PA18-150 dem x-wind limit?
 

Another POH question!

This stems from tKf sitting on the ground at CLN today waiting for the wind to abate so that he can obtain his tailwheel endorsement, so that I can nip over pick him up, bring him back here and strap him into his VeePee.


The school at CLN have their own version of the POH and it states an 8kt demonstrated cross wind limit.


This seems from memory quite low to me. Is the school imposing a lower limit than Piper?

Thanks

stik

Stik,

I can't answer for sure, but it does seem low to me? I remember flying in some quite brisk crosswinds when I was there.

SS

Stik

At Redhill the X-Wind limit for the PA18-135 was 15Kts.

For my L4 it is 15Kts but 10 Kts imposed by Syndicate rules (sensible)

The one I flew in the states was 17Kts so I guess you pay your money and take your choice.

I would suggest 10Kts for a beginner, depends if it is gusty too (as you well know).

Is it 90 degrees X-Wind as this is a big factor too, I've found that anything up to 20 degrees off is not too bad, beyond that it's a whole new ball game.

Arc

Can't speak for the Cub, but most FAA-certificated aircraft have a "maximum demonstrated crosswind component" which is not considered limiting. The language you use (i.e. "demonstrated") suggests that it might be that, rather than a limit, which is 8 knots.

Does the value appear in the limitations section of the POH? (or is the Cub too old to have one of those?)

15/17 kts seems far more reasonable to me. I have no issue whatsoever if the club/school impose a lower limit - just that poor tKf's frustration is beginning to show.

Oh well, had he learned on a taildragger as I kept suggesting, he would not be in this predicament!

Hangar out of bound to visitors until that visual obscenity has departed.

Stik

I have no PA18 (bad news) so don't have a POH for them at hand.

I suspect that they are so old though that this Demonstrated Xwind malarky had not taken off yet.

Therefore think that everyone just does their own thing.

Wish tKF all the best!

8 kts seems a bit silly, but if it's your first day of taildragger training it's probably as well to have not to have a crosswind to make life difficult. I can understand why clubs that rent out taildraggers impose a low limit; a not very current rental pilot landing on a hard runway in a crosswind is a recipe for a groundloop and tears.

My PA18 POH is at home right now, so I can't reference it right away. However, I do know that it is a pretty skimpy document, without much detailed information; so I would not be surprised to see that it doesn't have anything in it about x-wind limits.

You might find this thread to be somewhat helpful. As you will see, there isn't really a consensus about the top x-wind limit.

We used 15/17kts in the Tiger at Redhill and I cannot see why 8kts is being used on a tin can. All too low to me. I would get the book at and see what the demonstrated X wind is. They can't argue with that.

Not many months ago I was flying the Clacton PA18 around in 13k crosswind????

I do not remember the “official” limit of hand, but 15-17 ish probably.

Rod1

The POH of those I used to fly all give a maximum demonstrated crosswind of around 15kt. (I have 3 different PA18-150s in my logbook, and they all had the same 15kt in their respective POHs).

As far as practical limits are concerned, I would say that for a suitably experienced and current pilot, 15kt is fairly sensible for 3-pointers. It's possible to handle much more (well over 20kt) with wheel-landings, but only if you are very current at cross-wind wheel-landings.

8kt does seem very low to me. For contrast, the school from which I rented when I was hour-building several years ago would not have let me fly their PA18s solo had I not been capable of handling 15kt crosswind without having to put too much effort into it.

FFF
-------------

I am obviously not as experienced as some on here but find that with winds much above 15KTS in a tailwheel aircraft that the taxying becomes the challenging bit, not the take-off/landing.

Quite right WR. I like your description. I think I was thinking of PA-28 at that moment - but I think the limit is still too low. The PA-18 is very responsive to rudder and taxying is not a problem if taught to do it correctly - and......you can use aileron!

Just a couple of comments.

The school is being reasonable in having a low x/wind limit for initial training.

If you cannot demonstrate profficiency in wheel landings in high x/winds you should not be allowed to do anything except taxi a Cub.

If you lose directional control during a take off or a landing you can wreck the airplane.

If you lose control and wreck your airplane during taxiing you are taxiing to fast.

Chuck

Chuck, not wanting to re-ignite the old "3-point or wheel" debate, I doubt if a school here in the UK would require the demonstration of wheel landings for the purposes of "checking someone out" to get a tailwheel endorsement...

WR If the wind is that strong (especially at Wellesbourne's wide runway) then land into wind.

Chuck and I have previously discussed wheel landings vs. 3-pointers. While I personally favour the latter for most conditions, I agree with all of his comments posted above.

I don't want to 'shoot the messenger', but this makes absolutely no sense to me; what kind of check-out is that? It would be like omitting sideslips.

MLS :

That's just my experience...wheelers are often not considered necessary this side of the pond for the purposes of the endorsement (but sideslipping would generally be included...perhaps not in a Pa18-150 'cause it has flaps..and they're not necessary if you can sideslip...oops, another digression!).

I personally do not teach wheelers because in the types I fly they are unnecessary (but then I only teach in a limited few types, so I bow to the greater experience of others).

WR : do you still have the Aeronca?

Wheelers not required in the UK? That's interesting. In Oz I had to be able to do both - and in x-winds - for my tailwheel endorsement.

Oh Boy, I guess I went and did it again. ( comment on flying tail wheel airplanes. )

Rather than argue on and on about this subject I would just like to comment one more time about why I have the opinions I do on this subject.

I learned to fly on tail wheel airplanes in 1953 and have about ten thousand hours in tail wheel aircraft form a tiny little early 1920's Powell Racer biplane to the Douglas C117.

I never flown a tail wheel airplane that I couldn't wheel land, but there were several I did not three point such as the Beech 18, Grumman Turbo Goose, Anson Mk5, DC3, C117 to name a few.

One of the reasons I did not three point those airplanes was due to the difficulty in keeping them straight on touch down.

So in my opinion I personally would not even think of checking out a pilot unless they could demonstrate the wheel landing and do so with precision.

In fact I teach wheel landings first then the three point.

Remember the above is only my opinion and each of you are free to do as you think best. :ok:

Chuck E.

Chuck, Fifty three years of taildragging - what would you know?:D

WR - with just a couple of hundred hours in my Aeronca Chief, I only ever wheeled it on in x-winds and agree that the 3pointer does have a shorter roll.

As for the DC3 - I only have 20 hrs in the RHS and all landings into hideously short African bush strips to deliver maize where made tail up.

The original point of the post was to ascertain whether the school were imposing a lower limit. As I stated in a subsequent post, I have absolutely no issues with that!

Stik