My Ground Loop

"Maule Driver" wrote in message
om...
Deborah McFarland wrote:
My one and only (so far) ground loop came about because I failed to abort
a
landing when I should've. When the trees got about 60' away, I locked the
right brake, and she came around about 120 degrees. Got her stopped,
though.

Years later, I found grass trapped in the bead of the left tire when I
changed it.

George Patterson

In 700 hours of flying my Luscombe, I have never used the brake for
landing, and I've landed in 25 mph direct crosswinds on pavement. We're
taught never to use brake as our airplanes are prone to flipping (and
I've seen it happen).

What's the difference do you think?

Deb

Different aircraft.

Yea, what he said.

But, if you never use the brakes, how do you do fun things like coming to a
complete stop with the tail still in the air?
(Well, it's fun at first, but then when the tail drops with a bang, you
realize it's not something you want to do a lot...)

--
Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe
The Sea Hawk At WowWay D0t Com

On Tue, 29 Nov 2005 22:40:13 GMT, Maule Driver
wrote:


Different aircraft. I've never flown a Luscombe (and would love to) but
I think it is a much lighter aircraft than the Maule. Plus it is
simply different.

I've seen a Luscombe stand on its nose when the owner's spouse used
both brakes at once. After the A/C was repaired, I got checked out in
it and the owner/CFII taught me to apply the brakes alternately.

I put about 60 hours on that plane until I wrecked it. Gusty X-winds.
(The point of the flight had been to practice X-winds, which I was
pretty competent at handling.) Got 2 wheels on the ground and it
started to weathercock as the tail was coming down. (I was taught to
follw the tail down with the stick.)

I applied power for a go-around (plenty of runway), but with the gear
unloaded, I got blown sideways into the dirt off the side of the
runway before I could establish a slip or crab to counter the X-wind.
Left wheel fairing (a pointy one from a 172, not a stock Luscombe
fairing) hit a hummock and the plane pivoted horizontally around that.
Bent the fuselage aft of the cabin structure.

The controller in the tower said he'd thought I had it made. Less
than a foot more of altitude and I would have. Or I could have
accepted the lesser damage that would have accompanied a groundloop.

What would the right decision have been?

Don

Deborah McFarland wrote:

In 700 hours of flying my Luscombe, I have never used the brake for landing,
and I've landed in 25 mph direct crosswinds on pavement. We're taught never
to use brake as our airplanes are prone to flipping (and I've seen it
happen).

What's the difference do you think?

Probably two things. My Maule was a 2,200 lb aircraft when fully loaded. The
main gear is also further in front of the center of gravity on the plane.
Basically, that means it takes a lot more braking force to flip that aircraft.

In any case, you can bet that I was riding the brakes as hard as I could once I
got down on that landing. I couldn't put full pressure on them 'cause that made
the plane skid a bit on the grass.

By the way - I didn't have a crosswind to deal with that time. Just trees. I
never used the brakes with strong crosswinds. I would set mine down on the
tailwheel and the upwind main, so braking wouldn't have done me any good.

George Patterson
Coffee is only a way of stealing time that should by rights belong to
your slightly older self.

"George Patterson" wrote in message
news49jf.826$s96.482@trndny01...
By the way - I didn't have a crosswind to deal with that time. Just trees.
I never used the brakes with strong crosswinds. I would set mine down on
the tailwheel and the upwind main, so braking wouldn't have done me any
good.


That's how I land in a crosswind in my 8E. My airplane prefers it. On the
other hand, my husband prefers the wheel landing in his 8A. We're an equal
opportunity family.

Deb
--
1946 Luscombe 8A (his)
1948 Luscombe 8E (hers)
1954 Cessna 195B, restoring (ours)

George, which M-7 model has the small ailerons?
I have heard it will not handle as much crosswind as the other models.

On 2005-11-29, Deborah McFarland wrote:
In 700 hours of flying my Luscombe, I have never used the brake for landing,
and I've landed in 25 mph direct crosswinds on pavement. We're taught never
to use brake as our airplanes are prone to flipping (and I've seen it
happen).

Some taildraggers are more prone to nosing over than others, depending
on how much of the weight is ahead of the mains on the ground. Our
Cessna 140 was very good - we coudl really use our Cleveland disk brakes
and she never showed any tendency to even lift the tail. But the big
(235hp) Pawnee at the glider club wanted to nose over if you just
breathed on the brakes.

--
Dylan Smith, Port St Mary, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net

But the big
(235hp) Pawnee at the glider club wanted to nose over if you just
breathed on the brakes.

Yeah, I remember that plane. It wasn't really a Pawnee 235 - it was a
normal Pawnee (originally 150 hp) that had been re-engined. Sure flew
nice. Landed nice too - the engine change moved the cg forward, so the
mains were only slightly ahead of cg. Very little tendency to come
around, and even at idle the prop blast from that big engine and
seaplane prop kept the rudder effective at very low speeds. Never did
use the brakes on it for anything other than holding it at runup or
bringing it to a stop from taxi speed. It's gone now - crashed due to
pilot incompetence, a total loss.

On the other hand, I remember a Starduster that couldn't be put on its
nose. You could hold the brakes, go full throttle on the IO-360 engine
with CS prop, push the stick full forward, and the tail wouldn't come
up. It wouldn't even get light. You had to be doing 45 kts at full
throttle to lift the tail. You couldn't wheel land the thing either.
Didn't matter what you did - you could touch down at 80 kts, and the
tail would drop immediately even with the stick full forward. Using
the brakes on landing was a routine thing - it was the only way. It
was also the only way to maintain directional control below 40 kts or
so - rudder was totally ineffective. Tina sold it, but I hear it's
still flying.

Different airplanes.

I did my own groundloop once, on takeoff.

Among tailwheel pilots, there are those who have and those who will.
Groundloop, that is. Put a wingtip in the dirt. Whatever you want to
call it. I always knew that, but when I changed groups, it was a
surprise. I suppose it always is.

The HP-11 is not really a tailwheel airplane. It's a tailwheel glider.
For those not familiar with tailwheel gliders, there are usually only
two wheels. The main wheel is on the centerline, somewhat ahead of the
cg, and the tailwheel is on the tail. On most gliders, the main wheel
is very close to the cg - close enough that if you put in a pilot
substantially over the weight limit, the glider will sit on the nose.
The HP is different. Like most powered taildraggers, it carries 5-10%
of its weight on the tail. It also has other peculiarities. The
designer, the late Richard Schreder was a mechanical engineer and
retired naval aviator, and he could get the absolute most performance
out of the available material.

The particular glider I own, a T-tail HP-11 N821Z, was designed in 1962
but was still competitive in 1969, placing third at major contests.
Truly the design must have been a wonder in its day. But to get the
performance, some things had to be sacrificed. Since the design was
for competition flying, something a novice pilot presumably would not
do, the decision was made to sacrifice forgiving handling
characteristics.

These days, the HP's are no longer competitive but aren't really
suitable for low time pilots either. They have become, in many cases,
the glider of choice for the transition power pilot. All metal so they
can be tied down outside, with reasonable performance for a fraction of
the cost of glass, they appeal to the budget conscious transition pilot
who is used to the vagaries of flying taildraggers.

The ailerons are weak. In a typical metal trainer, such as the
ubiquitous L-23, the ailerons are so effective that the glider can be
pointed into a 10 kt headwind and a pilot can practice low speed roll
control by holding the wings level, balancing on the monowheel. In the
HP-11, you can barely hold the wings level with 30 kts.

Taking off is an interesting affair. A wing runner can, at best, hold
the wing up until about 10 kts is reached. Then you're on your own.
The ailerons are little help. You start out level, and if you notice a
wing dropping, you go hard over on the ailerons IMMEDIATELY to keep it
up - and add a helthy bootfull of rudder. The goal is to induce some
yaw, get that wingtip moving quickly up - before it digs into the dirt.
The ailerons alone will not be enough.

As soon as you get the wing coming up, it's time to take some rudder
out. You're not worrying too much about staying directly behind the
towplane. It's all about keeping the wings out of the dirt while you
are accelerating. Once you get about 30 kts, the ailerons come alive,
and then all is well. You have to keep the wings from digging in until
then.

If the wing digs in, all you can do is release and stay aboard for the
ride. You're moving slowly, so unless you hit something damage is
unlikely.

The right wingtip of the one I bought was damaged years ago. Minor
dents and some riveting work in the aileron told the sad story.
Someone stayed on too long, dug in too hard. The logbooks contained
the terse entry "Right wingtip repaired after groundloop." Remember,
it's experimental amateur built, so the recordkeeping rules and other
requirements of 14CFR43 do not apply.

My first few flights in the glider were interesting, but at least they
were off a wide grass runway with little opportunity for the wing to
dig in. Eventually, I got the hang of making the large, precise
required control inputs quickly, of keeping it balanced without roll
control until I was fast enough for the ailerons to come alive, and the
takeoffs became routine.

One day, after not flying a glider for over half a year, I got back in
my HP-11. In retrospect, my first glider flight in half a year should
have been in something much more docile - a trainer - or maybe a dual
flight in a powered taildragger. What's worse, both were available to
me, right there at the airport. I'm not sure what I was thinking - I
had just gotten the condition inspection done and signed off, and I
wanted to fly it. I was flying all the time - I just forgot how little
glider or tailwheel flying I had done in the past year. It was poor
decisionmaking.

It did not help that this time, the tow would be off a paved runway
only about four feet wider than my wingspan. I had flown off that
runway before - but that was when I was current in gliders and
taildraggers. Now I was current in neither. It had been over three
months since I flew a taildragger of any kind, and that time, after
over half a year of not flying tailwheel I needed help on the first
attempt, though the second landing was safe if not pretty. If I had
thought about that before flying, I might have made a different
decision.

Carefully I checked everything, strapped in, and gave the go. There
was about 7-10 kts of wind, almost all cross from the right. As soon
as I got going, I could see the right wing dropping. I put in full
left aileron, some left rudder - then a lot of left rudder. But
already I could see that it was too little, too late. I felt the
wingtip bite, and fumbled for the release. A second - and then I was
free. But I was sitting at nearly 90 degrees to the runway, pointing
into the wind.

I got out, rattled, and looked at the wingtip. I saw damage. "****.
I bent it." My wing runner, a recently minted commercial glider pilot
and FAA inspector, asked "Isn't that the wing that had the damage?" He
ought to know - he had just looked the glider over carefully, in
preparation for buying a half share in it. For a moment, I was so
shaken I couldn't remember. Then I saw the rivets and realized he was
right. I looked carefully at the wingtip. Were there new dents there,
or had it always looked like that? In my state, the damage looked
terrible, but stepping back I realized it was minor.

The real danger in damaging the wingtip of a metal ship is not the skin
- that's trivial, since almost no weight is carried there. The real
risk is damage to the spar at the wing attach points or to the flight
control system. Fortunately, on the HP-11 this is completely exposed
to the eye, covered only by a plexi shell. I looked at the spar. The
massive metal assembly stared back at me, and I realized how overbuilt
that spar was, and how much force would be required to damage it. The
skin then? I looked at the top and bottom surfaces of the wing.
Smooth as glass. I checked the movement of the ailerons. Free and
correct, smooth to full deflection. Maybe all I did was scratch the
paint?

We inspected the glider and came to the conclusion that all I did was
drag a wingtip throught the tall grass and short brush - embarassing
and rough on the paint but not actually dangerous. Then we restaged
the glider and I got back in. This time, the wing runner decided to
move to the upwind side.

On the second launch, I was READY. The moment I saw the slightest dip
in the right wing, I came in with full aileron and nearly full rudder.
I stopped it dropping, and a second later it was coming up. Taking out
most of the rudder, I waited. By the time the left wing began to dip,
I had full right stick and only a little right rudder. It was enough.
And then I was airborne.

I took a tow to 4000 ft, not sure there would be any lift and wanting
to practice stalls so I would be sure of not doing something this bad
on landing. As it turned out, I got only 30 minutes out of that flight
- I had quickly lost 1500 ft doing landing configuration (full flap)
stalls and there was very little workable lift. The landing was
uneventful though I used up almost 700 ft of runway - much too much for
my tastes.

I waited an hour, hoping the lift would improve, and took a normal tow
the second time. The takeoff was a much more relaxed affair - I knew,
once again, just how much rudder was enough. Doing it right once
brought it all back. This time, in the weak and disorganized lift, I
managed to scratch out an hour. The landing this time was perfect -
full flaps, soft, on both wheels, and stopped in well under 500 ft
without any significant braking, despite having to come in over power
lines. I was back in tune with my ship.

As I tied the glider down, I inspected it once more. Once more I could
not be sure if I had added a couple of little dents to what was already
there, but after a very careful inspection I was convinced it was in
condition for safe operation. I had thought that seeing what I did
would have scared off my potential buyer, but I was wrong. I guess you
see a lot when you accumulate thousands of hours of taildragger time.
He had seen many groundloops, including one from the inside of a
Luscombe he was flying. He understood exactly what happened, knew it
could well happen to him - and was not worried.

I got into my airplane to fly home, and I realized that a year of
flying almost exclusively tri-gear had indeed made me complacent,
willing to wait just a second more to see what would happen before
taking action. I resolved to either keep flying my HP year round, even
when there was no lift, just to keep current, or get some powered
tailwheel time on a regular basis. Skills will rust with disuse.

Michael

I agree that a go-around would have been a better outcome if I had
recognized the problem in time. By the time I realized I might not have
enough runway, the go-around option was closed due to the obstructions at
the end of the runway. A few months ago at the same airport, there was an
accident in which a student pilot and flight instructor were practicing
landings in a C152. They made a late decision to go around and ran into a
moving car off the end of the runway. That was one of the very few examples
I am aware of in which a non-participant was seriously injured in an
airplane accident.

I had a mindset that once I was on the runway near the intended point, I
stopped thinking about a go-around. That is overly simplistic when doing
wheel landings, since there may be plenty of speed for flying for awhile
after touchdown. There shouldn't be a lot of extra speed when a wheel
landing is done well, but there may be.

On the topic of wheelies vs three point, I normally practice both. (I had
done little recent practice of either, however.) I feel more comfortable
handling gusty winds from any direction with a wheel landing, so that is
what I chose that time.

"Maule Driver" wrote in message
om...
Thanks for the story. I've never flown in a Clipper but I think it has
the nicest lines of all the short wing Pipers. Just real nice.

It occurs to me how forgiving grass is and unforgiving hard surfaces can
be for us butt draggers.

The lesson for me is to learn to go around on occassion if things aren't
lining up right. I just can't the glider thing out of me. I don't think
I've aborted a landing once in 1000+ hrs in the Maule. That's wrong.

Thanks.

Reid & Julie Baldwin wrote:
I have heard it said that there are two types of tailwheel pilots: those
that have ground looped and those that will. A week ago, I graduated from
the latter category into the former category. There was no shirt ripping
ceremony for this milestone. Fortunately, there was also no torn flesh or
bent metal. I post the story here so others can share my lessons learned.

In ag operations we often used strips that were about 1200' grass and
wheel landings were the norm. I still don't understand why so many
pilots are afraid of them or don't do them. Seems a lot have the idea
that it takes extra speed to do them and it just ain't so. Can you slow
fly your airplane? Then you can do a slow wheel landing pure and
simple.
XW landings? Upwind wheel first and hold it there while the a/c slows,
then lower the downwind wheel as the aileron control becomes less
effective, and finally the tailwheel. Done properly, the a/c is already
near a 3 point speed and its a matter of stick and rudder skills.
I can think of a couple times when I had to do an intentional ground
loop to keep from going off the end of a runway with a poorly planned
landing way back in my early days. Lucky though and never damaged
anything but my ego. That, as you can see, is still quite healthy and
robust (Thank you very much)!!
BTW, my earliest days were flying in such animals as the Taylorcraft,
Piper J-3, Aeronca, Stearman. The first trike I flew was a Tri Pacer.
Now I suspect I've got more than 7000 hrs tailwheel and most of it
doing ag ops. Some of it is tailwheel twin engine like Beech 18.
Ol Shy & Bashful

wrote in message
ups.com...
In ag operations we often used strips that were about 1200' grass and
wheel landings were the norm. I still don't understand why so many
pilots are afraid of them or don't do them. Seems a lot have the idea
that it takes extra speed to do them and it just ain't so. Can you slow
fly your airplane? Then you can do a slow wheel landing pure and
simple.

My husband won a spot landing contest this past October using a wheel
landing. He can also land in 900 ft of grass with them. He practices flying
down the runway just above a stall all the time. He pulls the power and
gently drops on the mains. It's a joy to watch.

Deb

--
1946 Luscombe 8A (his)
1948 Luscombe 8E (hers)
1954 Cessna 195B, restoring (ours)