tricycle unless it was an airliner and even some of those were ‘draggers.
It still took the same time to go solo – about six or seven hours. Students had more skill on the stick and rudder, therefore seemed to get it together a little better. Fields were all grass, you just took off right in front of the ramp – same with landing, you rolled out in front of the hangar and just backed her up to the door.
‘Draggers weren’t difficult to fly … no one knew any better!
Above fifty feet a dragger is no different to a trike.
Below fifty feet you don’t sit around fat, dumb and happy like a trike pilot.
The landing attitude (if you three point) is definitely stalled. Don’t even think about releasing back pressure on the stick until ten knots or so above stopped.
If you want to vary your skill, wheel her on! Now there is a buzz.
Crosswinds – yep, ‘dragger pilots shine in those conditions because their butts are gripping the seat (suction) and their feet are working along with everything else including brain.
Taxy a ‘dragger and you need to be weather smart, particularly on ice or with a full-castoring tail wheel. If wind is from the left and you want to go right don’t turn right. Turn left thru a three-quarter circle – much easier.
Sometimes ground loops (very slow ones) can help you maneuver backwards but I better not go there!

sailing

15th Dec 2006, 23:59

As I said in the title....Real aeroplanes have tailwheels[/quote]

Almost correct....Real aeroplanes have tailSKIDS (and are made by DeHavilland!).

(Dons tin helmet and crouches lower in foxhole)

Clarie

16th Dec 2006, 23:14

It takes around the same time to go solo/reach GFPT standard in a tricycle or tailwheel aircraft. However if you do your licence in a nosewheel aircraft, then convert to tailwheel, it does take a while to "get it". So starting in a tailwheel can actually save you some money/hours in the long run.

You'd have no problem going from a tailwheel to a nosewheel aircraft - you'll just think they feel like a truck to turn around on the ground.

Flying a tailwheel aircraft will help you to develop an awareness of handling skills much earlier. You need to be on your toes from the moment you start up until the moment you shut down. I know - I have a bent prop and a dented spinner to prove it!

My experience in Australia is that training schools who teach on tailwheel aircraft are often better than those who don't (i.e. the "take the money and churn them out" schools!)

If you are in something like a Citabria, I've never found them to be "nasty" and "unforgiving" things, they are just a bit different. You can see over the nose and they are actually pretty friendly - it's not too hard to keep straight and they are not overly difficult to land.

Another advantage is that many tailwheel aircraft are aerobatic, so you can do spin training or aerobatics if you so desire. If you do plan to move on to doing competition style aerobatics later on, you'll need a tailwheel endorsement, so why not start now? If you go on to flying the Pitts, Laser, Edge, Extra etc, the more tailwheel time you have the better off you will be.

Chimbu chuckles

17th Dec 2006, 02:55

jethrolx

I would suggest that the issue of learning in a taildragger or not is not of one being harder to taxi/land/takeoff than the other...it is where will you get the better quality instruction by enthusiastic, knowledgeable, EXPERIENCED teachers.

That is vastly more likely to happen at a school that runs a taildragging fleet. Your grasp of the basics, as a result, will stand you in good stead no matter what you subsequently fly.

I doubt very much whether there will be any significant difference in time to first solo or overall cost.

Really it is just down to what you want...do you want to learn the very bare minimum to get the licences and move on up to big shiny equipment or are you a little bit of an aviation romantic at heart?

Why are you learning to fly in the first place?...if you can answer that honestly the secondary questions will answer themselves.

podbreak

17th Dec 2006, 04:00

Ratshit

17th Dec 2006, 05:06

... and it sure as s**t doesn't make you fly a trike any better.... :ugh:

Gotta disagree with you on this podbreak.

If you look at my earlier post, I am not advocating doing ab initio training in a taildragger, but I doubt that anyone in here can realistically dispute the fact that learning to handle a taildragger confidently in a range of (wind) conditions does make one more confident handing a trike in similar conditions.

R:cool:

Ratshit

17th Dec 2006, 06:26

Just happen to have my old log book in front of me. Now I don't think there is anything special about me (so keep the abuse to a minimum!), but thought I would put some "real" hours on this for those starting out.

Some of this is also relevant to the "Perfect landing C182" thread as well!

I solo'd (in 1973) at YBAF in 7.5 hrs (average?) in a C150 and got my Restricted PPL 12 days later after a test with a DCA examiner (the infamous ex Lufwaffe pilot, John Bally - "ahh, I do not know if we are alive or dead" - comment on my forced landing!) with a total time of 38 hrs (in those days, the Unrestricted PPL was granted after you completed a series of dual and solo navs, including additional IF - did that in the specified time)

My C172 "checkout" was 1 hour dual C & L with 4 POB, two days after the RPPL test.
My PA28 "checkout was 55 min ditto.
First constant speed prop endorsement was a B23 - took 50 min
First retractable was an M20 - took 1.25 hr.
PA32 checkout was 55 min.
At this stage I had 90 hrs total time.

I had 120 hrs when I did my taildragger endorsement - in a J5B Auster (a "pig" of an aeroplane to handle!) - took 3 hrs, and then I did a bit of glider tugging with it.

I flew a J1B Auster a bit - fun little aeroplane - much better control responses on and off the ground than the J5B and I pulled gliders for a few hrs with a PA25-235 (Pawnee) - a fun machine taildragger that really handled much like a trike.

My C210 checkout was 25 min C&L with a load of pax!!!

and then, when I had about 220 hrs TT, a mate bought a C185 !!!!!!!

My official "checkout" in the C185 was 2.3 hrs, but it took a further 8 - 10 hrs of ICUS (with a very competent C180/185 pilot) before I could say that I was approaching reasonable confidence/competence to handle the 185 in most conditions.

Mustering cattle with a 185 is probably the most challenging/exciting/spectacular flying I have done.

There are taildraggers - and then there are TAILDRAGGERS !!!!

As an instructor I have given tailwheel endorsements in a PA18 (Supercub) - great little aeroplane for teaching the idiosyncratic ways of the taildragger .....

..... but I would have to live in a C180/185 for quite a while before I would contemplate giving instruction in one.

Cheers

R:cool:

psycho joe

17th Dec 2006, 10:33

My experience in Australia is that training schools who teach on tailwheel aircraft are often better than those who don't (i.e. the "take the money and churn them out" schools!)

I would suggest that the issue of learning in a taildragger or not is not of one being harder to taxi/land/takeoff than the other...it is where will you get the better quality instruction by enthusiastic, knowledgeable, EXPERIENCED teachers.

I hadn't thought of this point, but totally agree with the above. There are some really experienced people instructing on tails. :ok:

185skywagon

19th Dec 2006, 05:35

Rats. As an instructor I have given tailwheel endorsements in a PA18 (Supercub) - great little aeroplane for teaching the idiosyncratic ways of the taildragger .....

..... but I would have to live in a C180/185 for quite a while before I would contemplate giving instruction in one.
Rats
You don't want do my AFR for me do you??? Can't find any T/W endorsed grade 1's out west.:ugh: A185F.

cheers
185.

tinpis

19th Dec 2006, 05:42

Couldnt you do your AFR in a C182? According to some of the experts here theres no difference? :} :uhoh: :hmm:

poteroo

19th Dec 2006, 07:08

185

Did you mean 'out west'.....as in western NSW or Q, or did you mean WA?

If it's WA, then PM me if you still need yr AFR

happy days,

Ratshit

19th Dec 2006, 08:24

Rats
You don't want do my AFR for me do you??? Can't find any T/W endorsed grade 1's out west.:ugh: A185F.

cheers
185.

Skywagon - I'd be happy to, but I don't think my lapsed Kiwi C-Cat Instructor's Rating counts for anything in Oz !!!!

If your in Qld - go see Bob Harris in Innisfail.

R:cool:

185skywagon

19th Dec 2006, 21:48

185
Did you mean 'out west'.....as in western NSW or Q, or did you mean WA?
If it's WA, then PM me if you still need yr AFR
happy days,
SWQ and too far from Inisfail.
Tin, last C182 time was 3000 hours ago, I'd probably be dangerous in it.
As it is, looks like I have no choice but a C172. A bit of a joke, since the 185 is what I spend a goodly part of my year in.

Sorry for the thread drift.

A tailwheel endorsement and some serious consolidation time, will teach you
an awful lot about the fine art of cross controlling. If you just do an endorsement (and no ongoing practice), you haven't really begun put it all into place. It can take a couple of hundred hours to start to pull it together.
IMHO.

If I had my time over, I reckon a Cub would have been the go for ab-initio.

I came to T/W late and would never go back to trikes by choice.

185.

Feather #3

20th Dec 2006, 00:26

A few thoughts.

I learnt to fly on the Chippy up to [then] RPPL. Provided you have good instruction, you learn on whatever you're on and just get on with it. There's no taildragger [or, in the old school terminology "conventional undercarriage"] mystique if that's all you fly.

Jumping to endorsement training on heavy jets, I've come to the conclusion that the guys who are happiest to use rudder when it's required to keep straight are ex-taildragger pilots. They're more aware of the vector the a/c is taking down the runway.

However, with limited exception, most of my fun flying these days is on a taildragger, so I guess I'm biased.

G'day ;)

And a Merry Xmas and safe New Year to all :)

barit1

20th Dec 2006, 01:58

...Jumping to endorsement training on heavy jets, I've come to the conclusion that the guys who are happiest to use rudder when it's required to keep straight are ex-taildragger pilots. They're more aware of the vector the a/c is taking down the runway...

While I've never had the chance to make this specific observation, it does not surprise me one bit. A taildragger has to be able to keep it aligned on, and pointed parallel to, the centerline in a crosswind.

To say nothing about stability on the ground. An interesting demonstration, comparing the dynamics of tricycle vs taildragger u/c: At the grocers, see if you can find a cart in good alignment and with two free & two fixed casters. It should roll nicely straight ahead when released.

Now turn it around and push it backwards. When you let go it will do the prettiest ground loop you ever saw! :eek:

tinpis

20th Dec 2006, 02:25

For those that havent already read it :rolleyes:
Dont know if this helps I posted this last years in the old PNG losers forum.
The gentleman(Mike"Ramu" Grant) described had thousands on hours in C206s in PNG at the time
Mt Hagen 1970
A few TAL pilots where pretty leery of the 185.
Mike was one of them and avoided it.
One day a training pilot collared Mike and a 185 at Hagen for some circuits. He also grabbed me and told me to get in the back for a bit of ballast.
Unfortunately the 185 he chose didnt have rudder pedals on the right hand side.:uhoh: :hmm:
Mike planted his big number 16 boots on the pedals gave the gas a big shove and off we went.:eek:
After several pig roots and lurches down the runway Mike managed to get airborne off the runway verge heading for the kunai grass at right angles to the centre line.:ooh:
Around we went in the circuit for a landing.
Looking down I sighted the fire truck tearing along the runway I knew then we were gonna die.
It turned out to be about the shortest landing Ive ever experienced in a 185 ..... an enormous KER !--bloody---RASH ! ! followed by a sickening ground loop and everything stopped.
When the dust settled a black face in fireys hat was pointing a hose at the windscreen with a big buai grin.
Mike was never again asked to fly the 185:}

And I made myself scarce as ballast.

Cloud Basher

20th Dec 2006, 05:38

Back to the original question.

Taildraggers are not more difficlute to fly (read takeoff/land) than any other aircraft. They are just different and demand more exact skills. If you have the chance to learn on the taildragger take it with both hands and do it. You won't know the difference and you will find flying the rest of the spam can trikes a walk in the park. I learnt on trikes as there were no tail draggers local to me. I now fly the Pitts for fun and I can tell you it does not take super human god like pilot to fly one (I know as I am the lowliest form of life apart from transport ministers...) it just takes concentration and a good instructor.

I think the best point was made a bit earlier. Your tailwheel instructor will likely be more "EXPERIENCED". Having experienced instructors is the most important aspect of learning to fly. BY guaranteeing this you are already on your way to becoming the best pilot you can be....

Cheers
CB

P.S. Even though Wombat35 advised against it, I would do the taildragger thing from scratch. As I said, you won't know any different. And those who sruke on about trikes making just as good a pilot usually haven't flown tail draggers:ok:

tinpis

20th Dec 2006, 05:48

Heck..do it all in a Harvard then you got it all covered :}

jethrolx

20th Dec 2006, 06:02

Hi again all,
Thanks to everyone who posted, I have decided to go tailwheel and have my first lesson in the Citabria on friday morning (spare pants on standby).
I have had a couple of intro flights before one in a tecnam and one in a c172 both of which were fun, but never being shy of a challenge, I figured id go tailwheel, and as people have suggested, have managed to find a VERY experienced instructor, as opposed to the few hundred hour types that are commnon at b'town.
Ill post again after my lesson can't wait :ok:

Wombat35

20th Dec 2006, 20:17

Have fun and say G'day to Jim, or Rob for me ;)

Either way you have not made a bad decision and it was a good point about the experienced instructors flying tailwheel. I guess I don't look at it that way, from the inside.

Enjoy your flying! and look me up if you want to do some 7GCBC flying in NZ.

Cheers

Wombat

jethrolx

23rd Dec 2006, 21:10

WOW :sad: Those tail draggers surely are a different beast altogether arent they?? Now i really appreciate the comments about "flying" a plane as opposed to "driving" one. The first lesson scared the hell out of me, but loved every second of the next one. Thanks again to all who posted, Merry Christmas!

(another converted tailwheel fan!) :ok:

barit1

30th Dec 2006, 18:54

FWIW - my early instructors were oldtimers who regarded anything with a nosewheel as a "kiddie car". I flew about 50-50 for my first 200 hrs. and only went to "modern" instructors when preparing for my CPL and CFI - they knew what the inspectors were looking for.

Even so, my exam for an Instructor rating was interesting; I had always been taught that a chandelle was a max. performance manuver, max. altitude gain, roll out on the edge of a stall. ("Old school", mind you...)

But this FAA inspector wanted a more moderate execution, only occasionally beeping the stall warning. I said "Sure, I can do that if you like" and demonstrated one - he was happy, and I too.

(I wish I could have demonstrated one in a 450hp. plane like my dad taught them - This inspector would probably ask to be transferred to a desk job!) :ooh:

ABX

11th Jan 2007, 12:42

Am trying to start my progression to CPL this year and after reading this thread have become interested in including some tail dragger hours in my training.

1) Anyone recommend a school in Albury?

2) Anyone know of a tail wheeler available here for training or endo?

Thanks,

ABX

djpil

11th Jan 2007, 18:19

There was a Decathlon at Albury and sometimes based at Wangaratta Aero Club. VH-SDK.

ABX

12th Jan 2007, 04:19

I'll see if I can track it down.

Can anyone recommend a flying school in Albury?

I have had a look at Air Centre, they look alright, has anyone trained there or got some advice for me?

All information appreciated.:ok:

Cheers,

ABX

M14_P

13th Jan 2007, 22:02

I really need to get some tailwheel currency, it has been a while. A couple of people in our syndicate are really keen on a certain Acrosport II (brilliant tandom open cockpit 180hp biplane with inverted fuel and oil, intermediate aeros level machine) that is for sale at the moment, it is not expensive, and between all of us, it would be an absolute steal, be great have two (very different) aeroplanes in the syndicate, but how to convince all the others....
Give me 12 months and I'd just about buy it myself...:)

ARPs

17th Jan 2007, 08:54

The first thing I did once I completed my CPL Flight Test was a Cub rating, and then a Glider tow rating and then a few months later a banner tow rating. I then spent my weekends towing gliders to get hours so I was not a fresh 200 hour cpl.

Within 3 months I was employed by a Charter Company flying a C172 and C206. Then within 4 months after starting I was onto the Islander.

Doing glider towing, which is mostly done with tail draggers, was a great way to get those cheap/free hours and also learn a lot more about weather as the glider pilot wants the best chance of getting away after release.

ARPs

Brian Abraham

18th Jan 2007, 04:37

Here's the take on it by one highly experienced tail dragger aviator. http://www.airbum.com/articles/ArticleTailwheelTraining.html

MCKES

18th Jan 2007, 04:53

M14 the acrosports are a homebuilt arent they ? Nice looking plane too.

Joker89

18th Jan 2007, 04:59

Did a few hours in a CAP10, the phrase "so you think you can dance" comes to mind.

tinpis

18th Jan 2007, 05:16

Has anyone had a go at a Texas taildragger 150/172?
I hear tell theyre a sack of squirrels on the ground?

http://www.controller.com/images/controller/fullsize/72506777.jpg

bushy

18th Jan 2007, 05:18

Mr.Buzzy

18th Jan 2007, 05:58

Geeez talk about opening a can of testosterone! I haven't seen a thread oozing so much ego for a long time!
How about this advice.

Learn to fly what you want to fly!

Want to fly a plane with a wheel under the tail? find a good operator and learn.
Want to fly a plane with 2 engines? Same deal, seek and learn.
Want to fly in the clouds? Seek a good operator and learn.
Could go on all night!

Learing one skill doesn't automatically make you good at all of them!

Get a grip folks, these are all machines that have been designed and certified to be operated by human beings not superhuman androids. It doesn't matter where the wheel is, good training will show you how to drive it and some experience will teach you how to master it!

bbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzbbbbbbbbbbbbbzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzz

Ratshit

18th Jan 2007, 07:29

I am with the Blowfly! Opps, ah - I mean the Bee!

"Has anyone had a go at a Texas taildragger 150/172?
I hear tell theyre a sack of squirrels on the ground?"

I have done a few circuits in a 150 Texas Taildragger. Yes, you have to be on your toes (like many, if not all, taildraggers). The one in your pic has a straight tail like a C180/185, but the one I flew had the ahhhhh swept-back (?) ie non-straight(!) tail so the rudder is even less effective once down out of the air flow.

In addition, the spring steel undercarriage legs are very unforgiving of any indiscretions - boing, boing, boing, boing!

But like anything I am sure with a bit of practice and time in the aeroplane anyone half-useful could tame it.

R:cool:

tinpis

18th Jan 2007, 11:06

Yes the one in the photo is and old fast back straight tail 172
I suppose it just reverting to a 170 except there is an opportunity to put a Lyc 180 hp innit
Buzzy go and lie down this is toy world when you get enough munny you can play toys too

Ive slithered all over iced and snowy runways and taxyways all over Europe using a tiller wheel I but I dont wanna talk about that cos it wernt any fun

Mr.Buzzy

18th Jan 2007, 17:12

Aaaaaarrrrrr but did she 'ave an open cockpit loike a reeeel mans plane?

bbbbbbbbbbbbbzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzbbbbbbbbbbbbbzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzz

djpil

18th Jan 2007, 19:28

Most fun I had was operating a Pitts from ice/snow packed runways with 8 ft high snow drifts at the edge of the sealed bit. Least fun bit was the minus 20 deg or so and no heater.

tinpis

18th Jan 2007, 20:17

Aaaaaarrrrrr but did she 'ave an open cockpit loike a reeeel mans plane?

No laddie she were modern loike, but she did 'ave four propellors and gas turboin loike yer proper hairyplane

Brian Abraham

19th Jan 2007, 22:18

Buz, a doco about you http://minuscule.tv At least you drive a real mans engine. Is that Tins flying tail end charlie or manning the web?

poteroo

20th Jan 2007, 00:33

Tinnie

Have over 300 hrs on a C152 'Texas Taildragger' conversion, most instructing.

It was not a 'Bolen' type conversion, where the legs are extended by a vertical section. This is really needed, because with even a Maule tailwheel fitted, the deck angle is too 'flat', thus causing the aircraft to be impossible to stall and 3 point on. It always hit t/w first - thus resulting in the mains coming down harder than usual. Wheeling it tail low was reasonably effective, but you could never roll it on a la C170 or 180 style because of the short legs.

What makes them very 'squirrelly' is if the main gear isn't rigged properly, allowing some toe-out of the tyres. So, it heads off in the direction of whichever tyre touches 1st, or has more grip. We later discovered that this particular 152 TD was of this problem - obvious as the tyres scuffed on the insides first.

Not the sort of unit you'd recommend for a first up t/w conversion, but manageable with experience.

happy days,

M14_P

26th Jan 2007, 11:07

M14 the acrosports are a homebuilt arent they ? Nice looking plane too.

Yep correct. Wider, softer undercarriage than on the Pitts S2, and more forgiving (slightly less powerful engine), but inverted fuel and oil, comfortable in intermediate aerobatic category, but not hte handful close to, and in fact on the ground as the Pitts. You would not believe how cheap this Acro is going for at the moment, 12 months from now and it would be mine.

M14_P

26th Jan 2007, 11:12

Brian A
That article should be compulsory reading for all pilots. It is very true.
Too many of todays pilots have never flown a taildragger, and have never spun an aeroplane. So they do not know how to properly handle an aeroplane, or recover from, or prevent a spin.
And we run around mouthing phrases like "world's best practice".

yep whenever the opportunity arises, I am always trying to convince people to do at minimum, spin training, but more importantly, the full akro rating, it's priceless. Even if one does not keep it current, at least you have been there, done that. In case you really need to call on that infamous spin training, I can think of 4 fatal accidents in the last 2 years where spin training could and should have prevented the accidents...
For me, spinning is a part of the daily routine, have explored dual advanced spinning (flat, pos and neg), and eventually, it will be also be a part of the norm.

Just recently, I have convinced a few fresh CPL's to do akro ratings, spin training should be compulsory.

bushy

27th Jan 2007, 01:05

Spin recovery used to be part of the endorsement for some aeroplanes, and most pilots were exposed to it. Cessnas and Pipers DO spin, despite what the sales people tell you, and many people have found out the hard way.
Do Boeings spin?? of course they do, if the nanny electronics fail.
A pilot who has never recovered from a spin would not know how to prevent one, and it is hard to believe we have commercial pilots who do not have this essential knowledge and experience.
Despite the complicated "matrix" and mumblings of "world's best practise".

ForkTailedDrKiller

27th Jan 2007, 04:07

"Even if one does not keep it current, at least you have been there, done that. In case you really need to call on that infamous spin training, I can think of 4 fatal accidents in the last 2 years where spin training could and should have prevented the accidents..." (MP 14)

"A pilot who has never recovered from a spin would not know how to prevent one, and it is hard to believe we have commercial pilots who do not have this essential knowledge and experience" (Bushy)

For the record, I am both tail-dragger and aerobatics endorsed and sorry, but I just cannot see this.

I can appreciate that being competent with a tail-dragger or with spinning/aeros does make you a better pilots because of the enhanced aeroplane handling skills and confidence in what the aeroplane will do and what you can do with the aeroplane. However, I just cannot agree with "A pilot who has never recovered from a spin would not know how to prevent one" or (without knowing the details) "spin training could and should have prevented the accidents"

If full spin recovery were made compulsory it would be likely carried out in the likes of C152s and Tomahawks, both of which I have spun many times. Neither aircraft spins readily but require pro-spin control inputs. These inputs should never occur in an properly flown aeroplane unless the pilot deliberately does it.

Given the way both aircraft spin nose fairly well straight down and how they wind up very rapidly, my experience is that even a "spin proficient" pilot who "accidently" finds themselves in a spin at low level is going to "buy the farm".

I have only ever "accidently" entered a spin once in my flying career - and obviously I lived to tell the tale. I would argue that I was very proficient in spin recovery at the time, being in the middle of an aerobatics endorsement. I when up with a C150 Aerobat in one hand and an aerobatics manual in the other hand, intent on teaching myself snap rolls. The first one I tried caught me out with the suddeness and rapid rate of roll that I completely lost the plot and recovered from the subsequent spin with the loss of 1000+ feet. Fortunately my well developed survival instincts had me at 8000 ft AGL for the start of my aerobatic lesson.

The take home message for me from that experience is that if I every "accidently" spin an aeroplane at low level, the last word I will ever utter will be "shiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiit!"

MP14 - I would be interested to hear more details of the accidents to which you refer.

So will my experience in aerobatics and spin recovery be of value if ever I "accidently" find myself and the BE35 in a spin - I doubt it, but operating the aircraft confidently within its normal flight envelope will ensure that I never have to find out.

FTDC:cool:

bodex666

27th Jan 2007, 04:48

Ah so true, nothing makes your head spin when you groundloop and think "I dont rememebr going that way?"
:ok:

barit1

28th Jan 2007, 15:59

Here's the take on it by one highly experienced tail dragger aviator. http://www.airbum.com/articles/ArticleTailwheelTraining.html

This article, by Budd Davisson, is right on the numbers. It takes you back to BASIC flying skills, which seem to be less and less prized these days.

tinpis

28th Jan 2007, 23:51

Oh...and during your C180/185 training have the instructor unlatch your seat before take-off http://www.augk18.dsl.pipex.com/Smileys/laughpound.gif

bushy

29th Jan 2007, 00:04

FTDC
Surely you have heard of stall/spin accidents. They are still happenig.

M14_P

29th Jan 2007, 00:32

MP14 - I would be interested to hear more details of the accidents to which you refer.

So will my experience in aerobatics and spin recovery be of value if ever I "accidently" find myself and the BE35 in a spin - I doubt it, but operating the aircraft confidently within its normal flight envelope will ensure that I never have to find out.
FTDC:cool:

That last bit refers to the perfect world, unfortunately mistakes or very bad judgement calls do happen, one should know how to get out of the very bad error they have made surely.

The biggest story of late, is that Tiger Moth accident literally a few hectares over from my home base. I spoke to someone who saw it happen (the local CFI), and to a friend of mine who is a highly experienced Tiger (all De Haviland types in fact) pilot - and spin training could have and should have prevented that accident.
I know, it is a vintage type, and most therefore don't fly types of this calibre, still, it happened.

I think it is just a question of having been there and done it, it should expand your own horizons. Well when I first flew solo, did my first loop, my first spin in training, first landing into Milford Sound, first FLWOP that would have been a 'sucessful' landing, being rated on the '52, first formated on another aeroplane, and about a couple of hundred thousand other significant learning exercises all did wonders for those horizons, and such a long, long way to go, is the most exciting part.

tinpis

29th Jan 2007, 00:56

I cant believe anyone would get a type rating on a Tiger Moth WITHOUT spin training
Thats just BS, if there anything a Tiger does well its spin and with no provacation , shudder ,warning or beeper horn either.:(
And there is a no BS recovery procedure as well not just let go of the controls and its stops

ForkTailedDrKiller

29th Jan 2007, 00:58

FTDC
Surely you have heard of stall/spin accidents. They are still happenig.

Now bushy, there is no need to take that tone with me.

Yes, I am obviously aware that stall/spin accidents continue to occur, and I dispair whenever I hear of such an event because every one that I am aware off was preventable.

My point here is that I don't believe that spin training would have saved them. Most occur at low level on climb out following take-off or during a go-round, or following a "beat up", or loss of control while manuvering for a forced landing etc.

FTDC:cool: