Taildragger - in Tiger Moth or Chippie?
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Utterly insignificant little blue-green planet, unregarded yellow sun, unfashionable end, western spiral arm, Milky Way
Age: 38
Posts: 276
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Instructing on Cubs and Tiger Moths, I certainly wouldn't want anyone to go off on their own after less than 4 or 5 hours on taildraggers, and those 4 or 5 hours better consist of at least 50 landings on various surfaces and fields both short and long. Two Cubs wrecked once each in our club over the last four years prove my point.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I certainly wouldn't want anyone to go off on their own after less than 4 or 5 hours on taildraggers, and those 4 or 5 hours better consist of at least 50 landings on various surfaces and fields both short and long.
There's a difference between being on your best behavior, new flying a type, and being ready to take it somewhere solo, and deal with whatever might come up along the way. If after "checkout" a few hours of solo circuits in different wind conditions, on different days, then okay. But you're not checked out, until you're comfortable with it all.
I had to check myself out in a Tiger Moth a few years back. It had not flown in ten years, and a maintenance test flight was required. There was no one else to do it. I was on my very best behaviour, and waited until the wind was perfect on the grass runway. I did my few flights (and a few circuits for my sake) and all went fine, but I never yet the conditions gang up on me!
You should feel comfortable when you can happily land on one main wheel first in a light cross wind, hold it there for a moment, land the other main wheel, pause more, then the tail wheel. When you are equally content to threepoint or wheel land, then you're ready....
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 413
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One of the best tailwheel "courses" I did, is an 8 hour (minimum, for insurance purposes) checkout in the Piper Supercub at Chandler Air Service, in Arizona. I try to follow a similar model when teaching tailwheel (on other people's aircraft, as our school doesn't have one, unfortunately) differences training myself. You can find more info on their website, but it ticks all the boxes and helps building confidence in your handlng skills - instead of the "be scared of it or it'll bite you" crap that some people peddle, or that it's only a matter of time until you groundloop.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 3,325
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The advantage of the Chippy over the Tiger is the former has differential wheel brakes, an art to master in themselves, but delightful once you have. The Tiger has no brakes. As has been said the Chippy is a wonderful-handling aeroplane, in a different league tom the Tiger. I've flown a lot of light aeroplanes; none come close, except perhaps the Jungmann, but IMO the Chippy even has the edge on that.
Of the Cubs, I prefer the L4 (J3) to the heavier Super Cub. It is just more fun! And I love that view out of the open side from the rear (P1) seat.
Avoid the Citabria - it's too easy!
Of the Cubs, I prefer the L4 (J3) to the heavier Super Cub. It is just more fun! And I love that view out of the open side from the rear (P1) seat.
Avoid the Citabria - it's too easy!
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Surrey, England
Posts: 731
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As far as aircraft are concerned, my preference would definitely be for the Auster Autocrat; if you can find one. If you can land that tail dragger you can land any tail dragger.
However watch out! There is a surprising amount of poor tail-wheel training on offer out there so be careful where you go. It would be a good idea to read 'The Compleat Taildragger Pilot' by Plourde before you start your training so you know what you ought to be taught.
My greatest area of concern is that at least some flying schools/flying clubs nowadays just don't teach wheeler landings. You might well need this skill to pull off a cross wind landing in a strong cross wind. (Some places don't even teach cross wind landing at all, which is disgraceful)!
A wheeler landing is is where you allow both main wheels to brush the runway while you still have flying speed. You then move the control column forward to remove any positive angle of attack causing the aeroplane to roll along the runway on her main wheels while you keep her tail up with the elevators.
You allow the speed to fall off while holding the tail up and the aeroplane straight and as close as possible to the centre line of the runway. As the speed falls off, you will find yourself moving the control column further and further forward to keep the tail up, while applying more and more into wind aileron and more and more away-from-wind rudder to keep her straight. Eventually, you will be unable to hold the tail up any longer and it will sink gently onto the runway and the aeroplane will roll to a halt with the flying controls now very crossed - the stick fully forward with full into wind aileron and full away from wind rudder.
For landing cross wind nowadays most places will teach you to do a two-point landing instead. This is where you stall the aircraft on with your into-wind wing down, putting down your into-wind main wheel and tail wheel first. This is O.K. for a mild to moderate crosswind in a high wing aircraft, but if you have to land a low wing monoplane or bi-plane with a crosswind close to the crosswind limit for your aeroplane, then in my view two-pointing it is not wise.
You also need to know both methods of landing approach, the 'crabbing' approach and the 'wing down' method. You need to be able to do both and be ready to use either method, according to the characteristics of the aeroplane and the conditions prevailing.
I have the clear impression that many present day instructors, (both ex-military and civil trained) lack the ability to teach the wheeler landing, perhaps being afraid to teach people to brush the ground with their mains and push the stick forward, while still having flying speed during the resulting ground roll, for fear of grounding the prop.
Whoever you go to, make sure you are trained properly. You need to come away feeling confident about landing cross wind using a wheeler landing. You need to ask before commencing training whether the wheeler will be part of your training.
Good luck with your training.
BP.
However watch out! There is a surprising amount of poor tail-wheel training on offer out there so be careful where you go. It would be a good idea to read 'The Compleat Taildragger Pilot' by Plourde before you start your training so you know what you ought to be taught.
My greatest area of concern is that at least some flying schools/flying clubs nowadays just don't teach wheeler landings. You might well need this skill to pull off a cross wind landing in a strong cross wind. (Some places don't even teach cross wind landing at all, which is disgraceful)!
A wheeler landing is is where you allow both main wheels to brush the runway while you still have flying speed. You then move the control column forward to remove any positive angle of attack causing the aeroplane to roll along the runway on her main wheels while you keep her tail up with the elevators.
You allow the speed to fall off while holding the tail up and the aeroplane straight and as close as possible to the centre line of the runway. As the speed falls off, you will find yourself moving the control column further and further forward to keep the tail up, while applying more and more into wind aileron and more and more away-from-wind rudder to keep her straight. Eventually, you will be unable to hold the tail up any longer and it will sink gently onto the runway and the aeroplane will roll to a halt with the flying controls now very crossed - the stick fully forward with full into wind aileron and full away from wind rudder.
For landing cross wind nowadays most places will teach you to do a two-point landing instead. This is where you stall the aircraft on with your into-wind wing down, putting down your into-wind main wheel and tail wheel first. This is O.K. for a mild to moderate crosswind in a high wing aircraft, but if you have to land a low wing monoplane or bi-plane with a crosswind close to the crosswind limit for your aeroplane, then in my view two-pointing it is not wise.
You also need to know both methods of landing approach, the 'crabbing' approach and the 'wing down' method. You need to be able to do both and be ready to use either method, according to the characteristics of the aeroplane and the conditions prevailing.
I have the clear impression that many present day instructors, (both ex-military and civil trained) lack the ability to teach the wheeler landing, perhaps being afraid to teach people to brush the ground with their mains and push the stick forward, while still having flying speed during the resulting ground roll, for fear of grounding the prop.
Whoever you go to, make sure you are trained properly. You need to come away feeling confident about landing cross wind using a wheeler landing. You need to ask before commencing training whether the wheeler will be part of your training.
Good luck with your training.
BP.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Tiger has no brakes.
As far as I know, only Canadian built Tiger Moths left the factory with brakes, but some were later fitted with a brake system similar to the chipmunk, and a tailwheel in place of the skid.
Smarter conversions also had the main undercarriage geometry altered to move the mainwheels forward a bit, (as did the Canadian ones) to try to stop people tipping them onto their noses.
MJ
Smarter conversions also had the main undercarriage geometry altered to move the mainwheels forward a bit, (as did the Canadian ones) to try to stop people tipping them onto their noses.
MJ
Last edited by Mach Jump; 1st Dec 2014 at 17:42.
I was told that if you fitted brakes to a Tiger, you had to move the main undercarriage forward slightly to reduce the tendency to nose over under braking. This made the landing process much more difficult, more like an Auster which tends to emulate a kangaroo unless you put all three wheels down together, fully stalled.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Oop North, UK
Posts: 3,076
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
f you value your life and not a very good pilot, avoid the Moth - their nickname widow-maker does come from experience ...
My greatest area of concern is that at least some flying schools/flying clubs nowadays just don't teach wheeler landings.
Early in my aviation career, the CFI of a flying school I worked for said of his ex. Twin Rating course students,
'Most of them would crash if they had an engine failure on takeoff the next day'.
When I asked him to expand on that, he added,
'Well, what can you do in six hours'.
I think that many flying courses are completed with the same attitude demonstrated by my erstwhile Boss, in the form of a fixed number of hours, and the standard of many tailwheel courses would be a lot higher if the student had to do six solo takeoffs and full stop landings in the school aircraft at the end.
Whoever wrote the training requirements for a Night Rating all those years ago was a wise owl.
MJ
'Most of them would crash if they had an engine failure on takeoff the next day'.
When I asked him to expand on that, he added,
'Well, what can you do in six hours'.
I think that many flying courses are completed with the same attitude demonstrated by my erstwhile Boss, in the form of a fixed number of hours, and the standard of many tailwheel courses would be a lot higher if the student had to do six solo takeoffs and full stop landings in the school aircraft at the end.
Whoever wrote the training requirements for a Night Rating all those years ago was a wise owl.
MJ
Last edited by Mach Jump; 2nd Dec 2014 at 00:54.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think that many flying courses are completed with the same attitude as my erstwhile Boss, in the form of a fixed number of hours, and the standard of many tailwheel courses would be a lot higher if the student had to do six solo takeoffs and full stop landings in the school aircraft at the end.
I've rarely encountered a pilot who was anything more than "perhaps just safe" on any quite different type, in 5 hours of even really competent instruction. The rating is a license to learn more - go and learn more with great caution!
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 158
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GtE
Auster = yuck!
imho...
To the OP, you have a lot of info here. Basic thing is no one has suggested my to do it. There is value in doing it on a Cub or first and moving to other more expensive types. There is also value to doing it on the Moth or Chippie first. Cost, and what you want to do with it afterwards should help point you in the right direction. Don't discount other types if the opportunity arises, again depending on what you want to do with your flying.
PS agreed that the negative comments about the Moth are tosh. It's not the most beautiful handling aircraft, but it's a great trainer.
Auster = yuck!
imho...To the OP, you have a lot of info here. Basic thing is no one has suggested my to do it. There is value in doing it on a Cub or first and moving to other more expensive types. There is also value to doing it on the Moth or Chippie first. Cost, and what you want to do with it afterwards should help point you in the right direction. Don't discount other types if the opportunity arises, again depending on what you want to do with your flying.
PS agreed that the negative comments about the Moth are tosh. It's not the most beautiful handling aircraft, but it's a great trainer.
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,416
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
emulate a kangaroo unless you put all three wheels down together, fully stalled.
... Or wheel land it.
... Or wheel land it.
'Most of them would crash if they had an engine failure on takeoff the next day'.
It wasn't just the twin-engine bit; that could to an extent be drilled in if not practised much, eg "live foot live engine", "DH 300ft on one engine" etc etc. It was all the other things that were different from a C172, the biggest I'd flown before that; speed over the ground 160 Kt, CS props, undercarriage, to name but a few. I took my girlfriend (now wife) for a celebratory flight from Biggin to Sleap and back on a cold, misty day. When she asked for a bit of heat I had to lie and say it didn't have one, rather then get the book out.
On the return, the RH engine started to increase revs uncontrollably as we crossed the Thames at 2500 roughly where LCY is now, so I shut it down and landed on one. It turned out that it was something to do with a lever spring (Prop? Power? Can't remember) and all I needed to do was hold it.
No, 6 hours, 10 even, is not nearly enough.
Last edited by Capot; 2nd Dec 2014 at 13:18.
I get the Tiger Moth is iconic and all that but the inconvenient truth is it handles like Shyte and is horribly uncomfortable to ride in. The Chippy however is an absolutely delightful handling airplane and while the cockpit ergonomics leave a bit to be desired, flying it is a wonderful experience.
No Contest for me, go for the Chippy
No Contest for me, go for the Chippy
I've never flown a Tiger Moth, I have heard some experienced pilots say it's unpleasant to fly, I've certainly never however heard any of them describe it as dangerous.
W.R.T. Austers - excellent aeroplane with a definite requirement to fly it well, at the right speeds and attitudes, manage the aircraft and use your feet. My only issues with them are the prodigious fuel consumption, and the tendency to cause permanent hearing damage.
I've never bounced one yet, but I did fly it exactly as per the old military pilots notes, which I think a lot of people don't do, tending to be frightened by the lack of stall warning and sluggish controls at low speed, so overspeed it on approach.
G
W.R.T. Austers - excellent aeroplane with a definite requirement to fly it well, at the right speeds and attitudes, manage the aircraft and use your feet. My only issues with them are the prodigious fuel consumption, and the tendency to cause permanent hearing damage.
I've never bounced one yet, but I did fly it exactly as per the old military pilots notes, which I think a lot of people don't do, tending to be frightened by the lack of stall warning and sluggish controls at low speed, so overspeed it on approach.
G
I have heard some experienced pilots say it's unpleasant to fly
Despite a differential aileron system that actually reverses the movement of the downgoing aileron as the upgoing one passes about half deflection, it can hold a hold a steady heading sideslip without any rudder at all.
This, together with ailerons on only one wing means the rate of roll can be measured in RPM!
Like many difficult things though, the effort you have to make to compensate for the deficiencies brings it's own reward in a sense of achievement, and you become quite sympathetic to them.
A bit like the 'Stockholm Syndrome' !
MJ
Last edited by Mach Jump; 1st Dec 2014 at 23:44. Reason: Corrected term.
We sometimes in my line of work differentiate between a "good aeroplane", and a "good Test Pilots School aeroplane". Sounds like you're describing the latter.
Something with lots of interesting and complex deficiencies that the students can analyse. It's very interesting to analyse the fleets of the various TPSs in that light (or LAA using the Edgley Optica for its flight test courses - now there's a spectactularly good Test Pilot School aeroplane).
I need to go have a go in one sometime (the Tiger Moth, I have flown the Optica, and enjoyed analysing it enormously).
G
Something with lots of interesting and complex deficiencies that the students can analyse. It's very interesting to analyse the fleets of the various TPSs in that light (or LAA using the Edgley Optica for its flight test courses - now there's a spectactularly good Test Pilot School aeroplane).
I need to go have a go in one sometime (the Tiger Moth, I have flown the Optica, and enjoyed analysing it enormously).
G