Tailwheel techniques

[tinpis]

Neat but not gawdy (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WN7xdjpww58) :uhoh::hmm:




kerist....that woman....

[A185F]

Bloody hell :eek: He's a bit keen to try get away with that in a P51, pretty lucky really :=

[tinpis]

I recall a P51 owner at Parafield some years ago
The tower would clear him for T/O then evacuate. :ooh:

[squawk6969]

Holy Cow:eek:

I love the way the woman says at the end, "No Big deal", she has not realised how much of her shopping budget its going to take to make that fly again!

Any guesses? $100K perhaps, and USD at that, and maybe more!:ooh:

Tin, have you ever run out of funny stories?

SQ

[Chimbu chuckles]

Makes it look hard doesn't he:ugh:

And I'd shoot the wife:rolleyes:

Flew this aeroplane on the weekend to the PFA rally at Popham...great weather in UK this weekend after all the rain and flooding of recent times...nothing in aviation beats 3 pointing a lovely old taildragger on a lush grass airstrip:ok:

http://www.airliners.net/open.file?id=0878051&WxsIERv=Prffan%20180N%20Fxljntba&Wm=0&WdsYXMg=Hagvgyrq&QtODMg=Qrssbeq%20-%20Pebsg%20Snez&ERDLTkt=HX%20-%20Ratynaq&ktODMp=Whar%2011%2C%202005&BP=1&WNEb25u=Wvz%20Tebbz&xsIERvdWdsY=T-OGFZ&MgTUQtODMgKE=Ynaqvat%20ebyy-bhg.%20Cerivbhfyl%20ertvfgrerq%20C2-QRD%2C%20IU-QRD%2C%20IU-QRP%20naq%20A7781N.&YXMgTUQtODMgKERD=654&NEb25uZWxs=2005-07-13%2008%3A54%3A33&ODJ9dvCE=&O89Dcjdg=32678&static=yes&width=1024&height=780&sok=JURER%20%20%28ert%20%3D%20%27T-OGFZ%27%29%20%20BEQRE%20OL%20cubgb_vq%20QRFP&photo_nr=6&prev_id=1042384&next_id=0873239

[bushy]

I never thought I would say that about a Cessna, but the 180 is a very capable, simple aeroplane that just won't die. I spent a few years flying 180's and 185's.

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

http://www.fototime.com/476F55ED3F612A1/standard.jpg

"....nothing in aviation beats 3 pointing a lovely old taildragger ...."

Great piccy Chuckles! I see that G-BTSM (cn 32678) was previously registered P2-DEQ; VH-DEQ and N7781A. Did you know it in a former life?

Brings back some fond memories for me.

As a somewhat intermittent C180/185 pilot I was an exponent of the tail-low wheeler myself - had a mixed history with the 3-pointer in that type.

Interestingly I only ever 3-pointed the Auster J5B that I did my initial tailwheel endorsement on (was told you can't "wheel" an Auster - but never had the opportunity to try after I mastered the technique on the Cessna). I could, however, quite confidently do either at will in the PA-18 Super Cub.

Dr:cool:

[chimbu warrior]

Although I have never had the pleasure of flying a Mustang, I have sat in one, and near the ground your view is very limited. In the footage the strip appears very narrow; not ideal, as it makes depth perception difficult. I doubt that even seasoned Mustang pilots would attempt a landing on such a narrow strip.

Many Mustangs have been lost on go-arounds, where the application of full power at low speed has caused a torque roll, usually with tragic results.

Although the outcome in this instance was not pretty, it certainly appears reparable (albeit at great cost), and no-one was injured. That has to be better than the alternative.

[Chimbu chuckles]

Yes I knew her in a former life...she was the first P2 registered aircraft I ever flew...she was owned in those days by a fella in Moresby who became a good mate and was bought by another mate who shipped her back to the UK when he left PNG... and, occassionally, I am lucky enough to fly her again.

The trick to successfully 3 pointing the C180/185 (at light weights/fwd CofG anyway) was winding in enough nose up trim on short finals so you were applying very slight forward pressure on the control column...that set the horizontal stab at an angle that allowed the 3 point attitude to be attained easily.

Loaded to the gunnels with 400kg of coffee was a different deal of course...then you usually ran out of fwd/nose down trim at about flaps 30 and were hard pressed not doing a 1 pointer:}

I love the Cessna taildraggers...my next aeroplane will be a 180 I think...great retirement aeroplane.

CW I have wached that about 7 times now trying to pick up the nuances of what went wrong.

He seems to have made all the same mistakes my trainees used to make in the C185s in PNG.

1/. He landed a little firmly causing the tail to drop increasing the AoA and leading to a decent bounce...seen that lots of times.

2/. Instead of holding off with a trickle of power and three pointing it he shoved the stick forward and had a prop strike...with the exception of the prop strike part I have had lots of low time taildragger pilots do that to me...usually leading to me snatching the control column out of their hands before the prop becomes a plow.

3/. Having got the aeroplane on the ground he just needed to keep it straight but as the aeroplane just starts to swerve to the right he boots in some right rudder:confused:

Strong aeroplane though:uhoh:

[Launchpad McQuack]

Just when I was getting bored with youtube...that one made me sit up straight :eek:

Cheers Tinpis

[Wombat35]

The classic 'save' well that's a good video for all my tailwheel students...

Just such a pity for such a beautiful aircraft... here's my take...

1. Short strip.... I'll just come in a bit slower than normal but I'll still do a wheeler cause that's what I always do....:}
2. Just floats a bit to far.. ohh it's getting a bit short so I better get it down..:)
3. Thump :ooh:
4. PUSH ... cause I can't see, and I'm doing a wheeler... :uhoh:
5. Aww crap... what's with this swing stuff... I'm going off to the left :\
6. Oh now I'm not... :eek:

Budding tailwheel pilots... at 3. GO AROUND! Smoothly

I have this saying with my guys (and gals) that when they have slammed the throttle open so fast that the engine coughs, that they should have gone around on the bounce before! :}

If you are interested here is a wheeler and 3ptr video in trusty CIT...http://www.legrope.com.au/PAS/Videos/Web%20Clip.wmv

And a nice relaxing formation one... http://www.legrope.com.au/PAS/Videos/Citabria_Video_Web.wmv

[tail wheel]

I think CC knows that 180 very well in it's former life in PNG!!! In fact, if memory serves me correctly he ........... well, that is another story!

:} :}

[squawk6969]

Me thinks a story needs telling.......did he bend it or get lucky in it?:}:}

You PNG boys seemd to have too much fun for one lifetime......:ooh:

SQ

[VH-BOX]

Wombat35 said;

1. Short strip.... I'll just come in a bit slower than normal but I'll still do a wheeler cause that's what I always do....:}
2. Just floats a bit to far.. ohh it's getting a bit short so I better get it down..:)
3. Thump :ooh:
4. PUSH ... cause I can't see, and I'm doing a wheeler... :uhoh:
5. Aww crap... what's with this swing stuff... I'm going off to the left :\
6. Oh now I'm not... :eek:

I agree with that analysis except maybe point 4. I believe the port wing stalled off the bounce. As to always going around off a bounce, if the typical pilot in a j3 Cub went around off every bounce, they would run out of fuel before getting down. In general I agree, but in a slow lightly wing-loaded type it is generally best to just keep the stick back and let it settle again in the three point attitude, a P51 however is a whole different headache.

[Chimbu chuckles]

No tail wheel, that is not that aircraft...that was a 185:ok:...but the 'student' with me that day is the owner of the 180 pictured....in fact he frequents Pprune as Taildragger.

I sent a link to the vid to two guys I know that do fly P51s (and Bearcats/P38s/Spitfires/etc in the states and my father...I'll post the replies when they arrive.

Where is Centaurus?...he used to fly them.

I wonder how old the film is...the non descript paint job suggests fairly old.

I don't think he stalled the left wing on the bounce...it's too gentle to be a stall...I think he just rolled left in the bounce 'recovery'...I doubt his control column inputs were anymore 'educated' than his rudder inputs.:E

I think this was a case of not enough experience/training meets too much aeroplane.

[Animalclub]

Simbu man... I thought it was Taildragger's, but when you wrote on another thread that you took it back to the farm where your mate (you said "she") lived it threw me.

[Chimbu chuckles]

'She lives on a farm' was referring to the aeroplane. Taildragger lives in a house.:ok:

[Crosshair]

Good news: You've worked and saved and you have a P-51, even if you can't land it.

Bad news: This is your wife.

I reckon he was trying to stage an "accident" and didn't quite succeed.

[tail wheel]

CC, how unkind to think I would spread rumours out of school! :{

Actually, I was going to say:

"In fact, if memory serves me correctly he .... is good mates with the owner of that 180!"

But that is another stroy!!!

:}:}

[VH-BOX]

Chimbu chuckles (http://www.pprune.org/forums/member.php?u=14381) said;

"I don't think he stalled the left wing on the bounce...it's too gentle to be a stall...I think he just rolled left in the bounce 'recovery'...I doubt his control column inputs were anymore 'educated' than his rudder inputs.:E

I think this was a case of not enough experience/training meets too much aeroplane."

You could well be right, but the P-51 is actually a pussycat in the stall, I have experienced it myself (as a passenger not PIC), and it is very slow and gentle.

From the P-51 Flight manual;

"A stall in the P-51 is comparatively mild. The airplane does not whip at the stall, but rolls slowly and has very little tendency to drop into a spin. You get ample warning of any type of stall. In a straight power-off stall you feel a slight elevator buffet about 3 to 4 mph above the stall."

[Chimbu chuckles]

Here is an article on flying a Mustang for the very first time written by a fella who was not very experienced at the time...early 70s...at least not very experienced in comparison to what would be asked to solo someones Mustang today.

It basically agees with everything I have ever heard from people who do/have flown Mustangs...basically they were easy to fly after you got over the psycological hurdle of actually being sat in a Mustang...remember these aircraft were flown in the 40s and 50s by 200hr pilots...by the thousands.

I asked Col Pay years ago if the story I had heard was true....that he used to insist potential pilots of his Mustang flew in his 185 first...he said it was.

http://www.airbum.com/pireps/PirepMustangBurch.6.html

[PPRuNeUser0182]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cADa4JLF6XU:ugh::D

[VH-BOX]

Wow! I have watched that several times and still haven't a clue how did he missed seeing a bloody truck within his wingspan?

[tinpis]

The P-51 is a pussycat
Rather like a big Chipmunk
The view over the nose is fantastic when that tail is up and on final its (like looking down the long nose of a Pilatus Porter)
Keeping the plugs cleared on approach in the circuit with a small bursts of power cause mild yaws no more so than a 185
The noise is madness .

[Chimbu chuckles]

Rather like a big Chipmunk

Dad said the same and reckoned the Spitfire was rather like an over powered Tiger Moth.

Somewhere along the way these aircraft gained reputations they just don't deserve...probably from pilots like the one in the video...DCA Examiners of Airmen back in the 'good old days' who had flown them in Korea/WW2 (or actually probably hadn't, truth be known) were as guilty of promoting the BS too...good for their egos I suspect...the few DCA EoAs that I know DID fly them were unanimous in their opinion that they were just a joy to fly. Certainly they were, apparently, a little twitchy in pitch with a full fuselage fuel tank, drop tanks and ammo bins...operating at wartime gross weights and aft CofGs...but they don't get flown that way anymore and haven't been since they went out of military service in the 70s (believe it or not it was as recent as that in South America and such like).

I came close some years back...one of these days:ok:

[haughtney1]

Grandad used to tell me Spit Mk 2 was the nicest to fly, the perfect balance between control input and result.....as the later marks he flew (up to the PR19) got heavier you needed to put a bit more muscle into it, although they were more stable creatures in the circuit..as long as you didn't move the throttle too far forward..and find yourself unleashing 2350hp of griffon..which would roll you on your back soon as you could think "uh oh":ooh:

He also reckoned the mustang in its b,c, and d variants were pretty docile machines.....the aircraft that scared him the most was the Mosquito..particulalrly with a load in it:8

I suppose it all comes down to what you are used too, personally I've found the 180/185 loaded or light to be the most fun piston powered aircraft all round.
The guy that taught me to fly them was an ex top dressing pilot...he knew his stuff...and would never wheel land anything with a tail-wheel:ok:

[VH-BOX]

This is, and always will be a controversial subject, but for what its worth, I have been flying predominantly tailwheel types for over 25 years, from the DC3 and SJN-4 to the S1D, S1C S1S and S2B Pitts, via the late John Pennys Sopwith Triplane replica. I currently own a 1946 J-3 Cub and have previously owned numerous others, e.g. Stinson 108-2, Stolpe SA300, Fokker E111 'Eindekker' replica.

If you routinely 'wheeled' a J3 Cub or a Luscombe you would inevitably ground-loop it, not maybe, definitely. If you wheel-on a single seat Pitts at the required 90-100mph you would have a very good chance of terminating both the aircraft and yourself, yet three-pointed it will roll dead straight until down to about 40mph when a slight touch of rudder is all that is required to keep it that way. On the other hand, three-pointing a Stinson 108-1 or 108-2 (the 'small-tail' models) is possible, but extremely unwise as the tail-down rudder authority is abysmal, and you can only keep it straight with brakes so a tail down bounce will result in zero control in yaw while airborne. In my experience there is no all-encompassing 'right' way to land a conventional gear aircraft, it depends greatly on the type, and the circumstances. I would be wary of any advice that claims otherwise

[Chimbu chuckles]

I found the same thing with the Helio Courier...no one to show me so had to nut it out myself...it just didn't strike me as an aeroplane that would like wheel landings so I never tried...only ever 3 pointed it

When I owned a 185 and/or was flying them a lot I would happily wheel land or 3 point them depending on the circumstances...now I only fly them every so often I only 3 point them...the sprung steel undercarriage on the Cessnas takes a certain 'touch' to wheel land and, for me at least, once every year or so is not enough to keep that touch.

Same with the Tiger Moth...I very rarey ever wheel landed one...mostly 3 pointers...except maybe on the odd occassion I landed one on bitumen.

[tinpis]

Having watched the video a couple more times it has occured to me that to manage such a cocked up landing in a P-51 the pilot must have dropped dead on short final :(

Haugtney
The guy that taught me to fly them was an ex top dressing pilot...he knew his stuff...and would never wheel land anything with a tail-wheel

What the poor old bugger (and he would be old if he dung dusted in Kiwi in 185s)probably couldnt remembry was the instinctive probe for the strip with a wheel in the tail down wheeler set up. You didnt even realise you were doing it

Good them 185s were, they had a cigarette lighter and the trim wheel on the roof and landing lights if you wanted to bugger off for a Tiki tour at night to see the girlfriend:rolleyes:

[haughtney1]

Actually tinny...I reckon he was pushing 100 when he was teaching me, although to be honest I was always much better at drinking beer than I was a tail wheel student:}
Having said that, he did allude to the tailwheel probe you speak off.....its just that he could never do it successfully on a regular basis as it was always blowing like a B'stard when he worked :E. (for those who don't know..its MUCH better to spread Super when its windy..cos then they cocky needs ya back next year on account that the Super went on "a bit thin":8)
I've only taken a 185 into friendly strips....none of those trouser filling PNG jobbies.

[Centaurus]

From the P-51 Flight manual;

"A stall in the P-51 is comparatively mild. The airplane does not whip at the stall, but rolls slowly and has very little tendency to drop into a spin. You get ample warning of any type of stall. In a straight power-off stall you feel a slight elevator buffet about 3 to 4 mph above the stall

This however, from RAAF Publication No. 780 (September 1950) Pilot's Notes for Mustang. Page 32 Para 46 (b):

When no fuel is carried in the fuselage tank, slight tail buffeting occurs about two or three knots above the stall, at which one wing drops gently.
BUT...with fuselage tank full or half full, there is no buffeting to give warning of the approaching stall, but a series of stick reversals occurs just above stalling speed; At the stall, the right wing drops sharply, and unless immediate recovery action is taken, a spin may develop.....The aircraft sinks rapidly as stalling speed is approached...if the control column is held back at the stall, a wing will drop very rapidly and the aircraft will become inverted....power-on spins should never be intentionally performed....as many as five or six turns may be made after recovery action and as much as 9000-10,000ft may be lost.

[chimbu warrior]

Dear Mr Tin,

I've flown 185's of all vintages, but never seen one with a trim wheel on the roof. You sure you are recalling the right machine? Maybe it was a Beaver you flew to visit that girlfriend.

[tinpis]

Dear Mr Chimbu
We learn something new everyday
Kiwi topdressing 185s (some 180's)wot I was an exponent of,had the trim wheel modified and mounted flat on the roof with a big nob on so as yer didnt need to get yer head down in the cockpit trimming while flying dangerously low,and to speed up trim setting on turn arounds

And it wasnt me visitin the girlfriend ..you may recall a certain 727 Capt. pre '89? :rolleyes:

[VH-BOX]

From the P-51 Flight manual;

"A stall in the P-51 is comparatively mild. The airplane does not whip at the stall, but rolls slowly and has very little tendency to drop into a spin. You get ample warning of any type of stall. In a straight power-off stall you feel a slight elevator buffet about 3 to 4 mph above the stall This however, from RAAF Publication No. 780 (September 1950) Pilot's Notes for Mustang. Page 32 Para 46 (b):

When no fuel is carried in the fuselage tank, slight tail buffeting occurs about two or three knots above the stall, at which one wing drops gently.
BUT...with fuselage tank full or half full, there is no buffeting to give warning of the approaching stall, but a series of stick reversals occurs just above stalling speed; At the stall, the right wing drops sharply, and unless immediate recovery action is taken, a spin may develop.....The aircraft sinks rapidly as stalling speed is approached...if the control column is held back at the stall, a wing will drop very rapidly and the aircraft will become inverted....power-on spins should never be intentionally performed....as many as five or six turns may be made after recovery action and as much as 9000-10,000ft may be lost.Interesting, and no inherent contradiction as far as it goes.......

Although not evidence that he did in fact stall off the bounce, in the video the port wing drops gently, in the P51-D in which I got a (cramped) back seat ride, the port wing dropped gently, each example fitting the description in both documents of a stall with the fuselage tank empty.

Given that the RAAF document describes a sharp starboard wing drop, it would seem that either the fuel state in the fuselage tank significantly alters the characteristics at the stall, or the CAC built aircraft has slightly different characteristics to the original North American built one. Having only had a 20 minute ride as a fare paying tourist in a P51-D, I am not qualified to comment, it would be interesting to hear the opinion of someone who has flown both versions, or indeed either.

[kiwiblue]

Wow! I have watched that several times and still haven't a clue how did he missed seeing a bloody truck within his wingspan?

Watch it again. His wingtip struck (scraped) the semi parked quite a bit further down the road before the catastrophic contact with the 'fuel' truck. Why the hell he didn't shut it down on that 1st strike is beyond me. Worse, why he didn't make sure his takeoff path was as completely unobstructed as possible prior to making the attempt. He was obviously already in an already 'embarrassing' situation, made worse by a dash of stupidity.

Where's that gene-pool chlorine when you need it...

[M14_P]

In conclusion, I think this chappy needs to get back into a Citabria.

[VH-BOX]

In conclusion, I think this chappy needs to get back into a Citabria.

If we are referring to 'Mr Mustang' I agree, however if we are referring to Mr Cessna abuser, I doubt he could actually fly a Citabria without running himself down.

[chimbu warrior]

Well I'll be..............I have indeed learned something today!

Makes a lot of sense actually, and I'm sure it also kept the super from fouling the trim mechanism too. Kiwi innovation at its best.

Don't think I knew any 727 Capts that long ago, but it wouldn't be the first time a keen young aviator has "borrowed" the boss's balus to bring comfort to a lonely lass.

[tinpis]

I searched the interweb thingy and cant find a reference to it all.
I would presume that all the old ag 185s have long since been converted back to normal
It was a great idea ,the trim went full up to down in about 1 and a half turns as I recall. As you know the normal trim on a 185 is woefully slow
When you were on a sowing run it only needed a reach up to tweak the trim wheel and it was great for split arse turns rather than cranking the trim on the floor which was also made more awkward by the intrusion of the fecking great hopper in the cabin

That 185 guy that posts on here may have a bit more to say on it

[Taildragger]

Now Now Children......don't think I am not watching youse.!! :}
Chuckles....the rudder cables are to be sorted early next week....
we don't wan't a ground loop do we.??
I must say, having owned three Taildraggers now, that there are taildraggers and there are taildraggers. The Jodel for example is a pussycat. The Cessna 180 is not but none of them like crosswinds.

[185skywagon]

Tin,
There is still one 185A VH-AGF in Oz that has the trim on the roof.
As you say, they were modified for super work in NZ, as far as i know.

185.

[Miles Long]

AGF was originally with Agricultural and General Aviation (AGA) in WA. They bought 185's in the early '60s while still at Maylands, others I remember were AGA, AGG and AGH, however there could have been more. Not sure if the AGA engineers did the mod or not, could possibly find out if anyone was interested. AGA had one of the first hangars at Jandakot and were eventually bought out by Kevron's and then Fugro.
cheers
Miles

[saabsforever]

I have an old NZ ex topdresser, CGG, with the trim on the roof. About 18 of the old ones still exist in NZ and at least half will still have the roof trim. Most of them have been crashed and rebuilt and often converted back to standard on rebuild. Some like mine still have the entire mod which involves a hole in the roof and floor and a great deal of reinforcing around them. The wings also had reinforcing and I believe some of the payloads were around 700 KG. They had a hard life and from the log books the tailwheel spring for instance often broke after very few hours, which they seldom do in normal use. They are quite heavy, my one at 828 kg or about 1850 Lb is at least 50 KG and most likely 100 kg more than the standard ones considering it is a basic machine with no extras. But also stronger and it does not flex around the windscreen like most on rough ground.
Having flown both on strip work the roof trim is much better and it would have been a great mod for PNG. About 6 turns from one end to the other and it can be done very fast with no need to look/bend down to floor. I do not know if it was done for the Pilots or to get the cables out of the way, the floor is quite non standard.
The early 185s are much lighter on the controls and nicer to fly than the later ones which were changed but I do not know why. I have a photo taken during rebuild which shows the installation, it is quite simple and the only snag is the trim wheel makes it hard to fold the sun visor back.

[tinpis]

Thanks saabs
They had a hard life and from the log books the tailwheel spring for instance often broke after very few hours,
The tail wheel steering cables were often done away with because of this. They would break usually on take off on steep strips and it was better to have the unit fall away rather than wave around in the breeze .

[Brian Abraham]

From Avweb today

P-51 Owner Killed In First Non-Supervised Flight
John McKittrick, 42, of Thousand Oaks, Calif., was killed Sunday morning as he practiced takeoffs and landings on his own for the first time in his vintage P-51D Mustang. McKittrick, an experienced pilot, had been flying with an instructor and landed at Camarillo Airport. The instructor had just gotten out of the aircraft and told tower controllers that McKittrick would be soloing the airplane and would stay in the pattern, an FAA spokesman told the Ventura County Star. According to the FAA, the airplane bounced on landing, ran off the side of the runway and flipped. The vintage Mustang broke apart in the accident, but there was no post-crash fire. The airplane had been scheduled to appear at the Gathering of Mustangs & Legends this September in Ohio.

[tinpis]

‘Warbird’ crash kills valley pilot on solo flight
Did P-51 roll because of too much power?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By PAT MURPHY
Express Staff Writer
John McKittrick
A sudden burst of excessive engine power may have led to a fatal crash in California on Sunday of a P-51D Mustang that killed part-time valley resident John McKittrick on his first solo flight in the $1.8 million World War II war bird.
McKittrick, 42, a bond trader, an experienced pilot in other single- and twin-engine aircraft, had purchased the Mustang five months ago with the intention of entering next year's Reno Air Races in the high-speed, unlimited aircraft class, according to a close Ketchum friend of 14 years and fellow P-51 owner-pilot, Bill Rheinschild.
Rheinschild told the Mountain Express that based on accounts of witnesses at Camarillo Airport north of Los Angeles, McKittrick was flying the Mustang¾nicknamed "Lou IV"¾solo for the first time since taking some 50 hours of dual instruction in the modified, two-seat former Air Force fighter.
His unidentified instructor had cleared McKittrick for takeoffs and landings and flying in the airport pattern.
"On landing," Rheinschild said, McKittrick "made a perfect approach but ballooned (bounced) when his tail wheel touched down too early."
He said McKittrick "added too much power" on the 1,850-horsepower Rolls Royce Merlin engine to neutralize the porpoising, which caused the aircraft to "torque roll." The high-speed aircraft whipped over into an inverted attitude and immediately crashed, killing McKittrick instantly. There was no fire.
"Whenever you get into a situation like that," Rheinschild explained, "it's every aviator's reaction to give it power. But you can't do it in this kind of airplane."
Rheinschild said McKittrick has owned a single-engine Beech Bonanza, a twin-engine Beech KingAir C-90 and a World War II T-6 trainer, and had contracted for construction of a Hawker Sea Fury with complete parts he'd bought.
McKittrick, whose fulltime residence is in Thousand Oaks, Calif., had about 1,500 hours of flying experience, Rheinschild said. Rheinschild is president of a southern California home-building corporation, but lives in the valley.
The P-51 (later the F-51) was the first U.S. fighter capable of accompanying World War II heavy bomber raids deep into Europe to ward off German fighters. The Mustang also was a superb ground attack aircraft in support of ground troops. McKittrick's Mustang had the telltale black-and-white wing stripes painted on aircraft involved in the D-Day Normandy invasion.
He is survived by his wife, Michele, and two children.
A memorial service will be held at 10 a.m. Friday at the Calvary Christian Church, Westlake, Calif., with a reception following at Sherwood Country Club in Thousand Oaks.
__________________
50 hours dual ? bugger me...
Totally strange...he owned a T-6 as well notoriously more difficult than a Mustang.
Tee pee

[HappyJack260]

Sounds like a similar accident to the one that killed the (new) owner and his instructor at Goodwood, UK, in a 2-seat Spitfire a few years ago....

[VH-BOX]

Also the just restored Ex Indian Air force Hawker Fury that torque rolled on take-off in the UK few years back.

[AerocatS2A]

50 hours dual ? bugger me...
Totally strange...he owned a T-6 as well notoriously more difficult than a Mustang.
Gee, you'd think if he doesn't have it together after an hour or two of circuits and handling he probably should've given it away.

Whether the T6 is more difficult or not (I didn't find it particularly taxing, but I didn't fly a P51 :( so can't compare,) it certainly doesn't have the power of the P-51. When you open the tap on the Harvard, not much happens.

[tinpis]

When you open the tap on the Harvard, not much happens
Where you been?
Yes it does it goes.....

BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHH

And causes a hard-on of every aviation enthusiast the world over.

[AerocatS2A]

True, but the resulting aircraft movement is fairly sedate.

[Launchpad McQuack]

It's not been a good month for Mustangs...first that bloke killed in doing his first solo circuits, now these two.

http://www.avweb.com/news/airventure/EAAAirVenture2007_WarbirdsCollide_OneKilled_195757-1.html

Whilst on the subject, I was recently told by one of the well known names in the Oceanic Warbirds fraternity that if you could handle a 185 well, then you could handle most WWII high-performance warbirds. Are 185s that demanding?! :uhoh:

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

"Are 185s that demanding?!"

Yes, indeed!

A veritable brute of an aeroplane, tamed by only a handful of pilots who have "the right stuff"!

I feel a stirring in my nether regions just thinking about it!

Dr:cool:

[tinpis]

If he had not flown the type I would NOT put a P-51 pilot into a C-185
and turn him loose
Go hire a 185 and see what I mean :rolleyes:

[Launchpad McQuack]

Go hire a 185...

Tin, I'd like to...but I haven't found many operators who are keen to let a fresh CPL do a rating in their precious 180/185, and even less who would allow solo (read: none)....:{

LP

[maxter]

Has anyone here had much experience on the 235hp M7 Maule?

I have a friend who has recently purchased one and finds it has fairly interesting tendencies with just himself on board and full flap (48^). His experience is that the elevator looses a large part of it's effectivness, expecially if you cut the power. I understand that it needs to be balasted at the rear to maintain C of G with 1 up. Can be very interesting if you try to fit into a short strip after a steep approach over an obstruction was his comment. Evidently the nose will drop sharply on a reduction of power and it is very slow/hard to flare.

He has a fair amount of experience in tail-draggers and short strips but this plane evidently raises the interest level. I have not seen it yet so only 2nd hand obsevation. I gather this may be a bit unique to the 5 seat M7.

Comments appreciated. Chimbu C. you must have had a go at these somewhere in your travel.:ok:

[Chimbu chuckles]

Nope not flown a Maule. I taught myself to fly a Helio Courier once and then had to demo it to potential buyers and subsequently checked out it's new owner...terrifying with no brakes on the copilot side:uhoh:..they are probably similar...flown to the limit of it's STOL potential the Helio is tricky but then 99.999% of pilots will NEVER have any practicle use for that level of performance...max performing a Helio falls into the 'party trick' category...From what I have read about the Maule perhaps it falls into that category too. Fly them more 'normally'...say at 60-70% of their limit and the performance will still turn heads but not risk filling your pants.

I have a very big soft spot for 180s and 185s and get a VERY big kick out of flying a friend's 1956 180 occassionally in the UK...the last time just a few weeks ago. At least 80% of my SE hrs are in 185/180...several 100 hours in the RHS doing young pilots initial TW endorsements and then route/strip endorsing them.

I think if you can fly a 185 well any taildragger is within your reach.

saabsforever is an old mate from those days and I look forward to flying his newly restored 185 down the south island one day soonish.

Edit...I see saabsforever has posted the rego of his ship so he won't mind a couple of piccies of his pride and joy.

http://www.fototime.com/{37025628-453D-4831-87B1-E2E9F2D344E9}/picture.JPG
Exactly what a 185 does best.
http://www.fototime.com/{AAF7337D-34FE-41D7-A25A-20AB28229A88}/picture.JPG
http://www.fototime.com/{40874180-3DDC-4E4E-A5C7-5EE89E4CDB5A}/picture.JPG
Just georgous:ok:

[Taildragger]

Chuckles....we flew G-BTSM, the C180 today over the floods..... since getting a new Rudder return spring fitted (£103 inc VAT) she is behaving herself you will be pleased to hear.!! Chias :)

[tinpis]

BTW the link I started this thread with has gone tech
Anyone know where the vid has got to?

[tinpis]

Get ya mate to take you whitebaiting Chucks :ok:

Make a difference to what you chased in PNG :hmm:

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

"Get ya mate to take you whitebaiting Chucks :ok:
Make a difference to what you chased in PNG :hmm:"

Blackbaiting? :=

[tinpis]

:ooh: I never said that....

[Chimbu chuckles]

CGG's roof mounted trim...bloody good idea, wish the PNG C185s had it.
http://www.fototime.com/{44654CE2-DEFB-498F-9400-099B71E1F9EE}/picture.JPG

Whitebaiting...is that the Kiwi version of making natives get out of their boats?:E

Taildragger:ok:

[Launchpad McQuack]

Tin - apparently youtube.com removed it due to user violations (?!) according to another thread with mention of said link.

LP

[tinpis]

CGG....CGG old dung duster ....its in here somewhere...
Geezaz...lookit the repair of der holen vot zey iss puttin der poopin :uhoh:

Actually think about it ..it musta been a design stuff up by Cessna the 185 being so bloody tricky on the ground
But it was insanely useful once you knew how it worked?

I would send a PPL spam canner solo in a Pilatus Porter or a Citabria with out dual.

[devolved]

Hey how hard does something like the pitts S-2B rate against all the other tailwheels out there?

I only had 14 hours of a 90hp cub before doing my Pitts rating. 3 pointing the pitts isnt to bad in nice weather conditions.

[tinpis]

I wouldnt let anyone loose in a S-2A or B without a bloody good wring out
Very tricky near the ground on and off
Absolute delight in the air but neutral stability can be a bit perplexing for spam canners.



Your cub time would have served you well :ok:

[HappyJack260]

First flight in a Chipmunk and I almost ran off the edge of the runway on take-off! It's not difficult to fly but torque induced swing on raising the tail was a bit of a shock to someone trained on Cessna 152's...After a few hours in a Pitts the Chippy felt a real pussycat (well, it is...).
With a Citabria/Decathlon, forward visibility is little different from a Cessna nosegear aircraft; Tiger Moth and Chipmunk are a little worse, and Pitts is virtually non-existent. If you can see the runway in the flare in a Pitts, you're probably in the wrong place!
Pitts - particularly the 260hp engined versions - the S-2B, S-2S and S-2C - have a very high sink rate - around 2000 fpm power off. They have bungee main gear, so if you drop it on less than perfectly, you'll bounce. And they're short-coupled, which means you don't want to be landing with drift on.
Pitts is extremely responsive to the controls which means (a) you can land it in a remarkably strong crosswind, with practice; and, (b) there's a tendency of most new Pitts pilots to overcontrol, particularly on the rudders, leading to the Pitts two-step on roll-out and a good chance of scraping a wing-tip. A light touch on the rudder and anticipation of yaw, are the key.
Even after 100+ landings in the Pitts I still have a sense of anticipation on downwind - but I suppose that's a part of the thrill...
You don't have to be a super-pilot to land a Pitts - just willing to learn the craft, and keep practicing.

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

True story from the mad Dr.

Young fella from the bush has just finished his Unrestricted PPL (yes, its an old story). The biggest thing he has flown is a C172. Says to his highly experienced Tiger, Chippy, Auster, C185 flying GA instructor, "Before I go home, I'd like to do a tail-wheel endorsement"!

Instructor: OK mate, lets go talk about it then we'll pull the Auster (J1B) out and do a few circuits.

New PPL: F*ck the Auster, I want to fly that (points to C185).

Instr: Aw mate, you might find that a bit of a handful first up. I'd suggest you get the hang of the Auster, and then we can maybe have a go at the 185.

New PPL: No, I have no interest in the Auster, its got to be the 185.

Instr: OK, if you insist. Come into the briefing room and well talk about it for a bit and then we can go take a look at it.

So the Instr gives the New PPL his tail dragger briefing on all of the reasons that a taildragger can have a mind of their own, and then they strap on the 185 and taxy to the end of the strip.

Now remember that this New PPL has never flown anything with more than 150 horses! Never flown a variable pitch prop! Never flown a taildragger!

Instructor talks the New PPL through the procedure to be followed for TO, emphasising the need to feed the power in gradually while using the rudder to keep straight.

When they are all set, the New PPL fire-walls the 185 and it immediately sets off into the scrub. Instructor puts the boot in to get it straight, but it does no good - the 185 feels a piroette coming on. Instructor is hard on the toe brake as well - to no avail, they are in the vice-like grip of multiple forces well defined in the science of physics. Instructor admits defeat, and reaches over and turns the key off.

The 185 competes 720 degrees of revolution, almost goes over onto a wing-tip and comes to a rest pretty much lined up down the strip again.

New PPL: F*ck this, lets go get the Auster!

Instr: No ya bastard! You wanted to fly the 185, you're gonna fly the f*cking 185!

They spent the next 2 hours flying circuits in the 185.

As far as anyone knows, New PPL never set foot in a tail-dragger again.

Over multiple beers in the aeroclub bar that night, Instructor was heard to say, "F*ck, I didn't expect anything much to happen until he tried to lift the tail, but he just fire-walled the bastard, next thing all I can see out the windscreen is trees and it is pretty much a blurr after that"!

Dr :cool:

[Footnote: That particular aeroplane is now a long-time resident of YBCS]

[Chimbu chuckles]

I used to use my 185 for initial tailwheel endorsements for newbie pilots in PNG...least experienced fella had 200hrs (newbie for Catholic Mission at Kiunga-and the most talented by far(maybe the only true 'natural' I ever saw) of all the guys I trained on type-killed some years later in an Islander)...but most around the 400-600 mark...and a CPL obviously.

The actual 'tailwheel endorsement' took usually around 3 hrs...it was immediately followed with route and airstrip training which probably averaged around 20-25hrs and as many as 70 sectors before being released alone for the first time...to a few easy (PNG version of 'easy') strips.

What I found interesting was that virtually none could reliably wheel land at the end of the 3 hrs in the circuit at Moresby despite my best efforts and numerous demonstrations...although they could all recover a bounced wheeler into a safe three pointer and, obviously, all could three point very nicely. Quit a few could not wheel land even at the end of the route/strip training...wasn't a lot of wheeler landing practice at short and/or steep bush strips.

I signed em all out despite an innability to wheel land and they all nutted it out alone later on...I remember flying past Woitape in a Twotter as one of my proteges was inbound in a C185 a week or so after signing him out...Woitape was long and flat but 1 way due terrain...he called me up after parking and gleefully told me he'd managed a lovely wheeler..it had finally 'clicked'.

Talking to them over the years they all felt the 185 was far and away the most demanding (initially) aeroplane they had flown but also the most satisfying...they all had a soft spot for the aircraft...even 'gleefull in Woitape' who after 400-500hrs in a C206 flying out of Moresby was 'diverted' to the 185 to fill in for some mths when he was expecting a posting onto Islanders...years later he allowed as how he wouldn't have missed the few hundred hrs in the 185 for quids...in hindsight:ok:

They all ended up agreeing with me that once you had the aeroplane's measure it was actually easier on really rough steep strips than a C206. When I used to tell them that after their first go in the circuit I'd get this wild eyed, sweating look of dishevalled disbelief as they lifted a coke or smoke to their mouths with shaking hands:}

None ever damaged or ground looped a C185...something I take some pride in.

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

CC, this is interesting!

I was never fully confident in the 180/185 until I could consistently do good tail-low wheelers.

Dr :cool:

[Chimbu chuckles]

I was never a fan of tail low wheelers..While there were many long flat coastal airstrips you could wheel land on to your heart's content most of the time in the bush a classic three pointer was the only viable option on short/strips that were wet/muddy/rough/steep or a combination off all those...it just left the aeroplane with little energy to go somewhere new/exciting and take you too.

Example of what I mean

http://www.fototime.com/{1BCA2573-818E-48E6-81FF-31BEB9FDBB72}/picture.JPG

One way, landing from right to left in the picture...all downhill and laterite clay...great fun when wet:uhoh:

Not 100% certain but seem to remember the owner of this 185 telling me this was the result of a wheeler on a boggy strip...can't think how else you would manage it. Chimbu Warrior might remember more...I hasten to add it wasn't him wot dun it but:ok:
http://www.fototime.com/{20694BE6-3BF6-471F-A76D-4ABFE7247951}/picture.JPG

[slackie]

HappyJack...
Comments re the Pitts are spot on...always a challenge, but an enjoyable one. I often hear people say (probably those that have never flown a Pitts!) that they are very difficult and "squirrelly" to land. Rubbish! What the Pitts is (as you rightly point out) is very responsive...if you dance on the pedals then the aircraft dances down the runway:\...heave on the pedals and you'll be investigating the runway verge.:eek:

Had the opportunity recently to fly a Citabria (thanx Wombat35:ok:) immediately following a flight in our Pitts...obviously not a fair comparison...but what was difficult stepping out of the Pitts into the Citabria was the vast difference in the size of control inputs required...we almost never wheel the Pitts (although I believe the guys in QN do frequently), and to do a few circuits wheeling the Citabria was a very enjoyable challenge...quite a different challenge to the Pitts obviously...but still enjoyable.

More should take up the challenge of a "conventional" aircraft.

[edited to add some of those cute wee faces!]

[VH-BOX]

"They have bungee main gear, so if you drop it on less than perfectly, you'll bounce."

True, but my S1D had sprung alloy gear, and operating on tarmac was a real pleasure. As to a Pitts being 'squirrelly', yes, that is nonsense, even the single seat Pitts's will run dead straight down to about 40mph if you put them down straight in the first place. The biggest issue for low-time Pitts pilots is an almost universal tendency to do 'tail-down' wheelers when trying to 3-point.

Here she is;

http://members.iinet.net.au/%7Ebrowng/g-brzl.jpg

EDIT - After experiencing 26 tailwheel types, I believe the Piper J3 Cub is the most difficult to consistently 3-point without bouncing. It is the perfect tailwheel trainer, easy to land safely, but hellishly difficult to land elegantly. If pilots like Chuck Yaeger, Bob Hoover, and Manton Fain believed it a challenge, I don't feel too bad when I bounce mine. Manton Fain first soloed in 1942 in a J3 Cub, but 50 years later when he retired from the left seat of a BA Concorde, during an interview he famously said "If you can fly a J3 Cub well, you can fly Concorde, but the reverse is not necessarily true!"

[kiwi chick]

When you open the tap on the Harvard, not much happens

Where you been?
Yes it does it goes.....

BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHH

And causes a hard-on of every aviation enthusiast the world over.

I don't remember that ever happening Tin, but I'll check more thoroughly next time ;)

[tinpis]

Erect nipples? :rolleyes:

[kiwi chick]

hmmmm... if i stand in the slipstream :eek:

"Wide-on" more appropriate perhaps.. :E

[poteroo]

Most frightening taildragger award goes to the Taylorcraft F21-B that I flew in 1996. Short coupled, cramped little mongrel with dodgy brakes. Never, ever..............

Also got to do a short flight in a Stinson 108, which felt a bit like the infamous Texas Taildragger - not enough height in the gear legs to allow a good speed reduction before 3-pointing it.

Speaking of the Texas TD - did several hours in one which had a real mind of it's own - later to discover that the gear legs had been installed so as to allow both the mainwheels to track away/outwards from the aircraft axis. Toe-in didn't change this. The safe option was taken, and it was changed back to a tricycle.

The worst thing with the Texas TD was that this one sat too 'flat', and didn't allow you to stall it on - in the 3-point attitude before it touched down. Tailwheel hit 1st if you really tried to hold off.......that gave an interesting arrival ! Understand that the original, and best, conversion was by Bolen, and included vertical extensions to the legs so it sat higher. Would have taken a lot longer to overcome the drag of that attitude using 100HP though.

Maxter mentioned the Maule M5 and M7-235 types earlier on. Yes they were in need of some aft weight. Then again, so's a Cessna 182 when flown 1 up - probably half of the 182 nosewheel/firewall bingles can be traced back to insufficient elevator input/command on landing. Nothing that 20L water in the cargo compartment won't fix.

Tailwheel training - Low or High HP?

Thought I'd pose the question here about why a preference for one or the other. The lower HP Cubs are probably better trainers than the later Supercubs because they take longer to get the tail up, longer to accelerate, and so need much longerduration of directional control input = good for learning.

As Chuck,and othershave described earlier, having plenty of grunt, as in C180/185's, might get you airborne sooner, but the downside is that the swing is significant.....often beyond the ab initio student to handle. So, not so good for initial learning of t/w handling. As well, it's a steep learning curve to tackle a 180/185 without having some 'heavier' Cessna single time first, eg C182, 205, 206,207, 210.

Makes you wonder who in the old DCA thought up the endorsement grouping of C180/182/185 that they had back in the 60's !!

happy days,

[VH-BOX]

poteroo wrote "Also got to do a short flight in a Stinson 108, which felt a bit like the infamous Texas Taildragger - not enough height in the gear legs to allow a good speed reduction before 3-pointing it."

Luvverly aeroplane the 108, especially the -2 and -3. The interesting versions are the ones with the metal-wing conversion. They have very efficient leading edge slots, which means that if you hold it off a bit too long, the prop-wash will keep the right wing flying well after the left has stalled, making for a very interesting arrival. The other issue with these beasties, at least the -1 and -2, is a pretty ineffective rudder on the ground, which can make taxying in brisk winds impossible without brakes. They make a truly beautiful sound too, with that 165HP Franklin six, the smooooothest engine I have ever flown behind.

[185skywagon]

Poteroo,
As Chuck,and othershave described earlier, having plenty of grunt, as in C180/185's, might get you airborne sooner, but the downside is that the swing is significant
I've got a 3 blade prop now, and the swing is nowhere near as bad as with the 2 blade prop. Gyroscopic swing is still an issue on raising the tail though.
185.

[AerocatS2A]

I agree with what's been said about the Pitts.

I think I've said this before somewhere, it'll do what you tell it to, you just have to tell it to do the right things. You can't see much out the front but I'd mucher rather be landing a Pitts in a strong crosswind than a C172.

I'm not really sure what the point of wheeling a Pitts is. Forward vis isn't improved much, it's less stable, and for me, 2 pointing it (one main and the tailwheel) in a crosswind was much better than the "three dogs barking" technique.

I found landing a cub with heel brakes in a crosswind more challenging than the Pitts. It's difficult to get some brake in if full ruder isn't keeping you straight, particularly as you approach taxi speed.

The hairiest would probably be the Tiger Moth, there've been a few times where I've run out of aileron and the wing keeps lifting. The saving grace of course is that it can be landed across the runway if required into a strong crosswind. You don't really need a runway as such, just a bit of clear apron.

[HappyJack260]

First flight in a Tiger, we had a slight quartering tailwind and the (very experienced) instructor had us almost ploughing up the runway lights as we did a touch and go! The school I was flying with teaches wheelers only in the Tigers, to ensure maximum rudder effectiveness. Tiger is a big pussy (in light winds, anyway). The hardest thing was the lack of braking whilst taxying the version I flew - which had no main wheel brakes and just a small drum brake on the tailwheel. Interesting....

There have been a couple of comments about tailwheel first touchdowns in the Pitts. In my S-2C, at least, that's what I aim for and what the POH advises. It helps straighten out the touchdown and gives a better AoA in the flare, which means a gentler landing and less chance of the slalom down the runway that comes from landing with drift on.

I wouldn't suggest wheeling on a Pitts unless you had to ( I know a couple of pilots who had screws jammed in the elevator bell crank and didn't have enough back stick to flare properly - so they had to do a long shallow approach and wheel it on - they had no choice, apart from a parachute descent. The Pitts has a very high sink rate, power off, so you need to manage a fair bit of power to achieve a glide path that's flat enough to avoid the Mother of All Bounces (MOAB)...which means that you're (a) rather too fast and (b) you can see even less ahead than normal.

[Cloud Basher]

I got to have a go at wheeling the Pitts (S-2B) a couple of weeks ago and I have to say that it was not as difficult as I thought it would be. Mind you I did only get on landing without at least a small bounce:ok:.

Agree with everything people have said about the Pitts here. Due to control effectiveness it is fairly easy to keep straight and as was also said it will do exactly what you tell it to do. So make sure you tell it the right things.

How about this for controversy, the Pitts is one of the best short field aircraft around!!! I went up with a mate who is an instructor and a very experienced Pitts pilot and he got me to do some short field work in the Pitts and I must say the Pitts is an AWESOME short field aircraft. I got the landings down to about 250m without heavy braking and the instructor had the aircraft stopped in what must have been no more than 200m, again with less than maximum braking. He reckons he has stopped it in less than 150m. And from what I saw I have no reason to doubt a good pilot could do this.

As to the C180, well I took that for a session of circuits for the first time a couple of weeks ago and found it much harder than the Pitts primarily because I was used to only small inputs of rudder in the Pitts, but the 180 requires relatively manful amounts of control inputs to achieve the same effect. I found flying the Pitts had made my legs rather lazy again (notice I didn't say feet)...

Cheers
CB

[Cloud Basher]

Happy Jack, I forgot to add, i'll be out at the airfield on Saturday morning. If you are there, I'll drop over and say g'day. I've got a couple of friends I am taking up in the Pitts.

Cheers
CB

[HappyJack260]

What time? I was going out this morning but saw wind forecasts of 15G25 and severe turbulence and decided on discretion. Hopefully the wx will be better at the weekend.

[HappyJack260]

So what's the short field technique for a Pitts?

[VH-BOX]

"So what's the short field technique for a Pitts?"

I can't speak for Cloudbasher, but for me in a single seat Pitts; steep forward-slip glide approach with minimal power, maintain cross-control to just before touch-down, kick it straight and stick back. Its a bit like riding a rock down, but it works. There may be other techniques, but that was what I used, in fact with a bit more power it was my standard approach, since it gave good forward visibility almost to touchdown, and a sideways Pitts is a very draggy object, so it slows down fast. As others have said here, the Pitts is actually a very nice aircraft to fly, without vices or surprises, if the pilot is adequately experienced, and maintains positive control at all times. I also use a slipping glide approach for the J3, and for the same reason, visibility. The J3 is fundamentally different to the later Super Cub, and is solo'd from the rear. It has even less visibility than the Pitts, as it is a cabin type. AerocatS2A (http://www.pprune.org/forums/member.php?u=81689)'s earlier comment on Cub brakes is spot-on, and even more so in a J3 from the rear, as the heel brakes are pretty much under the front seat, and if your feet are bigger than a size 10 you can forget about reaching them. Even if you do reach them they are basically useless. Unlike the Supercubs Cleveland's, the J3's operate by inflating an expanding rubber doughnut against the linings, and won't hold much beyond 1000rpm.

EDIT - Quote inserted.

[SB4200]

http://www.airliners.net/open.file/1245499/L/

So what's the technique here?

Bit of left aileron and rudder might get us going back the other way???

[AerocatS2A]

Right aileron would work better.

Nothing wrong with that though, he's just using the aircraft's geometry to its maximum potential.

[Mr Bomb]

I also fly a Pitts S-2B for fun and the technique I use to pull the aircraft up quick is essentially about 75kts on final and a side slip with a little bit of power. You are just about in the landing attitude at 75kts and I fly it down to about a foot off the deck, cut any power, apply full backstick and as soon as you touch jump hard on the brakes (never even felt the tail rise on this ever!). Doing this and getting it stopped in 150m is emminently doable. Main problem with this technique is if you have an engine failure on final it is very very easy to find yourself on the backside of the power curve with no altitude left to drop the nose to regain the airspeed. However if you need to get a Pitts down and stopped it works a treat! And also at this low speed I have NEVER had a bounce and as long as you touch down straight, then the aircraft rolls dead straight with no work required on the pedals until down through about 30 kts.

Mr Bomb

[tinpis]

This shows the good viz over the nose of a P51 on approach, just like a Chipmunk
Dont care much for the Skandihooligan vether ja?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zwEy4x88d0Y

[Trojan1981]

Mr Bomb
I have tried this sort of approach in the Pitts, works nicely but the owner doesn't like it:=
Didn't think about an engine failure:eek:
How is this for a tricky tailwheel?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5nj77mJlzrc&NR=1