Tail Wheel Tips ???
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: north carolina
Age: 64
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
tailwheel
yea its crazy I started in aeronca and now am in ALC with 100 Hp (American Legend Cub) and its much easier in the ALC Cub....practice practice practice....determination, Im up to about 9 hours and am doing good wheel landings in the Aeronca....also STUDY, find any articles, books, etc
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: US
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Spezio Tuholer, & wheel landings
I see this thread has legs! Just taking a moment to answer your question, Shortstripper, and comment on your point re 3-points...and add a further comment.
1. No, I don't think the Spezio Tuholer is underpowered at all. You can easily work it out - google it, and other aircraft you're familiar with, for hp and gross weight (or mid-wight) work out the power loading, (divide weight into hp for pounds per horsepower - the lower the number the more powerful the machine - and it'll give you a good sense. My **subjective** experience is that my Spezio climbs an awful lot faster than, say, a 172, and that's plenty of power, at least until you start getting a roving eye, and trawling TAP again
Most Tuholers have 125 or 135 hp, although there are some with more....even a 125 hp one should be fine.
2. On short landings, though, I have to stand by my own experience. I was initially very sceptical too - how could you possibly land shorter in a wheel landing, when (by definition) you can land slower in a full stall landing? I argued long & hard w my instructor on this, but I'm convinced now. I think it partly comes down to braking - my braking effectiveness in the Harmon Rocket is vastly better when I have the tail up, (and thus all the weight on the mains) so while the initial touchdown speed is slightly higher, it can be reduced much faster too, in a wheel landing. NB, I don't mean a FAST wheel landing - I mean a tail low, slow, power on wheel landing, which is **almost** a 3-pointer, and as soon as you touch you push forward very slightly, and brake hard. Moderating the pitch appropriately if the braking starts to bring the tail up too much. Just my own experience...
3. Oh, and, I guess, to thrash an earlier point, I really don't think that stuff about dancing around like Fred Astaire on cocaine is quite accurate. Don't get me wrong - it was a funny tale - but I don't think it's **that** hard. Not after a bit of practice. I do agree there's more going on, especially initially, but I reckon once you've got the knack, and you're relaxed, it's not too tricky. As for **getting** the knack, well, yes, I guess it's a little tricker to learn to land a taildragger than a 152, but that's possibly mainly because, as one of the previous posters mentioned, that nosewheel aircraft allow sloppier technique, and we can get into bad habits. I know I did, initially, learning in a 172. Nosewheel aircraft have a tendency to "pull themselves straight" if you touch down slightly sideways, whereas taildraggers do the opposite. It's all about the position of the COG compared to the position of the main wheels. The cure, of course, is to not touch down sideways. And, um, keep it straight!
Finally - the comment about recognising an incipient ground loop is on the money....but it's just a more complicated way of saying "keep it straight". In other words, don't accept **any** deviation from straight, no matter how small, and don't over-control (which could lead to hell's own PIO, which is a good time to go round, if you can do so safely, and have another go) but if you recognise that she ain't straight no more, get her straight, and she's just another aeroplane. Just, um, a cooler one than a nose dragger
I know it probably sounds simplistic, but I really think that "don't think too much, control your airspeed on approach, and KEEP IT STRAIGHT at all times" would take care of most problems with learning to master taildraggers.
(added the next day - I am not seriously suggesting "not thinking" in an aircraft. What I meant to say was "don't 'over-think' " the theory, when actually FLYING the aeroplane. Analysis on the ground, on the other hand, is helpful, but all the ref material - eg The Compleat Taildragger - makes much better sense when you've done a few taildragger hours. And it seems that just about every theoretical underpinning of reasons taildraggers yaw on the ground (gyroscopic as tail comes up, P factor, different COG/main wheel relationship, etc) has the same, simple, cure. (Keep It Straight) - and I'll BET you a lot of high hour taildragger pilots could no longer explain all of the reasons that T/Ds yaw, but they keep em straight anyway. It all seems easier once you've flown T/Ds a bit. Dual is fine, of course - no need to hurry to solo a T/D, or for that matter, anything. And, nice example re supermarket trolley - I never thought of that)
On a different note, you know my all time favourite aspect of taildraggers - it's that YOU control when the AoA causes the wings to cease producing lift. Precisely. Which, I think, is another reason wheel landings can be shorter - you can put the machine down within a foot of your aim point, every time, rather than flaring past it, still flying, trying to drop it on in a 3-pt attitude. And in gusty conditions, for instance, you can have a fairly assertive negative AoA, which will 'pin' you to the ground, better than a nosewheel aircraft which can't lower the AoA any more, cos the nose wheel is in the way. Um. I'm getting complicated & OT now. Off for coffee....
1. No, I don't think the Spezio Tuholer is underpowered at all. You can easily work it out - google it, and other aircraft you're familiar with, for hp and gross weight (or mid-wight) work out the power loading, (divide weight into hp for pounds per horsepower - the lower the number the more powerful the machine - and it'll give you a good sense. My **subjective** experience is that my Spezio climbs an awful lot faster than, say, a 172, and that's plenty of power, at least until you start getting a roving eye, and trawling TAP again
Most Tuholers have 125 or 135 hp, although there are some with more....even a 125 hp one should be fine.2. On short landings, though, I have to stand by my own experience. I was initially very sceptical too - how could you possibly land shorter in a wheel landing, when (by definition) you can land slower in a full stall landing? I argued long & hard w my instructor on this, but I'm convinced now. I think it partly comes down to braking - my braking effectiveness in the Harmon Rocket is vastly better when I have the tail up, (and thus all the weight on the mains) so while the initial touchdown speed is slightly higher, it can be reduced much faster too, in a wheel landing. NB, I don't mean a FAST wheel landing - I mean a tail low, slow, power on wheel landing, which is **almost** a 3-pointer, and as soon as you touch you push forward very slightly, and brake hard. Moderating the pitch appropriately if the braking starts to bring the tail up too much. Just my own experience...
3. Oh, and, I guess, to thrash an earlier point, I really don't think that stuff about dancing around like Fred Astaire on cocaine is quite accurate. Don't get me wrong - it was a funny tale - but I don't think it's **that** hard. Not after a bit of practice. I do agree there's more going on, especially initially, but I reckon once you've got the knack, and you're relaxed, it's not too tricky. As for **getting** the knack, well, yes, I guess it's a little tricker to learn to land a taildragger than a 152, but that's possibly mainly because, as one of the previous posters mentioned, that nosewheel aircraft allow sloppier technique, and we can get into bad habits. I know I did, initially, learning in a 172. Nosewheel aircraft have a tendency to "pull themselves straight" if you touch down slightly sideways, whereas taildraggers do the opposite. It's all about the position of the COG compared to the position of the main wheels. The cure, of course, is to not touch down sideways. And, um, keep it straight!
Finally - the comment about recognising an incipient ground loop is on the money....but it's just a more complicated way of saying "keep it straight". In other words, don't accept **any** deviation from straight, no matter how small, and don't over-control (which could lead to hell's own PIO, which is a good time to go round, if you can do so safely, and have another go) but if you recognise that she ain't straight no more, get her straight, and she's just another aeroplane. Just, um, a cooler one than a nose dragger
I know it probably sounds simplistic, but I really think that "don't think too much, control your airspeed on approach, and KEEP IT STRAIGHT at all times" would take care of most problems with learning to master taildraggers.
(added the next day - I am not seriously suggesting "not thinking" in an aircraft. What I meant to say was "don't 'over-think' " the theory, when actually FLYING the aeroplane. Analysis on the ground, on the other hand, is helpful, but all the ref material - eg The Compleat Taildragger - makes much better sense when you've done a few taildragger hours. And it seems that just about every theoretical underpinning of reasons taildraggers yaw on the ground (gyroscopic as tail comes up, P factor, different COG/main wheel relationship, etc) has the same, simple, cure. (Keep It Straight) - and I'll BET you a lot of high hour taildragger pilots could no longer explain all of the reasons that T/Ds yaw, but they keep em straight anyway. It all seems easier once you've flown T/Ds a bit. Dual is fine, of course - no need to hurry to solo a T/D, or for that matter, anything. And, nice example re supermarket trolley - I never thought of that)
On a different note, you know my all time favourite aspect of taildraggers - it's that YOU control when the AoA causes the wings to cease producing lift. Precisely. Which, I think, is another reason wheel landings can be shorter - you can put the machine down within a foot of your aim point, every time, rather than flaring past it, still flying, trying to drop it on in a 3-pt attitude. And in gusty conditions, for instance, you can have a fairly assertive negative AoA, which will 'pin' you to the ground, better than a nosewheel aircraft which can't lower the AoA any more, cos the nose wheel is in the way. Um. I'm getting complicated & OT now. Off for coffee....
Last edited by lostpianoplayer; 8th Jul 2008 at 23:04. Reason: clarification
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: flyover country USA
Age: 82
Posts: 4,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This article has appeared on a prior thread, but it's written by a master (Budd Davisson) and is worth a close look!
He makes the point about the CG relationship to the main gear (CG forward of the mains in a tri-gear, CG aft of the mains in a taildragger) and that is all-important to understanding ground handling.
You can demonstrate this to yourself next time you're at the grocery. Find a cart that rolls straight - no dragging wheels etc. Give it a shove down the aisle and let go - it should roll straight ahead.
Now turn it around and shove it backwards down the aisle. In less than a second it will do the prettiest ground loop! The difference is the position of the CG relative to the "main gear" (i.e. fixed wheels).
He makes the point about the CG relationship to the main gear (CG forward of the mains in a tri-gear, CG aft of the mains in a taildragger) and that is all-important to understanding ground handling.
You can demonstrate this to yourself next time you're at the grocery. Find a cart that rolls straight - no dragging wheels etc. Give it a shove down the aisle and let go - it should roll straight ahead.
Now turn it around and shove it backwards down the aisle. In less than a second it will do the prettiest ground loop! The difference is the position of the CG relative to the "main gear" (i.e. fixed wheels).
Last edited by barit1; 8th Jul 2008 at 14:40.
