[Rant Warning] Tailwheel Training

In article , C J Campbell
wrote:

I am beginning to believe that you have no business whatsoever near an
airplane.

I am having difficulty discerning whether C J is really indignint about
this issue, or he is just baiting us for more so that others may learn.

Let's look at another aspect...
The taildragger (regardless of make/model) requires that the pilot
raise the nose to land (only slightly for wheel landings).
There are tricycle gear aircraft out there with big engines up front
(PA28-235/6, C182, etc) and under light loading conditions (front two
seats occupied, full fuel) the cg is towards the front of the envelope.
If the pilot doesn't learn to get the nose up on landing, the nose gear
and firewall are going to get damaged.
Normally, with no flaps, the nose will come up as the aircraft is
slowed for landing. Now add flaps and the pitch attitude is lowered
(flatter) and the pilot is lulled into the false belief that the nose
is sufficiently high to land on the mains.
Now you have a wheelbarrowing condition, which if the pilot lands too
fast, doesn't flair soon enough or flairs too high will lead to loss of
control and/or damage.
It's about proper piloting technique, it has nothing to do with ego.
(Although, the theory that it makes women's boobs bigger has marketing
potential. ;-))

"EDR" wrote in message
...
In article , C J Campbell
wrote:

I am beginning to believe that you have no business whatsoever near an
airplane.

I am having difficulty discerning whether C J is really indignint about
this issue, or he is just baiting us for more so that others may learn.

Let's look at another aspect...
The taildragger (regardless of make/model) requires that the pilot
raise the nose to land (only slightly for wheel landings).

Yes, and so does a tricycle gear. Ever heard of ground loops and nose-overs?
I suppose those never happened when everyone learned in tail-draggers.

It's about proper piloting technique, it has nothing to do with ego.

So what equipment is used has noting to do with it, it's how it's taught? So
what's all the blather about requiring tail-dragger instruction?


(Although, the theory that it makes women's boobs bigger has marketing
potential. ;-))

I think the "ego" problem here is someone inserted their foot in their mouth
and is now trying to justify himself.

In article , Tom Sixkiller
wrote:

Let's look at another aspect...
The taildragger (regardless of make/model) requires that the pilot
raise the nose to land (only slightly for wheel landings).

Yes, and so does a tricycle gear. Ever heard of ground loops and nose-overs?
I suppose those never happened when everyone learned in tail-draggers.

If you ground loop or nose over a tric, you've really screwed up. You
can ground loop or nose over either one, the taildragger does a better
job of teaching you how not to get in that situation (it the stick/yoke
isn't in you gut, you are heading for a problem).

It's about proper piloting technique, it has nothing to do with ego.

So what equipment is used has noting to do with it, it's how it's taught? So
what's all the blather about requiring tail-dragger instruction?

Again, the taildragger is a better teacher. If you don't do it right
every time, it will bite you.

(Although, the theory that it makes women's boobs bigger has marketing
potential. ;-))

I think the "ego" problem here is someone inserted their foot in their mouth
and is now trying to justify himself.

Why was the wheel moved from the back to the front?
It is more stable and forgiving, and because of those qualities it
allows for more mistakes.

EDR wrote:

If you ground loop or nose over a tric, you've really screwed up. You
can ground loop or nose over either one, the taildragger does a better
job of teaching you how not to get in that situation (it the stick/yoke
isn't in you gut, you are heading for a problem).

If the yoke *is* in your gut in my aircraft, you're about to have a big problem
(unless you're already on the ground). When the wings stall (as they're about to),
the mains will drop faster than the tail. The results can be anywhere from a very
hard landing to a seesaw as the mains bounce, bringing the tail down, which bounces,
bringing the mains down, which bounce ..... "and awaaayyy we go!"

You need to learn the proper attitude for whatever aircraft you fly. Learning to land
a Cessna 170 will not improve your landings in a 182. Learning to land a 182 will.

George Patterson
I childproofed my house, but they *still* get in.

There's one note of hilarity in here that I'm surprised no one has picked up
on...

I think it's probably a safe bet that most of the ardent advocates of
tailwheel training drive cars and trucks with automatic transmissions. Even
though a manual transmission teaches you more about power management,
traction control, and stuff like that than an automatic would. (Of course,
you could also learn all of that stuff from "Dukes Of Hazard" reruns.)

But from what I've read on this thread, I think tailwheel training probably
falls into the same category as does a lot of the other training I see
discussed he it's not going to hurt you, but it may not be totally
necessary.

I think it's probably a safe bet that most of the ardent advocates of
tailwheel training drive cars and trucks with automatic transmissions.


Interestingly, in NY (at least when I got my licence, %& years ago) if you took
the test in an automatic, you were legal in a manual. However, if you took the
test in a manual, you were restricted to a manual transmission.

Go figure.

Jose

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

On 19 May 2004 19:40:12 GMT, (Teacherjh)
wrote:

Interestingly, in NY (at least when I got my licence, %& years ago) if you took
the test in an automatic, you were legal in a manual. However, if you took the
test in a manual, you were restricted to a manual transmission.

Are you sure about this? New Hampshire had the same rule about
automatic transmissions: you got a restricted license. Only if you
took the test in a stick-shift car were you legal in any car.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
The Piper Cub Forum www.pipercubforum.com
Viva Bush! blog www.vivabush.org

On Wed, 19 May 2004 13:21:03 -0500, "Bill Denton"
wrote:

I think it's probably a safe bet that most of the ardent advocates of
tailwheel training drive cars and trucks with automatic transmissions.

Well, I'm not an ardent advocate, though I did learn in a taildragger
and I continue to fly one.

And I have always driven a standard transmission.


all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
The Piper Cub Forum www.pipercubforum.com
Viva Bush! blog www.vivabush.org

"Cub Driver" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 19 May 2004 13:21:03 -0500, "Bill Denton"
wrote:

I think it's probably a safe bet that most of the ardent advocates of
tailwheel training drive cars and trucks with automatic transmissions.

Well, I'm not an ardent advocate, though I did learn in a taildragger
and I continue to fly one.

And I have always driven a standard transmission.

Elitist bigot! :~)

(Stuck with Auto Trans due to a wife with three left feet)

In article , G.R. Patterson III wrote:
You need to learn the proper attitude for whatever aircraft you fly. Learning to land
a Cessna 170 will not improve your landings in a 182. Learning to land a 182 will.

Having flown both, I'd have to disagree with that. The landing technique
to three-point a C170 works great in a C182. Airspeeds are different,
but that's it really.

--
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"