Tail dragger 'experience'
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Surrey, England
Posts: 731
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Conventional Undercarriage
Hi Okavango,
.
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.
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.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Vancouver Island
Posts: 2,517
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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
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
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
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
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Vancouver Island
Posts: 2,517
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Vancouver Island
Posts: 2,517
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
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?
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Vancouver Island
Posts: 2,517
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
wheel landing distances can be highly variable so how do those that prefer this method calculate their landing distances?
Official PPRuNe Chaplain
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Witnesham, Suffolk
Age: 80
Posts: 3,498
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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
. 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
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
. 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
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Vancouver Island
Posts: 2,517
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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
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
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
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
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.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Vancouver Island
Posts: 2,517
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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
G
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Vancouver Island
Posts: 2,517
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Surely some upper air time is essential,
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.
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.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Vancouver Island
Posts: 2,517
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Just think how much more successful I would have been.
Chuck
My my aren't we testy tonight.....and here I was agreeing with you
My my aren't we testy tonight.....and here I was agreeing with you