Piper Cub
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Norfolk UK
Age: 80
Posts: 1,200
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Piper Cub
I had the first hour of my 8 hr Tailgragger Farmstrip conversion at Clacton today.
Very pleased with the instuction,but what a difference to fly from the Cherokee.
The Cub aircraft is very responsive and does not suffer fools gladly,if the rudder and aileron co-ordination is not spot on then it quickly lets you know.
Or the instructor does!
Did some general handling ,Steep turns,stalls power on and off and a spin which was quite eye opener.
I know I'm going to like this.
Lister
PS Unfortunately the weather does not look good for rest of W/E here
Very pleased with the instuction,but what a difference to fly from the Cherokee.
The Cub aircraft is very responsive and does not suffer fools gladly,if the rudder and aileron co-ordination is not spot on then it quickly lets you know.
Or the instructor does!
Did some general handling ,Steep turns,stalls power on and off and a spin which was quite eye opener.
I know I'm going to like this.
Lister
PS Unfortunately the weather does not look good for rest of W/E here
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Deepest Warwickshire
Age: 47
Posts: 932
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Make sure you get a good pre-brief about why taildraggers handle the way they do on the ground. I had the part-time FI at CAC and she was a bit too quiet on that front!
Who is your FI?
Who is your FI?
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 588
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Gt. Yarmouth, Norfolk
Age: 68
Posts: 799
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good luck with the rest of the course Lister. I did the same at Clacton about two years ago. Great fun. But, the sign off is just the start of the learning.
Hope to see you around Priory some time soon as I'm about to buy back into the L4
Hope to see you around Priory some time soon as I'm about to buy back into the L4
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 3,325
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well done for seeking out the real thing! Why are so many light aircraft (Pa 28, C172 etc), practical though they may be, such an insult to the art of flying? There's really no reason they should be like that. 
SSD
SSD
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Here and there. Here at the moment but soon I'll be there.
Posts: 758
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Shaggy Sheep Driver
Well done for seeking out the real thing! Why are so many light aircraft (Pa 28, C172 etc), practical though they may be, such an insult to the art of flying? There's really no reason they should be like that.
SSD
SSD
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Norfolk UK
Age: 80
Posts: 1,200
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Justiciar
Good luck with the rest of the course Lister. I did the same at Clacton about two years ago. Great fun. But, the sign off is just the start of the learning.
Hope to see you around Priory some time soon as I'm about to buy back into the L4
Hope to see you around Priory some time soon as I'm about to buy back into the L4
I look forward to seeing you there.
No flying today,windy,wet and possible storms!
Lister
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Vancouver Island
Posts: 2,517
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Skyhawk:
I believe Shaggy Sheep was alluding to tricycle gear airplanes being like kiddie bicycles, tricycles are much easier to handle on the ground, whereas conventional gear ( tail wheel airplanes ) requires more attention to directional control on the ground not to mention you actually have to be able to judge height above the runway to perform wheel landings properly.
Whereas in a tricycle gear you can just sit there fat dumb and happy in a nose up attitude or even level attitude and wait for the airplane to arrive.
Correct me if I am wrong in my assumption Shaggy Sheep....
Chuck E.
I believe Shaggy Sheep was alluding to tricycle gear airplanes being like kiddie bicycles, tricycles are much easier to handle on the ground, whereas conventional gear ( tail wheel airplanes ) requires more attention to directional control on the ground not to mention you actually have to be able to judge height above the runway to perform wheel landings properly.
Whereas in a tricycle gear you can just sit there fat dumb and happy in a nose up attitude or even level attitude and wait for the airplane to arrive.
Correct me if I am wrong in my assumption Shaggy Sheep....
Chuck E.
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Here and there. Here at the moment but soon I'll be there.
Posts: 758
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chuck E. so what you are saying is aircraft which have a nose wheel and are easier to land than tail draggers are an "insult to the art of flying".
Thanks, now I understand
Thanks, now I understand
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 3,325
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry Chuck, it wasn't that at all. There's no way I'm in favour of making life difficult just for the sake of it.
It's their appalling handling I was alluding to - soggy and ineffective ailerons in particular, and poor control co-ordination, which makes them uninspiring to fly. And they are more than a tad characterless. No, they are boring (compared to, say, a Cub, which could never be boring).
You know, you're climbing out in a 172 on a gusty day, a wing goes down in a gust, so you immediately apply aileron and co-ordinated rudder to level the wings and - not much happens. Then slowly the aeroplane responds (late and laggardly), but by then another gust has altered things and really you are a bit of a passenger since the aeroplane deprives you of fast and crisp controls you need to be master of the situation.
There's really no reason they should be like that. Even acepting their designers never intended them to be flown for just the joy of flying, but rather that they be stolid workhorses, there is no reason they couldn 't be nice to fly as well.
SSD
It's their appalling handling I was alluding to - soggy and ineffective ailerons in particular, and poor control co-ordination, which makes them uninspiring to fly. And they are more than a tad characterless. No, they are boring (compared to, say, a Cub, which could never be boring).
You know, you're climbing out in a 172 on a gusty day, a wing goes down in a gust, so you immediately apply aileron and co-ordinated rudder to level the wings and - not much happens. Then slowly the aeroplane responds (late and laggardly), but by then another gust has altered things and really you are a bit of a passenger since the aeroplane deprives you of fast and crisp controls you need to be master of the situation.
There's really no reason they should be like that. Even acepting their designers never intended them to be flown for just the joy of flying, but rather that they be stolid workhorses, there is no reason they couldn 't be nice to fly as well.
SSD
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Here and there. Here at the moment but soon I'll be there.
Posts: 758
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SSD, because you find an aircraft boring mainly due to it's solid workhorse design, a design that has been around for many years, you think it is an "insult to the art of flying"? Flying PA-28s and 172s might not be the most exciting experiences in the world but they do a job well and predictably hence their popularity, hardly an insult.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 3,325
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by SkyHawk-N
Flying PA-28s and 172s might not be the most exciting experiences in the world but they do a job well and predictably.
SSD
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: New South Wales
Posts: 1,794
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ah, the old 'boring spamcan vs interesting aircraft' debate. What's the point?
It's axiomatic that a cub of any variety is cooler, smarter and more fun than a spamcan. The fact of what the spamcan can or cannot do is irrelevant, how reliable it is, how long its been around yadda, yadda, yadda, yawn!
If you fly nothing but boring tricycle spamcans, live with it and keep flying them. No point arguing that they're in any way equivalent to, or as worthy as, superior airframes and especially no point in taking umbrage. Just makes you look geeky and humourless and who wants that?
QDM
It's axiomatic that a cub of any variety is cooler, smarter and more fun than a spamcan. The fact of what the spamcan can or cannot do is irrelevant, how reliable it is, how long its been around yadda, yadda, yadda, yawn!
If you fly nothing but boring tricycle spamcans, live with it and keep flying them. No point arguing that they're in any way equivalent to, or as worthy as, superior airframes and especially no point in taking umbrage. Just makes you look geeky and humourless and who wants that?
QDM
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Here and there. Here at the moment but soon I'll be there.
Posts: 758
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by QDMQDMQDM
Ah, the old 'boring spamcan vs interesting aircraft' debate. What's the point?
It's axiomatic that a cub of any variety is cooler, smarter and more fun than a spamcan. The fact of what the spamcan can or cannot do is irrelevant, how reliable it is, how long its been around yadda, yadda, yadda, yawn!
If you fly nothing but boring tricycle spamcans, live with it and keep flying them. No point arguing that they're in any way equivalent to, or as worthy as, superior airframes and especially no point in taking umbrage. Just makes you look geeky and humourless and who wants that?
QDM
It's axiomatic that a cub of any variety is cooler, smarter and more fun than a spamcan. The fact of what the spamcan can or cannot do is irrelevant, how reliable it is, how long its been around yadda, yadda, yadda, yawn!
If you fly nothing but boring tricycle spamcans, live with it and keep flying them. No point arguing that they're in any way equivalent to, or as worthy as, superior airframes and especially no point in taking umbrage. Just makes you look geeky and humourless and who wants that?
QDM
BTW who says I only fly spamcans?
