Tailwheel endorsement

(Skyking)

I took my first lessons in a tailwheel (Aeronca 11AC Chief)
and it took six hours to solo.

I soloed in a constant-speed 210hp fuel-injected
tailwheel Maule after a grand total of 4.4 hrs
during five flights, 1.7 hrs and two flights of
which was spent doing legally-required spin training
in a C-152.

I'm sure plenty have done less :-)

--
ATP http://www.pittspecials.com/images/oz_inv.jpg

pj

Think we are almost saying the same thing. G

On my last TW ck out I had him shoot a 'couple' of wheel landings and
he did ok. I then spent the rest of the time on three point landings.
Seems to me I complied with the FAR. It doesn't say that the student
has to shoot the same number of wheel and 3 pt landings.

Guess when I touch the ground I want to be able to steer the aircraft
with the tail wheel and not just fan the rudder.

If I make a wheely and bird is drifting more than rudder will hold and
I tap a brake, I could well get a prop or ground loop if tail wheel is
not on ground?

Enough. Go lay in some of Chucks Muzzleloader for the winter up there.
See you at Ice out )

Big John


On Tue, 9 Dec 2003 14:39:24 -0800, "PJ" pj at offairport dot com
wrote:

Hi again John,

It seems to me that you have turned this into an argument of whether we as
instructors should be teaching 3 point or wheel landings. That was NEVER my
point nor my intentions.

My point, as I've attempted to explain twice before, is that we as
instructors must follow the FARs and teach BOTH 3 point AND wheel landings
BEFORE ever signing off a tailwheel endorsement.

When I said 'I prefer wheel landings, I never said I didn't teach 3 point
landings. I was simply responding to your comment about 'wondering what
pilots in Alaska thought about wheel landings".

You go ahead and teach your 3 point and I will continue teaching both.

That is all.
PJ

And believe me, one place you don't want to be for very long in the winter
time in Alaska, is in the back seat of a Cub.

After a couple instances of engines quitting in the flare etc, we
aren't allowed to fly if the temp is under 20 deg F. Even at that, my
flying kit includes a mostly-used roll of duct tape, to seal the
quarter-inch gap between the door-window and the frame.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

my flying kit includes a mostly-used roll of duct tape,

No kidding Dan,

Some times it seems like half the cubs in Alaska have more duct tape on them
than fabric.

PJ

--
===============
Reply to:
pj at offairport dot com
===============
Here's to the duck that swam a lake and never lost a feather,
May sometime another year, we all be back together. J.J.W.
=========================================


"Cub Driver" wrote in message
...

And believe me, one place you don't want to be for very long in the
winter
time in Alaska, is in the back seat of a Cub.

After a couple instances of engines quitting in the flare etc, we
aren't allowed to fly if the temp is under 20 deg F. Even at that, my
flying kit includes a mostly-used roll of duct tape, to seal the
quarter-inch gap between the door-window and the frame.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

And Hartford, Wisconsin KHXF. With about 75 airplanes based at Hartford,
over 90 percent are taildraggers. Last Cub count was over 20. Also include
several Waco's, Stearmans, a TravelAir, an Eaglerock, several SuperCruisers,
Champs, C-120s, 140s, 170s, Pitts and a bunch of other homebuilts.
Basically all the popular taildraggers with a spattering of some real gems.
--
Jim Burns III

Remove "nospam" to reply

"Cub Driver" wrote in message
...

Thanks for the pointer. I'll add it to my list of Cub-friendly
airports www.pipercubforum.com/friendly.htm

Dan, you can also add Red Stewart Airfield (40I), Waynesville Ohio.
Cubs, Champs, Stearman.

Thanks!

Anyone else?

all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

Ha! I agree with you!! I'm loving every minute of it and dieing to get more
time and more experience. My instructor and long time friend told me "you
know, we aren't going to do this in 1 day and when we are done, by no means
does it mean that you've developed the skills and experience to throw a
student in the front seat of this thing!" I couldn't agree with him more,
in some ways I feel like I'm soloing all over again.
--
Jim Burns III

Remove "nospam" to reply

"Bob Fry" wrote in message
...
"Jim" writes:

Congrats! I've been working on my TW endorsement in a SuperCub and the
only
thing left to work on is crosswinds.

And congrats to you...but I must say, that's sort of like saying "I'm
working on my PPL and the only thing left is solo."

EDR wrote in message ...
If you use the "look to the side method", how do you correct for drift?

Depends on the plane. In the J-3 I keep the center line under the main
at all times. Its kind of my personal challenge, to always have the
main in the middle of the painted center line. I usually just slip it
until I get down to about 2 feet, so its really only the flare that
I'm concerned with.

How far away from the aircraft do you look?

Not sure I understand the question. I usually have 1/2 a face full of
cowling and 1/2 a face full of runway ahead of me with cylinders
somewhat in the way.

Do you look at the upwind or downwind side?

Depends on which side is most likely to have something jump out in
front of me. I'll use either side.

In most of these planes, if you don't bring them in too hot, the flare
only lasts a couple seconds at most.

(Robert M. Gary) wrote
In most of these planes, if you don't bring them in too hot, the flare
only lasts a couple seconds at most.

In most of what planes? In the Cub, I agree with you. It CAN be
landed by looking out the side, and in fact that's how I was taught to
land it. In the Cub, you can actually see the main gear by looking
out the side.

Basically, there are the "Look to the side" people and the "Look
straight ahead and use peripheral vision" people. I've been taught
both ways (with the "Look to the side" method being taught first),
have used both ways, and I'm now squarely in the "Look straight ahead
and use peripheral vision" camp. One particular airplane made me a
believer.

That airplane was the Starduster Too. Due to the mission as well as
some design quirks (it's a homebuilt) it needed to come down final at
90-95 mph. Touchdown would occur around 70-75 (my best guess) in the
three point attitude. Wheel landings were impossible - even if you
pushed the stick full forward, the tailwheel would still come down
immediately. Full stall in free air was just over 60 mph.

The first instructor to try to check me out in the plane was of the
"Look to the side" school, and tried to teach me that way. All he
really succeeded in doing two hours was convincing me the plane was
unsafe. I took another shot with another instructor a while later,
and he taught me the "Look straight ahead and use peripheral vision"
method. In 90 minutes I soloed the airplane.

He also explained that looking out to the side does work with some
taildraggers, but not others. For example, (at least according to
him) nobody lands a Pitts by looking out to the side.

I tried looking out the side of teh 'Duster a couple of times on
landing, and discovered that it just doesn't work. You can't get
enough attitude and altitude cues to flare properly. Visibility is
terrible - there is no way to see the main gear, or much of anything
else.

I suppose that without that airplane (and the instructor who taught me
to fly it) I would still be looking out to the side - but I now
consider it to be an inferior method of limited application.

Michael

(Michael) wrote in message . com...
(Robert M. Gary) wrote
In most of these planes, if you don't bring them in too hot, the flare
only lasts a couple seconds at most.

In most of what planes? In the Cub, I agree with you. It CAN be
landed by looking out the side, and in fact that's how I was taught to
land it. In the Cub, you can actually see the main gear by looking
out the side.

Basically, there are the "Look to the side" people and the "Look
straight ahead and use peripheral vision" people. I've been taught
both ways (with the "Look to the side" method being taught first),
have used both ways, and I'm now squarely in the "Look straight ahead
and use peripheral vision" camp. One particular airplane made me a
believer.

Michael
Your post indicates obvious experience with a number of aircraft. But,
it also sounds like you are using both "straight ahead, and peripheral
vision" methods. Even if unconciously?
As with any flight instruction, there are those who have their own
tried and true method that works for them but in many cases it is
fairly restricted either by aircraft type or pilot experience.
Just as a WAG (wild assed guess) I've flown 20-30 different types of
tailwheel aircraft with more than casual or courtesy flights. Read
that as "worked" them. Each of them required their own particular
techniques as you point out. You can't just point it ahead and hope!
A number of the aircraft I've flown are radial engined which means a
lot of iron and aluminum out in front and restricting view on the
ground. Once that tail comes up, the view improves but not always a
lot?! When you operate off a strip that is barely as wide as your
landing gear track you simply have to be good or you end up in the
bushes/trees/rocks/buildings/water/etc,etc.
Like you say, there is no one way to do it. Anyone who argues with
that is a fool and headed for disaster.
12,000 doing crop duster work and another 10,000 doing other stuff.



That airplane was the Starduster Too. Due to the mission as well as
some design quirks (it's a homebuilt) it needed to come down final at
90-95 mph. Touchdown would occur around 70-75 (my best guess) in the
three point attitude. Wheel landings were impossible - even if you
pushed the stick full forward, the tailwheel would still come down
immediately. Full stall in free air was just over 60 mph.

The first instructor to try to check me out in the plane was of the
"Look to the side" school, and tried to teach me that way. All he
really succeeded in doing two hours was convincing me the plane was
unsafe. I took another shot with another instructor a while later,
and he taught me the "Look straight ahead and use peripheral vision"
method. In 90 minutes I soloed the airplane.

He also explained that looking out to the side does work with some
taildraggers, but not others. For example, (at least according to
him) nobody lands a Pitts by looking out to the side.

I tried looking out the side of teh 'Duster a couple of times on
landing, and discovered that it just doesn't work. You can't get
enough attitude and altitude cues to flare properly. Visibility is
terrible - there is no way to see the main gear, or much of anything
else.

I suppose that without that airplane (and the instructor who taught me
to fly it) I would still be looking out to the side - but I now
consider it to be an inferior method of limited application.

Michael