[Rant Warning] Tailwheel Training

Oh, man. Have you never flown a Champ or Cub or some other older
design that had lots of adverse yaw, and that might flick over into a
spin if you skidded it around the base-to-final turn?


is this behavior =caused= by the position of the middle wheel, or is it just
coincidence and history that they are taildraggers?

Jose



--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

(Teacherjh) wrote in message ...

Oh, man. Have you never flown a Champ or Cub or some other older
design that had lots of adverse yaw, and that might flick over into a
spin if you skidded it around the base-to-final turn?


is this behavior =caused= by the position of the middle wheel, or is it just
coincidence and history that they are taildraggers?

Jose

Taildraggers tend to be older designs, and older designs often
didn't have the benign behaviour of newer designs, which tend to be
nosewheel airplanes. So taildraggers, while the gear has no effect in
the air, are usually harder to fly and require more effort and
understanding. More effort results in a better pilot. And since
takeoff and landing are the most likely places for an accident, and
since they also require the most skill, the taildragger is invaluable
for sharpening those skills.
A comparison could be made to cameras. Fully-automatic cameras
are really easy to use, and can take decent pictures. Fully-manual
cameras require knowledge about light and aperture and shutter speed
and film types and depth of field and so on, but they allow you to get
the impressive special effects impossible with the automatic. The
manual makes you a far better photographer. You either learn all about
photography or you remain a mediocre picture-taker.
Every pilot should get in at least a couple of hours of dual in an
older taildragger.

Dan

In article , Dan Thomas wrote:
Taildraggers tend to be older designs, and older designs often
didn't have the benign behaviour of newer designs, which tend to be
nosewheel airplanes. So taildraggers, while the gear has no effect in
the air, are usually harder to fly and require more effort and
understanding.

Actually, many of these older aircraft aren't really much harder at all.
Some are, many aren't. Our C140 for example was easy and pleasant to
fly, with light control forces and a good strong rudder. It required a
lot more finesse on landing than a nosewheel plane of course, and I
think that improved my finesse when flying any aircraft. But it just
wasn't difficult to fly, just a bit different.

I think that was reflected by our insurance rates - we had at one time a
zero-hours student on the insurance, and the extra cost compared to a
C150 of the same hull value was IIRC only about $50/year. I never had a
nasty moment (although I did botch some landings) in the C140, and that
included landing in a 20 knot direct crosswind (which I have on video).
My aircraft insurance for a $20,000 hull value and $1M liability
insurance was significantly cheaper than the insurance on my Ford F150,
worth $8000 at the time (and I have no accidents/tickets).

The Auster on the other hand...actually, in the air, it flies a lot like
a C172 with a stick instead of a yoke (and climbs a lot better, it
weighs about 500lbs less and has an O-320) - very little adverse yaw
etc. is an absolute bear to land nicely. Partly because you can't see
anything forwards in the three point attitude, partly because it has a
free castoring tailwheel, and partly because the cable operated heel
brakes are virtually impossible to use at the same time as making rudder
inputs (heel brakes suck, I'm sorry). Mitigating this though is the
approach speed of 50 mph so stuff happens slowly. Should new instructors
have to fly something like this? I wouldn't insist on it, but it's a
nice-to-have in the increasing the depth of experience department.

I think taildragger training is a nice to have but not essential. What
is essential is teaching proper technique, and many certificate mill
instructors who have little experience outside of flying the traffic
pattern are a bit lacking in that area, and it shows in the old wives'
tales they tend to repeat.

Personally, if there was one additional requirement that I think new
CFIs should meet before teaching is a long solo cross country of a good
1000NM. That way they are likely to have had to have made real world
weather decisions, have probably had to fly in mountainous terrain and
so forth. And my requirement would be to do it by mag compass, chart and
clock so they internalize the fundamentals of navigation too.

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

"Dylan Smith" wrote in message:
"And my requirement would be to do it by mag compass, chart and clock so
they internalize the fundamentals of navigation too."

I think every pilot should have one cross-country with just a compass, chart
and clock. I did mine when my husband checked me out in his 8A. It was
different. I'd been flying a C-172 with a DG, VOR and GPS. Now, I have an
8E with a handheld GPS, but I still keep my eyeball on my compass heading.
You never know when that sucker will die!

I've also had hood time in his non-electrical 8A. I flew a two hour cross
country using the needle/ball, airspeed, VSI and compass. His airplane is
rather slow (about 90 mph). It was a way to pass the time over country I'd
seen before.

Deb

--
1946 Luscombe 8A (His)
1948 Luscombe 8E (Hers)
1954 Cessna 195B, restoring (Ours)
Jasper, Ga. (JZP)

...
In article , Dan Thomas
wrote:
Taildraggers tend to be older designs, and older designs often
didn't have the benign behaviour of newer designs, which tend to be
nosewheel airplanes. So taildraggers, while the gear has no effect in
the air, are usually harder to fly and require more effort and
understanding.

Actually, many of these older aircraft aren't really much harder at all.
Some are, many aren't. Our C140 for example was easy and pleasant to
fly, with light control forces and a good strong rudder. It required a
lot more finesse on landing than a nosewheel plane of course, and I
think that improved my finesse when flying any aircraft. But it just
wasn't difficult to fly, just a bit different.

I think that was reflected by our insurance rates - we had at one time a
zero-hours student on the insurance, and the extra cost compared to a
C150 of the same hull value was IIRC only about $50/year. I never had a
nasty moment (although I did botch some landings) in the C140, and that
included landing in a 20 knot direct crosswind (which I have on video).
My aircraft insurance for a $20,000 hull value and $1M liability
insurance was significantly cheaper than the insurance on my Ford F150,
worth $8000 at the time (and I have no accidents/tickets).

The Auster on the other hand...actually, in the air, it flies a lot like
a C172 with a stick instead of a yoke (and climbs a lot better, it
weighs about 500lbs less and has an O-320) - very little adverse yaw
etc. is an absolute bear to land nicely. Partly because you can't see
anything forwards in the three point attitude, partly because it has a
free castoring tailwheel, and partly because the cable operated heel
brakes are virtually impossible to use at the same time as making rudder
inputs (heel brakes suck, I'm sorry). Mitigating this though is the
approach speed of 50 mph so stuff happens slowly. Should new instructors
have to fly something like this? I wouldn't insist on it, but it's a
nice-to-have in the increasing the depth of experience department.

I think taildragger training is a nice to have but not essential. What
is essential is teaching proper technique, and many certificate mill
instructors who have little experience outside of flying the traffic
pattern are a bit lacking in that area, and it shows in the old wives'
tales they tend to repeat.

Personally, if there was one additional requirement that I think new
CFIs should meet before teaching is a long solo cross country of a good
1000NM. That way they are likely to have had to have made real world
weather decisions, have probably had to fly in mountainous terrain and
so forth. And my requirement would be to do it by mag compass, chart and
clock so they internalize the fundamentals of navigation too.

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

"Dylan Smith" wrote in message
...

Personally, if there was one additional requirement that I think new
CFIs should meet before teaching is a long solo cross country of a good
1000NM. That way they are likely to have had to have made real world
weather decisions, have probably had to fly in mountainous terrain and
so forth. And my requirement would be to do it by mag compass, chart and
clock so they internalize the fundamentals of navigation too.


How do you fly 1000 miles on the Isle of Mann? :-)

Anyway, maybe you could take away the chart. Make them really internalize
those 'fundamentals.' In fact, let's lose the clock, too. And the compass.
Pure fluff. Get rid of it. Then, to make sure he really learns something,
let's put a blindfold on him and stop up his ears. And make him fly while
being pecked by chickens. With his feet and hands tied together. That'll
make a man of him. :-)

In article , C J Campbell wrote:
Personally, if there was one additional requirement that I think new
CFIs should meet before teaching is a long solo cross country of a good
1000NM. That way they are likely to have had to have made real world
weather decisions, have probably had to fly in mountainous terrain and
so forth. And my requirement would be to do it by mag compass, chart and
clock so they internalize the fundamentals of navigation too.

How do you fly 1000 miles on the Isle of Mann? :-)

Generally by doing that super scary over water thingy!

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"