Tailwheel techniques
"
Grandpa Aerotart
CGG's roof mounted trim...bloody good idea, wish the PNG C185s had it.
Whitebaiting...is that the Kiwi version of making natives get out of their boats?
Taildragger
Whitebaiting...is that the Kiwi version of making natives get out of their boats?
Taildragger
Silly Old Git
Thread Starter
CGG....CGG old dung duster ....its in here somewhere...
Geezaz...lookit the repair of der holen vot zey iss puttin der poopin
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.
Geezaz...lookit the repair of der holen vot zey iss puttin der poopin
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.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: in a fantasy world that is aviation.
Posts: 74
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Silly Old Git
Thread Starter
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
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
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
Age: 61
Posts: 122
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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
[Footnote: That particular aeroplane is now a long-time resident of YBCS]
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
[Footnote: That particular aeroplane is now a long-time resident of YBCS]
Last edited by ForkTailedDrKiller; 31st Jul 2007 at 13:01.
Grandpa Aerotart
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
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.
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
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.
Last edited by Chimbu chuckles; 31st Jul 2007 at 13:31.
Grandpa Aerotart
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
One way, landing from right to left in the picture...all downhill and laterite clay...great fun when wet
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
Example of what I mean
One way, landing from right to left in the picture...all downhill and laterite clay...great fun when wet
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
Last edited by Chimbu chuckles; 31st Jul 2007 at 14:20.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Live in Taupiri, Waikato, work in the big smoke, New Zealand
Posts: 545
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Had the opportunity recently to fly a Citabria (thanx Wombat35) 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!]
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.Had the opportunity recently to fly a Citabria (thanx Wombat35
) 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!]
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Perth Australia
Age: 74
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"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;
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!"
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;
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!"
Last edited by VH-BOX; 1st Aug 2007 at 02:03.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Australia
Age: 52
Posts: 698
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Where you been?
Yes it does it goes.....
BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHH
And causes a hard-on of every aviation enthusiast the world over.
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,
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,
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Perth Australia
Age: 74
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Poteroo,
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.
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
185.