Which taildragger

So here I am in sunny (OK, heavy marine layer overcast) southern
California. Always looking for interesting/stupid/expensive
things to do, I see that there are a lot of outfits here offering
taildragger instruction, some aerobatic, some spin training,
some just tailwheel endorsements.

They use a variety of aircraft: Cubs, Aeroncas, Decathalon and
more.

Is there a significant difference between these different airplanes
when it comes to the initial learning about handling a taildragger?

"xxx" wrote in message
oups.com...
So here I am in sunny (OK, heavy marine layer overcast) southern
California. Always looking for interesting/stupid/expensive
things to do, I see that there are a lot of outfits here offering
taildragger instruction, some aerobatic, some spin training,
some just tailwheel endorsements.

They use a variety of aircraft: Cubs, Aeroncas, Decathalon and
more.

Is there a significant difference between these different airplanes
when it comes to the initial learning about handling a taildragger?

My suggestion would be to go directly with the Decathlon. It's easy to fly,
and a very good tailwheel transition airplane. You get the ease of the
transition, and the aerobatics if you want to do them.
Dudley Henriques

"Dudley Henriques" dhenriques@noware .net wrote in message
ink.net...

"xxx" wrote in message
oups.com...
So here I am in sunny (OK, heavy marine layer overcast) southern
California. Always looking for interesting/stupid/expensive
things to do, I see that there are a lot of outfits here offering
taildragger instruction, some aerobatic, some spin training,
some just tailwheel endorsements.

They use a variety of aircraft: Cubs, Aeroncas, Decathalon and
more.

Is there a significant difference between these different airplanes
when it comes to the initial learning about handling a taildragger?

My suggestion would be to go directly with the Decathlon. It's easy to
fly,
and a very good tailwheel transition airplane. You get the ease of the
transition, and the aerobatics if you want to do them.
Dudley Henriques


I agree with Dudley's choice of the Decathlon.

My second choice would be the Citabria 7eca which shares the same fuselage
and nice TALL rudder but has less power and will likely be less costly. I
think that these are both very honest, good flying aircraft. They have a
higher wing loading than the Piper Cubs, this requires a longer TO ground
roll, which allows more ground run practice. IMHO the Cubs are off the
ground too soon to give you much practice keeping straight. The tall rudder
has good positive control for landing. I found them a little nicer to three
point (than the Cubs) but YMMV. Many prefer the Cubs for wheel landings.
The Citabrias/Decathlons spin very nicely and are predictable and
consistant. Solo from the front seat. The Decathlon is a superior
aerobatic trainer but the Citabria is also great fun.

Happy landings.

Dudley Henriques wrote:

Is there a significant difference between these different airplanes
when it comes to the initial learning about handling a taildragger?


My suggestion would be to go directly with the Decathlon. It's easy to fly,
and a very good tailwheel transition airplane. You get the ease of the
transition, and the aerobatics if you want to do them.

I second DH's advice. The Decathlon is a very pleasant, no-surprises
taildragger for your needs, and no asinine heel-brakes. Who was the
ergonomically-clueless idiot who came up with those things, anyway? ;


Jack

"...and no asinine heel-brakes.Who was the ergonomically-clueless idiot who
came up with those things, anyway? ;
Jack


I like my heel brakes. I guess it takes a real woman to handle them ;-).

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

"Deborah McFarland" wrote in message
...
"...and no asinine heel-brakes.Who was the ergonomically-clueless idiot
who came up with those things, anyway? ;
Jack


I like my heel brakes. I guess it takes a real woman to handle them ;-).

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

Hi Deb;

I checked out a guy in an Aeronca Chief once. It was a long time ago, but if
I remember right, it didn't have any brakes at all on my side of the
airplane.
You would have LOVED that!!! :-)
I vaguely remember thinking I should be making more money as an instructor
around takeoff time :-))))
Dudley

"Dudley Henriques" dhenriques@noware .net wrote in
nk.net:

...
I vaguely remember thinking I should be making more money as an
instructor around takeoff time :-))))
Dudley

The instructors I know think that all the time :-)

Rob

I vaguely remember thinking I should be making more money as an instructor
around takeoff time :-))))
Dudley


Mine only has brakes on the left side. There is a 337 to install brakes on
the right, but frankly if you need brakes in a Luscombe, things have already
gone too far. I just use mine to show off how I can turn around on a dime on
the tarmac ;-).

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

On 2005-08-16, Deborah McFarland wrote:
I like my heel brakes. I guess it takes a real woman to handle them ;-).

You know it's not really heel brakes that I find a problem. I otherwise
love flying the Auster we use for towing gliders. However, it has a free
castoring tailwheel. Our runway is hard surfaced. In a quartering
tailwheel, you must use the brakes for directional control since the
rudder is totally ineffective, and the tailwheel is free castoring.

However, it's not just that they are heel brakes (which makes depressing
the rudder pedal fully and applying braking more difficult) but the fact
they are connected to cable operated drum brakes whose effectiveness
varies from minute to minute. On a hard sufaced runway or taxiway, when
taxiing (and because the brakes are so ineffective and being a
taildragger, forward visibility isn't so hot, you must taxi slowly and
with low enough power there is insufficient prop wash over the rudder)
you have to inevitably accept you will need to do one or two 360 degree
turns if you make too big an S-turn when trying to see forward.

On grass it's less of a problem. The drag of the grass means you need a
touch more power (more prop wash over the tail) and makes the aircraft
track more straight anyhow. It's probably the only way anyone found that
terrible braking system adequate!

--
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

However, it has a free
castoring tailwheel.

Dylan,

I don't have any trouble with mine, but my tail is heavier than many fabric
airplanes and my rudder is effective on the ground.

However, it's not just that they are heel brakes (which makes depressing
the rudder pedal fully and applying braking more difficult) but the fact
they are connected to cable operated drum brakes whose effectiveness
varies from minute to minute.

My Cleveland wheels and brakes are every effective and consistent. With the
pedal set-up in my airplane, I find depressing the brake and rudder easy,
but I have smaller feet that most male pilots and that could be key.
However, I don't like to fly bare footed and never in sandals or flops.

Deb

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