Tail dragger 'experience' [Archive]

NazgulAir

23rd Jul 2010, 15:16

First, let me congratulate you for getting into tailwheel aircraft!

what counts as tail dragger time?What counts? Time spent learning to operate a tailwheel plane -- that is, learning the techniques required to taxi without being able to see over the nose, without abusing the brakes and keeping all wheels on the ground in normal and high winds, avoid groundlooping a plane, properly "unsticking" during takeoff, making three-point and wheel landings, avoiding propeller strikes...
At a typical tailwheel conversion course you spend no time away from the circuit, unless you pay extra for it. A tailwheel airplane in the air is just an airplane with less drag than a fixed-nosewheel one. But it becomes a very different thing on the ground, and that takes a little getting used to if you've done all your flying on nosewheelbarrows.

If you have experience with landing non-powered aircraft in a tailwheel configuration some if it may count. It really depends on the kind of experience.

Have fun!

DB6

23rd Jul 2010, 16:19

'There is no formal tail dragger endorsement'....not correct, there is. Under JAR/EASA differences training is required for, amongst other things, tailwheels. The format required is 'ground instruction in appropriate training device and/or flight training, as required to exercise the difference'. Can be done by a CRI or FI, signature & license number required in logbook. TMG flying with a tailwheel will count; get the instructor to sign off your tailwheel differences training.

Genghis the Engineer

23rd Jul 2010, 17:23

There's a tailwheel "differences training" endorsement for SEP and I think SLMG, but not microlights. It generally takes about 90-120 minutes, although I've seen the occasional club advertise 5 hour courses, which suggests to me either they're profiteering, or regularly getting some seriously inept students.

Personally I count taildragger experience as any hours I have in an aeroplane with a tailwheel or skid, and use a spare column in my logbook to tot them up in case anybody ever asks - which has happened occasionally if looking to fly somebody else's old aeroplane (and I'd ask the same if somebody wanted to fly mine).

G

MartinCh

23rd Jul 2010, 17:33

hmm. Flying J3C these days. That's what I call tailwheel trainer :cool:

Good thing I don't have to zig-zag taxiing as I can still see ahead over nose (that is, in front seat, once flying J3 solo, ehrm, I may have to, from back seat).
Once PA-11 gets back from service, and then maybe Luscome SL-8 flying once around PPL mark, or C140, for some flying about and getting to know other planes, that you don't see often in aeroclubs/schools in Western world. Luscombe isn't used for initial training due to more stuff to look after and twitchiness, as I'm told.

As you mentioned you're gonna get into gliding, now going to do some tailwheel TMG (as crash course for glider circuits, nice), but still it ain't flying Cub or Super Cub. Enjoy whatever you fly for fun.

EDIT:
Genghis, no idea about UK SEP training practices, hours, etc, but in the US they have to get the tailwheel rating/endorsement which IIRC reading some stuff, is actually at least 5 hours. Or so advertised. Obviously, now that most trainers are trike, trike students can wreck tailwheel gear more easily. No wonder.
I don't see anything wrong with flying 5 hours, but yes, it shouldn't be advertised as minimum time for the endorsement, if it's 'course'.

Blink182

23rd Jul 2010, 21:01

A Luscombe is not "twitchy"............it just vastly more responsive than , say, a Cub........and it is immensely rewarding !!!

Jumbo Driver

23rd Jul 2010, 21:55

I agree, a Luscombe is no more "twitchy" than any other taildragger.

Contrary to popular belief, it is actually a good training aircraft for tailwheel experience as it handles like the typical classic taildragger that it is. It is not especially difficult to fly and has no more vices than any other taildragger of a similar vintage; it also has the good training characteristic that it will happily show you up if you do not fly it well. With the right skills, a Luscombe is a delight to fly.

However, like most tailwheel trainers, you need an instructor who knows his taildragger.

JD
:)

MartinCh

23rd Jul 2010, 22:34

Thanks guys for feedback.

There are two Luscombe SL8 flying here, but they're not used for initial training, only post-PPL. I could fly it before PPL practical, but only with instructor and not for landing practice etc, to mess things up.

I thought J3C is responsive enough.. I guess it's not all 'same' even with comparable vintage of airplanes. I just said what I was told. The instructors and pilots like Luscombe. They just told me they're more complex than J3/PA11 and that they need to be handled well/more corrections etc. I used the word twitchy, but you guys don't like it, heh.

I call R22 more twitchy than S300 (helicopters, for those fixed wing only aficionados) - very responsive and has to be flown well, not to bite. First hand experience of R22, no other heli so far, but I'm told Sweizer 300 is more forgiving and slower to react to inputs (=stable).

That C140 here doesn't have engine fitted/delivered/fixed right now, been standing in hangar for while, so I don't think I'd see it in the air while I'm here.
Since SL8 cost me same as J3, but faster, I could do bit of cruisin' with it. Definitely more fun than C150.

Keef

23rd Jul 2010, 22:51

There might be an insurance element, too.

I just bought a share in a taildragger, and the insurance stipulated that I can't fly it solo till I have 15 takeoffs and landings in it, and then that there will be an insurance excess loading until I have 25 hours in it.

Them thar hills

24th Jul 2010, 20:36

Keef
Will 15 takeoffs and landings be enough ...??:}
tth

Keef

24th Jul 2010, 21:10

Will 15 takeoffs and landings be enough ...??:}

Almost certainly not :)

But that's what the insurers say, so who am I to argue?

The instructor doing the tailwheel differences training is also the "Group Gaffer" so I'm not expecting to be let loose in it until he's convinced. It's a delightful little aeroplane, and I'm looking forward to bimbling the skies of East Anglia in it.

Chuck Ellsworth

24th Jul 2010, 21:25

Will 15 takeoffs and landings be enough ...??

No.

Not to be competent.

Crash one

24th Jul 2010, 22:20

I have had my taildragger for 3 yrs. I haven't bent it, nor ground looped it, yet, but it has on occasion threatened to swap ends in a downwind landing. I have once or twice nearly "bottomed out" the main gear struts when the planet was a little further away than I thought. Greaser landings are slightly more frequent than they were. I do not yet consider myself "competent", just lucky. At 15 landings I was still being yelled at "KEEP THE BLOODY STICK ALL THE WAY BACK!!" I love it.

Chuck Ellsworth

25th Jul 2010, 00:30

For some weird reason most of today's instructors feel the main landing technique is the three point full stall landing.

The wheel landing is a safer and more desirable landing method if only one technique is taught.

Then again what would one expect considering they were obviously taught by other instructors who didn't know any better.

When people ask me who to get tail wheel training from I advise them from a high time tail wheel pilot...rather than an flight school instructor.

Guzzler

25th Jul 2010, 05:15

The wheel landing is a safer and more desirable landing method if only one technique is taught.

That is a bold statement.

I think the best technique depends on the circumstances.

Bigglesthefrog

25th Jul 2010, 07:13

The wheel landing is a safer and more desirable landing method if only one technique is taught.

This may be so, but IMHO it depends on the type of aeroplane. A tail heavy type can be a devil to wheeler-on neatly.
I'll take the grass and go for a three pointer anyday;)

Cough

25th Jul 2010, 07:28

Going back to licensing issues... I did my PPL back in 1990 in a Cub and my commercial GFT in a Seneca but I don't have anything signed in my logbook for tailwheel wobbly prop retracts type aircraft. Are there grandfather rights for these endorsements?

shortstripper

25th Jul 2010, 07:41

I can see where Chuck is coming from, but agree with Guzzler. Circumstances are important and the ability to cope with the majority of them does need a few hours (or at least a few flights in different conditions). I certainly find three point better for short strips, but wheelers (one wheel sometimes) better for crosswinds.

Often not taught or skipped over are the little things that make a big difference. Aileron and elevator positions when taxiing in gusty conditions downwind/crosswind for instance, or taxiing down an incline in an aircraft without brakes might be another! It's not unheard of for a fledgling taildrgger pilots to cope well with a landing on the limits of windspeed, only to tip the areoplane on it's nose when turning downwind because they were told to keep the stick back when taxiing.

Taildraggers are no harder to fly than trikes, they just require a different mindset. :ok:

SS

shortstripper

25th Jul 2010, 07:43

InfraBoy

25th Jul 2010, 09:00

Just like to add my support to getting a high hours tailwheel (and current) instructor to do your differences training rather than any QFI who has a tailwheel auth.

Interestingly the VGSs teach the stick back method of taxing regardless of wind direction which to me will always look and be wrong as one day one of them might get into an aircraft that demands you treat it properly and forget!

Taildraggers are as easy to fly as any other aircraft but I only have current knowledge of Citabria and Chipmunk and mainly grass - its the points in contact with the ground that require constant attention! I love them and am reminded at least 1 in every 8 landings (or rather touch-and-goes) that constant attention is needed as I keep occasionally trying to wheel the Citabria onto grass - onto hard or as mentioned one wheel onto hard in crosswinds are very rewarding but three-point onto grass for me if in the Citabria! Circumstances rule and the beauty of tail-wheel is to keep checking the circumstances - never assume. Those little things will keep you straight!!!

BroomstickPilot

25th Jul 2010, 10:02

Hi Okavango,

It generally takes about 90-120 minutes, although I've seen the occasional club advertise 5 hour courses, which suggests to me either they're profiteering, or regularly getting some seriously inept students.

For once, with regret, I must disagree with Gengis. If tailwheel is to be taught PROPERLY, it takes all of five hours. I might add that these days there is a good deal of very poor tailwheel training about, so be careful whom you go to. For preference, go to a high hours career instructor. Typically, club instructors commonly don't teach the wheeler landing technique and some don't even teach crosswind landing at all, which is SCANDALOUS.

Remember also that some tail-draggers are easier than others to taxi or land. The Tiger Moth and the Cub are easy, however the Auster was a bugger.

I did my PPL on tailwheel aircraft, (or conventional undercarriage as we called it in those days) in 1960 on Austers, when we were nearly all taildragger pilots. I was taught by a guy who had flown heavy, multi-engine tail draggers through much of WWII, and he taught both three point and wheeler (aka roller) landings and both crabbing and wing-down approaches. I was taught to use wheeler landings always whenever landing cross wind.

When I returned to taildraggers in 2005, after a break of many years, I was taught to use a two point, one wing down method of cross wind landing (which, incidentally I had never seen before). I soon found that this was adequate only for light to moderate cross winds and using this technique in a wind that had grown probably a bit too strong while I was airborne, had my first and only ground-loop.

I suggest you first read 'The Compleat Taildragger Pilot' by H. S. Plourde and then you will know what you need and whether you are getting your money's worth.

Good luck Okavango.

Broomstick.

Cough

25th Jul 2010, 11:35

Shortstripper - Thanks!

Chuck Ellsworth

25th Jul 2010, 13:20

AAhhh the joys of commenting on these subjects.

When I take the time to give my opinion on these questions I do not make any statement without first making sure I am giving the correct information.

Most agree with my suggestion of finding someone who understands how to teach on a tail wheel airplane instead of just any flight instructor who thinks they know how.

I have been teaching people to fly tail wheel airplanes for over fifty years and can't even remember the different types of tail wheel airplanes I have flown....of all the different types I have flown I never found one that could not be wheel landed.

The reason I said of the two types of landing the wheel landing is the best is for the simple reason that a wheel landing gives the best control in a x/wind.

So based on safety I will choose the wheel landing over the three point if one is to have a choice.

hugh flung_dung

25th Jul 2010, 14:59

I've taught tailwheel in a range of light aircraft (Jodels, Cubs, Citabrias, Stearman, Texas Taildragger (converted c152), Decathlon, Cap10b/c, and others). Unless the student is unusually experienced, has flown gliders or is "a natural" it usually takes somewhere close to 5 hours to convert them and I'm surprised that people claim it can be done in much less.

The wheeler vs 3-point debate is an interesting one. I teach 3-point landings first (with wing down for crosswind) and only add wheel landings if the stude wants to learn that technique, if they have picked-up the other technique unusually quickly, or if they come back for refresher training.
A big consideration is the typical runway length that people operate from - 750m can disappear quickly when learning to wheel land in nil wind:eek: and many strips are much shorter - maybe you have the luxury of longer runways, Chuck.
Another reason is that, from experience, the aircraft that people generally fly can all be landed in the 2/3-point attitude in reasonable crosswinds. If the wind is higher I would expect private pilots to find a way to reduce the crosswind component by changing the line, the runway, or the airfield because even if you successfully wheel it on there still comes-a-time when the tail needs to come down - and it isn't always going to be possible to run-off into wind.

Edited to add: manufacturers publish landing performance info which is presumably based on a 3-point landing - wheel landing distances can be highly variable so how do those that prefer this method calculate their landing distances?

HFD

Chuck Ellsworth

25th Jul 2010, 15:31

I first teach them how to control the airplane on the runway by high speed runs down the runway with the tail in the air.

When they can S turn back and forth down the center line we go flying....not before.

I then teach them to wheel land.

I then teach the three point.

I have never had a student who could not learn that way.

If runway length is a problem most countries have airports with longer runways...so we find one.

Chuck Ellsworth

25th Jul 2010, 15:37

Most tail wheel airplanes I have flown can be landed shorter using the wheel landing technique than three pointing them.

Chuck Ellsworth

25th Jul 2010, 15:41

I have never three pointed these airplanes.

Anson Mk5.

Beech 18.

Grumman Turbo goose.

And I have hundreds of hours on each type and have never lost control of a tail wheel airplane in around ten thousand hours of flying them.

Was I doing something wrong?

Chuck Ellsworth

25th Jul 2010, 15:46

wheel landing distances can be highly variable so how do those that prefer this method calculate their landing distances?

I pick a touch down point and after landing on it I measure the distance it took to come to a stop.

Keef

25th Jul 2010, 15:47

Having spent a happy hour and a bit doing gradually-faster taxy runs up and down the runway, I got airborne! I gained a considerable respect for the little D119.

The instructor has many hours on this particular Jodel, is a member of the group, and spent a long time on the ground explaining stuff before we even got into it. I will be surprised if 5 hours logged time proves enough, even so.

But then, I've got 30 years experience of nosewheel aircraft and I wouldn't say I'm good at landing them, either.

hugh flung_dung

25th Jul 2010, 16:10

I start the same way. First: lots of accelerate/stop until they can control direction and attitude on the ground. Next: airborne to look at co-ordination, stalls, operate any systems, simulated emergencies, and generally settle-in. Next: lots of circuits in different wind conditions and with slips of various types. Finally: if the stude wants we go to a tarmac runway for a few circuits.

If I take someone to the nearest airfield that has a longer runway I first have to ring-up to book (they may say "no") and my student will have to pay over £20 for each landing :mad:. During the circuit detail we may be put into several orbits on downwind or base, or get told to land or leave the airspace. It's not unknown to only achieve 5 circuits in an hour - plus transit time.
If only larger airfields were as plentiful and as helpful in the UK as they are in the US.

HFD

Chuck Ellsworth

25th Jul 2010, 16:23

Yes I fully understand the problems that private aviation faces in England having flown and worked there for some years.

It is almost as unsolvable as your immigration problems.

You have my sympathy and I fear the Peoples Socialist Republic of Canada is not far behind.

I am sure all you guys and gals know my comments are made to help , not to criticize.

Genghis the Engineer

25th Jul 2010, 16:45

I'm re-examining the issue of hours to convert to tailwheel, after various people think I'm wrong.

I did my SEP / group A tailwheel conversion with Bob Cole (not known for compromise!) in 1:20 at Thuxton.

However, looking more closely at my logbook, at that time I had 400 hours as a pilot, and was actively test flying microlights, plus on microlights and motorgliders I had about 15 tailwheel hours before I started with Bob, that and quite a lot of hours sat next to or behind test pilots on various assessments including a T-6 and DC3.

So yes, I didn't exactly do it in under 5 hours either, nor was I a standard PPL. You chaps are right, I was wrong.

I confess personally I always favour 3-point landings, but certainly wouldn't consider anybody converted if they weren't fully capable of both.

A further thought, I recall the owner of a large microlight school a few years ago telling me that when he went from teaching on Thruster TSTs (tailwheel side-by-side microlights) to the AX3 (a very similar shaped aeroplane, but with doors and a nosewheel) the time to get students solo went from about 15 hours to about 10.

G

hugh flung_dung

25th Jul 2010, 17:18

GtE: I think my TW conversion was about 5 circuits in a Cub, but I had a reasonable amount of gliding experience and nobody had told me it was supposed to be difficult! I only really understood the issues and what was going-on later, when I was taught to instruct. With hindsight I don't consider that my initial conversion was adequate.

Chuck: I'm intrigued by "Most tail wheel airplanes I have flown can be landed shorter using the wheel landing technique than three pointing them" as this is counter to my experience of light aircraft - are you referring to heavier types with real suspension and the ability to brake with the tail in the air? If not, I'm doing something wrong and would appreciate hearing how you do it.

HFD

Big Pistons Forever

25th Jul 2010, 17:31

At a typical tailwheel conversion course you spend no time away from the circuit, unless you pay extra for it.

I have a different opinion on this comment. I start all my taildragger students off with a flight to the practice area for some general handling exercises. The vast majority of light taildraggers are 1930/1940's designs and modern nosewheel trainers with balanced and relatively unresponsive controls and adverse yaw virtually eliminated, are not the best preparation to flying a cub/champ/C140 style of aircraft. I usually find that it takes an hour of airwork before the student can consistantly coordinate a turn and hold a consistant attitude and airspeed in the descent and glide. Going straight to the circuit will IMO be an exercise in frustration for both student and instructor and investing an hour in general handling will pay big dividends in learning taildragger takeoffs and landings.

I should also point out that fatal stall/spin accidents, particularly in the circuit are much more common in light taildraggers, therefore I demonstrate some scenarios where mishandling that a modern cessna or piper will let you get away with, can be deadly in this class of aircaft.

Chuck Ellsworth

25th Jul 2010, 17:52

Chuck: I'm intrigued by "Most tail wheel airplanes I have flown can be landed shorter using the wheel landing technique than three pointing them" as this is counter to my experience of light aircraft - are you referring to heavier types with real suspension and the ability to brake with the tail in the air? If not, I'm doing something wrong and would appreciate hearing how you do it.

Sure:

Most tail wheel airplanes can be wheel landed with touch down just above the stall.

Once on the runway you can lower the nose which will put more weight on the wheels to provide better braking energy.

Have a look at how the Super Cub guys do it in their short landing contests in Alaska, the Super Cub is a light aircraft....however the heavier the airplane the better this method works.

These conversations tend to drift all over the place such going into detail about all the different flying characteristics of different airplanes and how to check out pilots in every flight envelope from straight and level to unusual attitudes.

I try and focus on the question asked....such as here, checking out on a tail wheel airplane in this thread....thus I focus on the real differences between a tail wheel airplane and a nose wheel airplane.

The important differences are mostly ground handling and take off and landing differences.

((( Before this gets into a pissing contest please note....)))

If I find the pilot who I am cross training from nose wheel to tail wheel needs training in any other realm of airplane handling I will provide such training before approving them as competent on type.

Any instructor who deserves the title of instructor will very quickly be able to determine where a pilot needs further instruction in a very short time of observing the pilot being trained.

Genghis the Engineer

25th Jul 2010, 19:16

Surely some upper air time is essential, since virtually no training aeroplanes are available in both nosewheel and tailwheel versions - so in most cases you do need to spend a certain amount of time getting the new taildragger pilot to know the aeroplane that they'll then be learning to fly in the circuit. And in most cases, they'll probably be flying the aeroplane again anyhow so need a proper conversion.

G

Chuck Ellsworth

25th Jul 2010, 19:52

Surely some upper air time is essential,

Yes, of course that is true.

But generally the pilot being trained has a license and hopefully upper air work would be only to get them familiar with the type they are being checked out on.

Some pilots can be checked out in a very short time.

Some pilots are so weak on all the areas of flying I am amazed they hold a license, and that includes a few licensed flight instructors I have flown with.

Big Pistons Forever

26th Jul 2010, 02:03

Any instructor who deserves the title of instructor will very quickly be able to determine where a pilot needs further instruction in a very short time of observing the pilot being trained.

I take this para to mean that you also do handling assesment of the student prior to starting in the circuit. I Absolutely agree the best place to fully observe the pilot is IMO the practice area. How long the student needs to spend there will of course vary, but my experience with PPL's that have only flown modern nosewheel trainers is that htey need at least an hour to learn how to properly fly an aircraft in the J3/7AC/C140 class. Going straight to the circuit IMO deprives them of an essential handling familiarization which they will then have to acquire while also trying to land and takeoff, not the ideal situation IMO.

Chuck Ellsworth

26th Jul 2010, 02:30

It looks like I should have had you fine tune my instructional techniques B.P.F. when I was in the advanced flight training profession.

Just think how much more successful I would have been.

Big Pistons Forever

26th Jul 2010, 02:41

Chuck

My my aren't we testy tonight.....and here I was agreeing with you ;)

jxk

26th Jul 2010, 08:04

Fascinating stuff chaps..

I was fortunate enough to do some training with a chap in Arizona who taught me how to do 'wheel' landings. I too thought that it would not be possible to make wheel landings shorter than three pointers but I was proven wrong. However, it does take a lot of experience to brake hard with the tail still in air. I found it completely contrary to my instinct having all my life flown nose-wheel aircraft; that is, pull back rather than push forward . I was shown how to control the height with the use of power and by holding the same attitude make several touch and goes by increasing and decreasing the power. You also need to be a bit more adaptive with your feet both for keeping the aircraft straight as well as the amount of braking.

Having said this, I still feel more comfortable doing 3 pointers and just need to practice wheelers a bit more, something I wasn't shown or demonstrated on my tail wheel conversion.
There are many articles showing how missionary pilots land using the wheeler technique. There must be a reason why they do this!

shortstripper

26th Jul 2010, 12:31

Short (wet?) grass strip - Back of the drag curve, three point attitude and chop the throttle just as you stall on was the only way I could get G-AWHY (Falconar F11) onto my strip. Maybe on a firm surface a wheeler might have worked and I guess it would give more chance of a go around if things went pear shaped (though heavy braking in that particular aeroplane would probably have caused a swing due to it having not the best set up brakes).

So I still say circumstances and type are everthing when it comes to short landings!

SS

Pizza Express

26th Jul 2010, 14:17

It's sad to see so many people using the "tail dragger" American term instead of using "tailwheel".

Dan Dare

26th Jul 2010, 14:21

but I haven't got a tail wheel, just a lump of metal at the tail-end that drags behind me. Can I call that a tail dragger?

jxk

26th Jul 2010, 14:52

Here's how it should be done:D
Cessna 185 Short Landing (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0BbHuuBg9IU&feature=related)

Dan Dare - how about tail skid; sounds better than tail drraaaggggerrr!

Bigglesthefrog

26th Jul 2010, 15:06

Most tail wheel airplanes I have flown can be landed shorter using the wheel landing technique than three pointing them.

Chuck
I flew a DH Hornet Moth for 8 years and I found the Wheeler to be quite difficult to get right in this A/C. I have never taught anyone to land a tailwheel A/C but I don't believe that you could land this old gal shorter by Wheeling it on, than I could by three pointing it. I'm afraid that I have to go with Hugh FD on this one and I have to say that I think that you're giving us a bit of a whopper there:O
Unfortunately I don't have this lovely aeroplane anymore, but if I did, I'd challenge you to prove me wrong and if you managed it, I'd buy you a bucket of beer:ok:

Genghis the Engineer

26th Jul 2010, 15:45

It's sad to see so many people using the "tail dragger" American term instead of using "tailwheel".

Should we also be referring to aerodromes instead of the American term airfield?

Just so long as nobody goes thinking that I fly a woodworking tool, I'm happy.

G

hatzflyer

26th Jul 2010, 15:48

YouTube - Super Cub Super STOL Short Field Landing (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sfeMLQNe57E&feature=related)
Even better

I can live with taildragger, I hate the use of nose dragger .How CAN you drag a nose wheel unless you're going backwards?:ugh:

Big Pistons Forever

26th Jul 2010, 16:08

I think it is pointless to make blanket statements about three point vs wheel landings. Some aircraft you never 3 point (Beech 18) others you never wheel land (Helio Courrier) and if the field is so short the type of landing is going to make a difference than if you are not a professional bush pilot, you should not be going into there in the first place.

Which technique should be used for any given landing depends on the type of aircraft and the conditions. A proper tailwheel conversion course should teach both but new tailwheel pilots need to build their experience in gentle conditions before trying the fancy flying. After I sign my students out
I tell them to go do about 10 hrs of practice on nice days and them come back for round two were we go out on the snotty days and and into some more demanding fields.

Chuck Ellsworth

26th Jul 2010, 16:12

Bigglesthefrog, good morning.

I have never flown a Hornet Moth but looking at its profile I see no reason why it could not be wheel landed.

I did get to fly a Tiger Moth during my time in England and found it to be a real easy airplane to fly. ( I think it was at Rush Green. )

The wheel landing saves space when landing as it is easier to judge the touch down point than it is performing a three point landing thus avoiding the floating period when performing a full stall three point landing.

Remember I have not said there are no airplanes that can't be wheel landed.

The Pitts S2B is a bit of a challenge to wheel land due to the difficulty in seeing the runway....but it can be wheel landed.

S-Works

26th Jul 2010, 16:50

My Auster (Terrier) before it's untimely end recently was impossible to wheel on. To have enough speed on to keep the tail up would just result in a bounce.

NazgulAir

26th Jul 2010, 22:20

irish seaplane

26th Jul 2010, 23:18

Kinda funny that anyone could easily package tailwheel flying into a nice little "package" and that you come out x hours later able to fly a tailwheel airplane. I'd regularly fly with certain pilots with lots of tailwheel time and give them a new tailwheel airplane or tricky oddball landing and it always convinces you that tailwheel skills are acrued with the benefit of lots of time....when you see guys who really should know overcook it. Its not just a few saturday jollies and a logbook entry. There is a great deal of difference between all the flavours of tailwheel airplanes, and a great number of techniques need to be kept up the sleve for each different occaision. The fun is in learning them all in theory and hopefully not bending anything in the application.

The book stick and rudder is invaluable in section on landing to assist the tyro tailwheel man. It clearly makes the case for wheel landings, in a slightly more longwinded way than the big rocks long props guys demonstrate. Its great that we have guys with that skill level we can all learn from.

Irish

Big Pistons Forever

27th Jul 2010, 00:17

big pistons -- yes, airwork for familiarization is necessary of course, the more so if the aircraft type is very different frm any flown before. What I meant is that the bulk of the time needed (presuming that you know how to handle the plane in the air, recognise and respond to stalls, etc.) is going to be spent learning to handle the plane on the ground, and practising take-offs and landings.
It never ceases to amaze me how much time some people need. Doing my PPL on a tailwheel aircraft may have been the single most trouble-saving decision of my flying life, in that I've never had any problem learning to land a new type of plane. The same basic principles are sound for any type, perhaps it's just that with a tailwheel trainer you can't mistake a wheelbarrow for a proper landing.

Congratulations on getting your PPL on a "real" airplane :). Since in Canada at least, almost nobody rents tailwheel aircraft for initial training it is now pretty rare to do a PPL on a tailwheel aircraft. I have done 2 PPL's on a Cessna 140 (both owned by the student) and other than taking a bit longer to solo they completed their training in the usual time but had significantly better hands and feet than your average PPL :ok:

One of the hazards of upgrade training is to presume skills that do not exist. The farther away the insrtructor is from ab inito training the harder it is to remember that what to the instructor is automatic and unconsious skills may not be robust enough in the student

Every pilot I have done a tailwheel conversion for. has had weaknesses in one or more of the fundamental skills, poor use of the rudder, poor attitude control on final resulting in the nose nodding up and down, and not keeping the aircraft in trim are the three most common. Therefore I am a big believer in reviewing the essential Ex 5 to 12 skills in the practice area before getting to the ciruit, it is money well spent in my experience

Bigglesthefrog

27th Jul 2010, 04:21

Good morning Chuck
The Hornet Moth looks, and is a lovely aeroplane, but she is very heavy in the tail, especially if you compare it to a Tiger Moth which is a stable companion of the Hornet. It takes two people to pick up the Hornet's tail, but one guy can easily pick up the Tiger's tail and walk away with it. So Wheeling the Hornet Moth onto the runway means you need a bit of speed to pin it down tail up. This is all extra speed that has to be scrubbed off before it comes to a stop, therefore eating up more runway. If in ones keeness to get her down she is wheeled on a bit too hard the inertia will drop the heavy tail, increase the angle of attack and she's airborne again:ugh:
I have wheelered her on to tarmac quite successfully, but I've never ever done it anywhere near as short as even a bad three pointer.

NazgulAir

27th Jul 2010, 10:58

Congratulations on getting your PPL on a "real" airplane http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/smile.gif.Having seen abysmal standards in the most basic skills of some people, I am inclined to believe that everyone should learn to fly on a tailwheel trainer to avoid bad habits that make for poor skills in any but the most benign kind of plane.
Yes, I was lucky that there was a place with Rollason Condors, which had a lovely narrow envelope that teaches you to keep on your toes. It's a pity that such places have disappeared alongside the oldfashioned stick-and-rudder instructors that were around in the seventies. Now you have a chance of being tought basic skills by an instructor who spent his entire flying career so far on (***) (very fault-forgiving) airplanes :ugh:!!! In fact, I wrote an article in the Flight Safety Bulletin years ago voicing my concern about this fact and urging GASCo to look into the relationship between this and accident statistics.

shortstripper

27th Jul 2010, 12:11

Having seen abysmal standards in the most basic skills of some people, I am inclined to believe that everyone should learn to fly on a tailwheel trainer to avoid bad habits that make for poor skills in any but the most benign kind of plane.
Yes, I was lucky that there was a place with Rollason Condors, which had a lovely narrow envelope that teaches you to keep on your toes. It's a pity that such places have disappeared alongside the oldfashioned stick-and-rudder instructors that were around in the seventies. Now you have a chance of being tought basic skills by an instructor who spent his entire flying career so far on (***) (very fault-forgiving) airplanes !!! In fact, I wrote an article in the Flight Safety Bulletin years ago voicing my concern about this fact and urging GASCo to look into the relationship between this and accident statistics.

There many more about now than when I learnt in the 80's. I did my PPL on taildraggers (DH82a and Supercubs) after flying gliders. The Cambridge Flying Group and Clacton Aero Club still exist, but many more offer ab-initio on taildraggers than did then.

SS

gasax

27th Jul 2010, 13:57

I hesitate to argue with Bose but you can wheel a Terrier. But much like the argument with the Hornet Moth there is little point in doing it. To get a truly gentle touchdown which you need, usually means messing about in the flare often using throttle - which does eat runway.

I only ever did it when playing around just to prove I could! Or in a serious (but steady) crosswind. If you could hold it straight on the mains against the wind then it was likely you could stay on the runway using the one and a half good brake applications a Terrier will give you!

S-Works

27th Jul 2010, 14:08

I would suggest that you just have might gotten lucky........ The sheer weight of the Terrifier arse end means it stops flying very quickly. To keep the tail up you need a lot of forward speed and that is way to much to be putting it down on the mains without risking a massive bounce or a weather cock. Think how much forward stick you need to get the tail off in the first place......

Mark1234

27th Jul 2010, 16:38

So, I'm puzzled; It's been said that you can wheel on just above the stall and put the nose down to get better braking and a shorter rollout.

It seems to me that just above the stall is more or less the definition a 3 point attitude - if the tail is higher, you're probably going faster? Even if you can brake harder initially, after some period of time you're going to arrive at the speed you would have been at if you 3 pointed it. From there whether you raise the tail or not, it's the same game as if you 3 pointed it, but you already spent time braking to get there.

The above of course assumes that you can plant it on the start of the landing area with either method..

As for the alaskan nutters, I always assumed they kept the tailwheel off the ground because it didn't have a big beachball wheel to roll over the rocks, and would probably just fall off.

SNS3Guppy

27th Jul 2010, 23:55

It's sad to see so many people using the "tail dragger" American term instead of using "tailwheel".

"Taildragger" comes from a time when airplanes used skids and dragged their tails. It's not an "American" term. In the United States, the correct term is "conventional gear," referring to both tailwheel and tailskid aircraft.

So far as three-point vs. a wheel landing, which to use depends on what one feels most comfortable doing, the type of aircraft, and the conditions under which one is landing.

I don't suggest practicing braking with the tail in the air, and particularly not heavy braking. I fly conventional gear airplanes that have both powerful brakes, and reverse capability with the propeller: I don't use either when the tail is in the air. My standard practice is to perform a wheel landing with full flaps, and retract the flaps after touchdown. This encourages the tail to settle and the wing to stop flying, and after the tail has settled with full forward stick, then I bring the stick aft, brake, and apply beta or reverse.

Some airplanes don't three point well, and some do. For those starting out in conventional gear, three points are usually easier, and more familiar (very similar to doing a flared landing in a nosewheel airplane). Full-stall, three point landings are easy to learn, if one already lands properly in a nosewheel airplane.

Wheel landings in airplanes with spring gear can be a little more challenging, especially on a less than calm day, or with a pilot who uses rough technique. A useful method of transitioning someone to conventional gear involves developing solid ground-handling skills, then doing taxi work on the runway, increasing speed until a takeoff is done, then ample three point landings. When these are mastered, or at least competently learned, then one moves to nearly-three point, and rolls the nose forward into a two-point attitude for the roll-out. This is a cheat on a wheel landing, but is a training precursor to learning to wheel landing.

I should also inject here that a useful technique for learning both three-point and wheel landings is to sit in the airplane on the ramp and close one's eyes between flying sessions, envisioning the landing. Then open one's eyes and see the actually attitude and altitude of the airplane, with one's frontal and peripheral vision. Lock in the feel of sitting in the airplane in the three point attitude (the instructor should reinforce during taxi that one is seeing one's landing picture). One should prop the tail of the airplane on a sawhorse or truck bed and see what it looks like when landing two-point, as well.

When the student is ready, the two-point landing becomes a matter of half of a three point landing. Rather than flaring, the airplane gets driven onto the runway, as though one is rounding out just enough to make a level pass down the runway. Timing and feel is learned, to put the mains on the runway and roll with them, adding forward stick a little at a time as energy bleeds off in the roll-out.

One shouldn't feel constrained to 5 hours of instruction, nor should one feel that one isn't "getting it" if training takes longer. Getting the basics, and just a little learning, can enable one to takeoff and land without concern. A little learning is a dangerous thing, however, and one should take care to ensure that one is trained properly in two-point, three point, and crosswinds, as well as thoroughly mastering ground handling at slow and high speeds. Proper training make take substantially more than 5 hours, and that's just fine. Train to proficiency, not to the bare minimum.

jaycee58

1st Aug 2010, 22:01

Very useful thread. Weather permitting I'm starting the tailwheel (and wobbly prop) training tomorrow in the Zenair 601 I bought a couple of weeks back. As tailwheel aircraft go, this one is supposed to be *easy* but having only 150 hours in my logbook, more or less equally split between Cessna 150, 172 and Piper Tomahawk I'm not sure that I'm going to find it easy at all.

SNS3Guppy

1st Aug 2010, 22:10

Jaycee,

The mythology of conventional gear flying is to make it seem like a daunting task. Flying an airplane equipped with a tailwheel is no harder, and no more daunting, than any other airplanes. If you use proper technique and basic skills with a nosewheel-equipped tricycle-gear airplane, then you'll have no problem with a conventional gear airplane.

Conventional gear gives the opportunity to make greater mistakes, and is less forgiving of poor handling. The secret then, is don't handle the airplane poorly. The same basic policies apply; keep the long axis of the airplane aligned with the direction of travel, land straight, stay ahead of the airplane. Nothing more than you already do as part of your normal flying.