Tamed by the Tailwheel

Dudley:

I used to land hot prop fighters with plenty of lift left by using this
technique. I simply let them settle in tail low, fast, and under
complete control.....hardly a full stall landing :-)

Sounds like a wheelie with all three wheels on the ground!

Dudley, may I post the material quoted here on the Piper Cub Forum?



-- all the best, Dan Ford

email (put Cubdriver in subject line)

Warbird's Forum: www.warbirdforum.com
Piper Cub Forum: www.pipercubforum.com
the blog: www.danford.net

Again quoting Dudley:

What confuses pilots about wheel
landings and aoa is that immediately at touchdown, the stick is
"rotated" gently forward to PIN the mains.

And a further advance on this is to bring the stick back again, once
the wheels are on the ground, so as to get braking with the wings.
Done nicely, you won't take off again. (And this is a good check on
whether your landing was faster than it needed to be.) Done nicely,
you can actually make a wheelie in about the same length of runway as
you would use for a non-emergency three-pointer.

(Works in a Cub and the Husky, anyhow. Dunno about P-40s and such


-- all the best, Dan Ford

email (put Cubdriver in subject line)

Warbird's Forum: www.warbirdforum.com
Piper Cub Forum: www.pipercubforum.com
the blog: www.danford.net

On 13 Jan 2005 06:29:29 -0800, wrote:

In thousands of hours in crop dusting in a variety of aircraft,
dirt/grass/asphalt/concrete for landing areas, I never knew if it was
going to be a 3 point or a wheel landing. Most of the time it was a
slow speed wheel landing with minimum roll and braking

That's been my experience as well (except for the thousands of hours,
and the crop dusting).

I generally expect to do a wheelie, but if it works out that I can't
see over the cowling, I just explain to myself that this one is a
three-pointer. They work out about the same, except that it seems to
me that the wheelie is more likely to track straight down the runway.

There's a banner tow operation at the local field, summertimes for the
tourist beaches. His operation is very like what you describe for
crop-dusting, except that most of the time he doesn't actually land


-- all the best, Dan Ford

email (put Cubdriver in subject line)

Warbird's Forum: www.warbirdforum.com
Piper Cub Forum: www.pipercubforum.com
the blog: www.danford.net

On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 11:01:29 -0500, T o d d P a t t i s t
wrote:

If it's tail low, the tail hits first. A bit
higher it's 3-pt. Higher still, it's a wheel landing.

That's right. And because it could be any of the three is why I'm
relaxed about the possibility that my wheelie might turn out to be a
three-pointer.

I think that Old Shy & Bashful is right about carrying too much speed
onto the runway. I was taught to fly the Cub at 45 mph on final. Now
it's more like 60, but I am always conscious that the plane is hot and
that I might want to slip some of it off. The extra 15 mph is good for
wheelies, crosswinds, and Sally, who expects me to call when the plane
is tied down.

I would still recommend 45 mph to a newbie in the Cub. Dunno about the
Decathalon.

Incidentally, Cub Crafters is going to make a sorta J-3 starting this
year. It's really a lightweight PA-18, but it will come in under 1320
pounds, so can be flown under Sport Pilot rules.

At the same time, CC is starting to manufacture its PA-18 Top Cub
under an FAA type certificate. Previous Top Cubs were ostensibly
"assembled from parts".

The Champ is again in production, and Taylorcraft promises to follow
suit, meaning that all three great trainers of the 1940s/1950s will
again be available new, if at a somewhat higher price



-- all the best, Dan Ford

email (put Cubdriver in subject line)

Warbird's Forum: www.warbirdforum.com
Piper Cub Forum: www.pipercubforum.com
the blog: www.danford.net

Want to break their excessive speed habits?
Take them to a 1000 - 1500 grass strip and watch how long it takes them
to learn that their choices are slow down or crash long.

wrote:
The biggest flaw I have seen in modern pilots is speed control and
right behind that is not knowing how to use rudder/aileron coordination
for landings. It continually amazes me at the lack of skill or even
knowledge of CFI's when it comes to slips with any degree of accuracy.
It all seems to be very pedantic with little or no pilot skills
involved. I am continually reminded of that when I fly with pilots who
have gotten their certificates in the past 15 years or so.

On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 05:52:35 GMT, zatatime wrote:

On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 02:58:16 GMT, "Dudley Henriques"
wrote:


wrote in message
groups.com...
So give it a rest already! You've said your piece, I've said mine. We
don't agree again.
BTW, I just dumped your last email unread....not worth my time.

I understand completely. Same here. Consider it done.
All the best to you.
H



For what its worth, I give you both credit for dropping your squabble
before it became one of the 100 back and forth posts I've seen in
these forums. Obviously both of you are/were good pilots and have
alot to offer. Usenet (like a classroom) is not the best place to
have detailed discussions about flying, and disagreements will occur.
I'm glad you both can agree to disagree and move on so we all don't
need to read about your differences.

In all sincerity - Thank You.

z
I agree. It's painful for us low-time mortals to listen to two guys
that each have a lot to offer arguing like old ladies. It's kinda
like a kid listneing to his parents having a fight. Look forward to
many more constructive posts from both of you.
Rich Russell

"Cub Driver" wrote in message
...
Dudley:

I used to land hot prop fighters with plenty of lift left by using
this
technique. I simply let them settle in tail low, fast, and under
complete control.....hardly a full stall landing :-)

Sounds like a wheelie with all three wheels on the ground!

Dudley, may I post the material quoted here on the Piper Cub Forum?

I have no objection.
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/CFI Retired
for private email; make necessary changes between ( )
dhenriques(at)(delete all this)earthlink(dot)net

"zatatime" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 02:58:16 GMT, "Dudley Henriques"
wrote:


wrote in message
groups.com...
So give it a rest already! You've said your piece, I've said mine.
We
don't agree again.
BTW, I just dumped your last email unread....not worth my time.

I understand completely. Same here. Consider it done.
All the best to you.
H



For what its worth, I give you both credit for dropping your squabble
before it became one of the 100 back and forth posts I've seen in
these forums. Obviously both of you are/were good pilots and have
alot to offer. Usenet (like a classroom) is not the best place to
have detailed discussions about flying, and disagreements will occur.
I'm glad you both can agree to disagree and move on so we all don't
need to read about your differences.

In all sincerity - Thank You.

I'll tell you what it's worth.
These "after the fact, you have intruded on my space but I forgive you"
sentiments are really a royal pain the butt and serve no positive
purpose.
In fact, the opposite is true.
Usenet is bad enough with those of us who don't like each other and
don't get along without adding your "holier then thou" comment AFTER two
people have settled something that didn't involve you.
Comments like these simply make matters worse by ticking off the people
to whom you are posting. It's idiotic. It's inflammatory, and it's
totally unnecessary, since obviously the problem has already been solved
by the people you are "complimenting". In other words, all you're doing
is shooting off your yap to let everyone know how far above all this you
are, and how far you are above the two people you are specifically
addressing.
The result of this post has been that I for one will simply avoid you in
the future. Please continue to lurk on my posts if you like, or pass on
them as you please. I could care less.
BTW, any further continuance of ANY kind with my answer to your post is
nothing more then added proof that all you have done here is to produce
a negative result.
Hey now....wasn't THIS little venture worth doing ?????? :-))))
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/CFI Retired
for private email; make necessary changes between ( )
dhenriques(at)(delete all this)earthlink(dot)net

"Richard Russell" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 05:52:35 GMT, zatatime wrote:

On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 02:58:16 GMT, "Dudley Henriques"
wrote:


wrote in message
egroups.com...
So give it a rest already! You've said your piece, I've said mine.
We
don't agree again.
BTW, I just dumped your last email unread....not worth my time.

I understand completely. Same here. Consider it done.
All the best to you.
H



For what its worth, I give you both credit for dropping your squabble
before it became one of the 100 back and forth posts I've seen in
these forums. Obviously both of you are/were good pilots and have
alot to offer. Usenet (like a classroom) is not the best place to
have detailed discussions about flying, and disagreements will occur.
I'm glad you both can agree to disagree and move on so we all don't
need to read about your differences.

In all sincerity - Thank You.

z
I agree. It's painful for us low-time mortals to listen to two guys
that each have a lot to offer arguing like old ladies. It's kinda
like a kid listneing to his parents having a fight. Look forward to
many more constructive posts from both of you.
Rich Russell

Ditto for you on my answer to zatatime, only for you, it wasn't even an
original thought. You're even less productive than he is.You can't even
write your own material.
Sorry, but for me, people like you two who make these "jump on
corrective posts after the fact simply don't cut it.
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/CFI Retired
for private email; make necessary changes between ( )
dhenriques(at)(delete all this)earthlink(dot)net

snipped...
For what its worth, I give you both credit for dropping your squabble
before it became one of the 100 back and forth posts I've seen in
these forums. Obviously both of you are/were good pilots and have
alot to offer. Usenet (like a classroom) is not the best place to
have detailed discussions about flying, and disagreements will occur.
I'm glad you both can agree to disagree and move on so we all don't
need to read about your differences.

In all sincerity - Thank You.

z
I agree. It's painful for us low-time mortals to listen to two guys
that each have a lot to offer arguing like old ladies. It's kinda
like a kid listneing to his parents having a fight. Look forward to
many more constructive posts from both of you.
Rich Russell

Ditto for you on my answer to zatatime, only for you, it wasn't even an
original thought. You're even less productive than he is.You can't even
write your own material.
Sorry, but for me, people like you two who make these "jump on
corrective posts after the fact simply don't cut it.
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/CFI Retired
for private email; make necessary changes between ( )
dhenriques(at)(delete all this)earthlink(dot)net



I'm sorry that you took it that way. As far as productivity levels, I
have been flying for two years and you have been flying for two
lifetimes. I would certainly hope that you have more to offer. That
is the natural order of things in this world. You have also exhibited
a high level of patience and tolerance with those that are less
knowledgeble, often taking the time to post long and very helpful
explanations for complex concepts. The words mentor and role-model
come to mind. That is why I made my comment. It is not typical to
see you get decend from that well earned status into a non-technical
usenet ****ing match. I will still seek out your posts and hope to
learn from them. I'll thank you in advance because, much to your
relief, you will not hear from me again. (By the way, you may have
already been too fired up to realize it, but my post was intended as
more of a compliment than anything else. No ill will was intended.)
Rich Russell