Tail dragger 'experience'

[SNS3Guppy]

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]

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]

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.

[robin]

.... and never forget that in crosswinds, ground handling is more problematic.

Worse, you need to be able to taxy in conditions that are easy in nosewheel a/c but are close to impossible in tailwheel a/c

[Mark1234]

Wholeheartedly agree with what SNS3Guppy said.. really people make far too big a deal about having the wheel at the back. Just so long as you know what your feet are for, and you're capable of flying a nosewheel a/c well (i.e. land on the mains and don't switch off the brain once they contact the ground), you'll be fine with a tailwheel.

[jaycee58]

Thanks for the advice. I went flying in my new aircraft for the first time on Monday but 30 minutes after leaving Beccles we had a smell of fuel in the cockpit so made a diversion to Norwich. The aircraft is now stranded at Norwich for repairs but, with luck, I should have it back at the end of the week. A leak has been found where the fuel outlet pipe fitting screws into the tank so we definitely made the right decision not to carry on flying.