Tailwheel endorsement

[John Harper]

Well, I finally got my tailwheel endorsement this week, and today was my
first solo tailwheel flight. I took the Decathlon, since I need to practice
my landings. With my previous instrcutor I was struggling, in the Citabria,
but my acro instructor took care of me and within three lessons I did ten
good wheel-landings straight off, so I guess he must be doing something
right.

The Decathlon is a real fun plane to fly. It's great for acro, much better
than the Grob I've been flying until recently. Landing is a bit of a
challenge, because the symmetrical wing means that lift drops off very
quickly at lower speeds. It hardly floats at all, in fact if you don't keep
speed up on final it drops in like a brick.

Solo, it has pretty impressive performance. The take off run is over before
you know it. On LVK's 5000' runway, I just about managed to get it to
pattern altitude before the opposite threshold, using a Vx (58 mph) climb.

It's fun. It has been a struggle at times, especially when I was trying to
conquer wheel landings with my first instructor. But in the end it's been
worth it.

John

[pix]

How much an hour did you pay for the endorsement, John? And how many hours
did it take you to do?

cheers...pix
<who is thinking of getting a TW End.>
"John Harper" > wrote in message
news:1070762767.667218@sj-nntpcache-3...
> Well, I finally got my tailwheel endorsement this week, and today was my
> first solo tailwheel flight. I took the Decathlon, since I need to
practice
> my landings. With my previous instrcutor I was struggling, in the
Citabria,
> but my acro instructor took care of me and within three lessons I did ten
> good wheel-landings straight off, so I guess he must be doing something
> right.
>
> The Decathlon is a real fun plane to fly. It's great for acro, much better
> than the Grob I've been flying until recently. Landing is a bit of a
> challenge, because the symmetrical wing means that lift drops off very
> quickly at lower speeds. It hardly floats at all, in fact if you don't
keep
> speed up on final it drops in like a brick.
>
> Solo, it has pretty impressive performance. The take off run is over
before
> you know it. On LVK's 5000' runway, I just about managed to get it to
> pattern altitude before the opposite threshold, using a Vx (58 mph) climb.
>
> It's fun. It has been a struggle at times, especially when I was trying to
> conquer wheel landings with my first instructor. But in the end it's been
> worth it.
>
> John
>
>

[EDR]

In article >, pix
> wrote:

> How much an hour did you pay for the endorsement, John? And how many hours
> did it take you to do?

Pix... the better question is,
"What are the minimum insurance requirements?"

[John Harper]

It took me far too long to do it, because I had an instructor who was only
available for one week a month and whose technique, I realised late in
the game, was not really right for me. I'm writing the full story for my web
page. So it took me over 20 hours. A more reasonable time would probably
be about 10 hours. IIRC I was paying about $70/hr wet for the Citabria,
plus the instructor who was about $35 until I started working with my
acro instructor who is rather more expensive (and a lot better).

John

"pix" > wrote in message
...
> How much an hour did you pay for the endorsement, John? And how many hours
> did it take you to do?
>
> cheers...pix
> <who is thinking of getting a TW End.>
> "John Harper" > wrote in message
> news:1070762767.667218@sj-nntpcache-3...
> > Well, I finally got my tailwheel endorsement this week, and today was my
> > first solo tailwheel flight. I took the Decathlon, since I need to
> practice
> > my landings. With my previous instrcutor I was struggling, in the
> Citabria,
> > but my acro instructor took care of me and within three lessons I did
ten
> > good wheel-landings straight off, so I guess he must be doing something
> > right.
> >
> > The Decathlon is a real fun plane to fly. It's great for acro, much
better
> > than the Grob I've been flying until recently. Landing is a bit of a
> > challenge, because the symmetrical wing means that lift drops off very
> > quickly at lower speeds. It hardly floats at all, in fact if you don't
> keep
> > speed up on final it drops in like a brick.
> >
> > Solo, it has pretty impressive performance. The take off run is over
> before
> > you know it. On LVK's 5000' runway, I just about managed to get it to
> > pattern altitude before the opposite threshold, using a Vx (58 mph)
climb.
> >
> > It's fun. It has been a struggle at times, especially when I was trying
to
> > conquer wheel landings with my first instructor. But in the end it's
been
> > worth it.
> >
> > John
> >
> >
>
>

[Cub Driver]

>So it took me over 20 hours. A more reasonable time would probably
>be about 10 hours. IIRC I was paying about $70/hr wet for the Citabria,
>plus the instructor who was about $35 until I started working with my
>acro instructor who is rather more expensive (and a lot better).

From what I've read, ten hours is indeed a reasonable period of time.

Kinda funny when you think about it. In 1946, a Cub dealer in New
Jersey used to travel around New England. He and his partner would
come to a small city with an airstrip of some sort, and they'd grab
hold of a high-school athlete and solo him in an afternoon. Then
they'd say: look how easy it is! And they'd get a half-dozen lawyers,
doctors, and merchants to pool together $2600 for the airplane.

Then they'd take the train home, pick up another Cub, and do it again
somewhere else.

And now we think ten hours is reasonable for an experienced pilot to
transition to the taildragger!

I'm not bragging! It took me 48 hours to solo on the Cub, and 102 to
get my license. But I didn't care: it was the most fun I ever had.

As for costs, the Cub is $65/hr wet and the instructor is $22/hr.
That's Hampton NH. Probably not worth your effort to make the trip,
however, at least not this week.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

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

[Robert Moore]

"John Harper" wrote

> So it took me over 20 hours. A more reasonable time would
> probably be about 10 hours.

Something is not reasonable here. For someone who knows how
to fly, two hours is more than enough. Just out of curiosity,
I looked back in my first civilian logbook, and sure enough,
there it was, my first tailwheel flights back in 1962 flying
an Aeronca Champ. Thirty minutes of dual (6 landings) followed
by a one hour solo flight in the pattern. Geeeze....back in
the '40s and early '50s, it was not uncommon to solo a brand
new student in a Cub or Champ in about 10 hours!

Something is REALLY wrong about this story.

Bob Moore
ATP CFI

[gslo]

Took me 11 hours to solo, my (now) wife 7.
But we had a couple of advantages.
1. This was from scratch, no previous time at all.
2. Young, still in high school - that's worth a lot
3. My cost was $11 per hour, dual, wet. Solo was $7 per hour, wet.

Today (Dec 7) is the anniversary of my first flying lesson, 1958. So
10 times the price isn't far off.



In article <1070776484.626893@sj-nntpcache-3>, "John Harper"
> wrote:
>It took me far too long to do it, because I had an instructor who was only
>available for one week a month and whose technique, I realised late in
>the game, was not really right for me. I'm writing the full story for my web
>page. So it took me over 20 hours. A more reasonable time would probably
>be about 10 hours. IIRC I was paying about $70/hr wet for the Citabria,
>plus the instructor who was about $35 until I started working with my
>acro instructor who is rather more expensive (and a lot better).
>
> John
>
>"pix" > wrote in message
...
>> How much an hour did you pay for the endorsement, John? And how many hours
>> did it take you to do?
>>
>> cheers...pix
>> <who is thinking of getting a TW End.>
>> "John Harper" > wrote in message
>> news:1070762767.667218@sj-nntpcache-3...
>> > Well, I finally got my tailwheel endorsement this week, and today was my
>> > first solo tailwheel flight. I took the Decathlon, since I need to
>> practice
>> > my landings. With my previous instrcutor I was struggling, in the
>> Citabria,
>> > but my acro instructor took care of me and within three lessons I did
>ten
>> > good wheel-landings straight off, so I guess he must be doing something
>> > right.
>> >
>> > The Decathlon is a real fun plane to fly. It's great for acro, much
>better
>> > than the Grob I've been flying until recently. Landing is a bit of a
>> > challenge, because the symmetrical wing means that lift drops off very
>> > quickly at lower speeds. It hardly floats at all, in fact if you don't
>> keep
>> > speed up on final it drops in like a brick.
>> >
>> > Solo, it has pretty impressive performance. The take off run is over
>> before
>> > you know it. On LVK's 5000' runway, I just about managed to get it to
>> > pattern altitude before the opposite threshold, using a Vx (58 mph)
>climb.
>> >
>> > It's fun. It has been a struggle at times, especially when I was trying
>to
>> > conquer wheel landings with my first instructor. But in the end it's
>been
>> > worth it.
>> >
>> > John
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>
>

[Skyking]

Cub Driver > wrote in message >...
> >So it took me over 20 hours. A more reasonable time would probably
> >be about 10 hours. IIRC I was paying about $70/hr wet for the Citabria,
> >plus the instructor who was about $35 until I started working with my
> >acro instructor who is rather more expensive (and a lot better).
>
> From what I've read, ten hours is indeed a reasonable period of time.
>
> Kinda funny when you think about it. In 1946, a Cub dealer in New
> Jersey used to travel around New England. He and his partner would
> come to a small city with an airstrip of some sort, and they'd grab
> hold of a high-school athlete and solo him in an afternoon. Then
> they'd say: look how easy it is! And they'd get a half-dozen lawyers,
> doctors, and merchants to pool together $2600 for the airplane.
>
> Then they'd take the train home, pick up another Cub, and do it again
> somewhere else.
>
> And now we think ten hours is reasonable for an experienced pilot to
> transition to the taildragger!
>
> I'm not bragging! It took me 48 hours to solo on the Cub, and 102 to
> get my license. But I didn't care: it was the most fun I ever had.
>

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

The last TW endorsement that I did took ten hours because
the owner's insurance required it. He was ready before this, but
it gave me extra time to "tune" him up on other fine points such
as spins.

Skyking

[John Harper]

Two hours seems a bit short to me. I think if I'd done it all with my
acro instructor, over a short time, it would probably have taken
around six. Just getting wheel landings down reliably is at least
a couple of hours. I certainly spent a lot of time flying round the
pattern doing stuff I was doing just fine (three-point landings,
which I was doing fine with after one hour), which is one reason
I got very frustrated with my first instructor.

John


"Robert Moore" > wrote in message
. 6...
> "John Harper" wrote
>
> > So it took me over 20 hours. A more reasonable time would
> > probably be about 10 hours.
>
> Something is not reasonable here. For someone who knows how
> to fly, two hours is more than enough. Just out of curiosity,
> I looked back in my first civilian logbook, and sure enough,
> there it was, my first tailwheel flights back in 1962 flying
> an Aeronca Champ. Thirty minutes of dual (6 landings) followed
> by a one hour solo flight in the pattern. Geeeze....back in
> the '40s and early '50s, it was not uncommon to solo a brand
> new student in a Cub or Champ in about 10 hours!
>
> Something is REALLY wrong about this story.
>
> Bob Moore
> ATP CFI

[Rich Stowell]

FMI, I've posted FAQs on the tailwheel endorsement at
http://www.richstowell.com/dragger.htm

Rich
http://www.richstowell.com


"pix" > wrote in message >...
> How much an hour did you pay for the endorsement, John? And how many hours
> did it take you to do?
>
> cheers...pix
> <who is thinking of getting a TW End.>
> "John Harper" > wrote in message
> news:1070762767.667218@sj-nntpcache-3...
> > Well, I finally got my tailwheel endorsement this week, and today was my
> > first solo tailwheel flight. I took the Decathlon, since I need to
> practice
> > my landings. With my previous instrcutor I was struggling, in the
> Citabria,
> > but my acro instructor took care of me and within three lessons I did ten
> > good wheel-landings straight off, so I guess he must be doing something
> > right.
> >
> > The Decathlon is a real fun plane to fly. It's great for acro, much better
> > than the Grob I've been flying until recently. Landing is a bit of a
> > challenge, because the symmetrical wing means that lift drops off very
> > quickly at lower speeds. It hardly floats at all, in fact if you don't
> keep
> > speed up on final it drops in like a brick.
> >
> > Solo, it has pretty impressive performance. The take off run is over
> before
> > you know it. On LVK's 5000' runway, I just about managed to get it to
> > pattern altitude before the opposite threshold, using a Vx (58 mph) climb.
> >
> > It's fun. It has been a struggle at times, especially when I was trying to
> > conquer wheel landings with my first instructor. But in the end it's been
> > worth it.
> >
> > John
> >
> >

[EDR]

In article <1070822505.275371@sj-nntpcache-5>, John Harper
> wrote:

> Two hours seems a bit short to me. I think if I'd done it all with my
> acro instructor, over a short time, it would probably have taken
> around six. Just getting wheel landings down reliably is at least
> a couple of hours. I certainly spent a lot of time flying round the
> pattern doing stuff I was doing just fine (three-point landings,
> which I was doing fine with after one hour), which is one reason
> I got very frustrated with my first instructor.

I did my initial tailwheel endorsement was in a Piper J-3 Cub,
including spins, in two hours with seven landings.
The second tailwheel aircraft checkout in a Citabria 7GCBC took ten
hours to meet the minimum insurance requirements.

I got tailwheel endorsement in one hour on a Citabria... 8)
Granted that I had been a passenger for around fifty hours in
http://stevensonairport.com/veebugnme.jpg :)
See also http://stevensonairport.com/veebug.jpg
Pictures are *BIG*
Enrique A. Troconis
cfi @ stevensonairport.com


"John Harper" > wrote in message
news:1070762767.667218@sj-nntpcache-3...
> Well, I finally got my tailwheel endorsement this week, and today was my
> first solo tailwheel flight. I took the Decathlon, since I need to
practice
> my landings. With my previous instrcutor I was struggling, in the
Citabria,
> but my acro instructor took care of me and within three lessons I did ten
> good wheel-landings straight off, so I guess he must be doing something
> right.
>
> The Decathlon is a real fun plane to fly. It's great for acro, much better
> than the Grob I've been flying until recently. Landing is a bit of a
> challenge, because the symmetrical wing means that lift drops off very
> quickly at lower speeds. It hardly floats at all, in fact if you don't
keep
> speed up on final it drops in like a brick.
>
> Solo, it has pretty impressive performance. The take off run is over
before
> you know it. On LVK's 5000' runway, I just about managed to get it to
> pattern altitude before the opposite threshold, using a Vx (58 mph) climb.
>
> It's fun. It has been a struggle at times, especially when I was trying to
> conquer wheel landings with my first instructor. But in the end it's been
> worth it.
>
> John
>
>

[Dan Thomas]

I learned to fly tailwheel in a couple of hours in 1976 or so. But
that doesn't mean I could have wheel landed it, or handled anything
more than a light crosswind. These things take time. More than two
hours.
We run 172s, an R182 and a Citabria. Most of the ab initios start
in the 172 and get the tailwheel training after they've done the
Private in the 172. It takes them at least four or five hours before
they can handle the thing, since they've been flying an airplane that
has an impotent and mostly unnecessary rudder.
The few students that we start from scratch in the Citabria can
handle it much better by five hours, having no bad habits (lazy feet)
to break. It takes them no longer to reach solo than the 172 guys, and
when they finish the Private and get into a 172 they are very precise.
Always coordinated, always on centreline and perfectly aligned with
the runway. The taildragger has taught them well. And, they say, the
172 is no fun.

Dan

[pix]

"EDR" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, pix
> > wrote:
>
> > How much an hour did you pay for the endorsement, John? And how many
hours
> > did it take you to do?
>
> Pix... the better question is,
> "What are the minimum insurance requirements?"

I live (& fly) in Oz (also known sometimes as Australia ;-), where that is
less of an issue; what is more is the cost of hiring the aircraft (where I
guess insurance is built into the price).

I am thinking of getting a tailwheel endorsement when I come over to the US
in Feb/March - just for the fun of it. Where I would like to end up is in a
C-185. One of the major reasons for getting my T/W endorsement is to
increase flying and landing skills, and to get into the Citabria for aeros
etc...

Any real good instructors in the Jackson/Orlando areas??

cheers...pix

[Cub Driver]

> We run 172s, an R182 and a Citabria. Most of the ab initios start
>in the 172 and get the tailwheel training after they've done the
>Private in the 172.

I wonder if I stumbled across the only airport in the world that still
does its primary training in taildraggers?

Hampton Airport 7B3 in New Hampshire generally has two Cubs on the
line (this year just one). Everyone who learns to fly at 7B3 solos
first in the Cub. (Well, I suppose if somebody insisted on starting
out in one of the 172s, he could find an instructor to oblige him.)

The usual drill is then to segue into the 172 for high-faluting stuff
like radio work, ATC, and night landings. Personally, I was so
addicted to the Cub that I opted for a recreational license so I
wouldn't have to move, and at least one other pilot has followed me in
that decision. (Not the best one I ever made, perhaps.)



all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

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

[EDR]

In article >, pix
> wrote:

> Any real good instructors in the Jackson/Orlando areas??

St Augustine, Florida... Aero Sports... aerobatic training

[Henry Bibb]

"Cub Driver" > wrote in message
...
>
> > We run 172s, an R182 and a Citabria. Most of the ab initios start
> >in the 172 and get the tailwheel training after they've done the
> >Private in the 172.
>
> I wonder if I stumbled across the only airport in the world that still
> does its primary training in taildraggers?
>
From what I understand, New London (W90) in Virginia, does it
that way, too. Except they use a J-4.

I learned there, but not in the J-4. My Dad had a Champ, so I used that.

Henry Bibb

[Big John]

John

Last time I gave a TW check out.

Pilot had about 200 hours in 172 size A/C.

Boss had a 180 and said he coud fly if got check out.

First period was three point touch and go and full stop on hard
surface with light winds down the R/W. Included systems
instruction.

2nd flight was three point landings on hard surface with 20 mph cross
wind and review of systems.

3rd flight was three point on gravel an dirt runway and review of
systems.

Signed off.

Next week he borrow the bird from boss and took to Big Bend Park area
in south Texas, landing on a very primitative (out back) strip.

Only shot a couple of wheel landings so he could say he had shot
some.

Big John


On Sat, 6 Dec 2003 21:52:31 -0800, "John Harper" >
wrote:

>It took me far too long to do it, because I had an instructor who was only
>available for one week a month and whose technique, I realised late in
>the game, was not really right for me. I'm writing the full story for my web
>page. So it took me over 20 hours. A more reasonable time would probably
>be about 10 hours. IIRC I was paying about $70/hr wet for the Citabria,
>plus the instructor who was about $35 until I started working with my
>acro instructor who is rather more expensive (and a lot better).
>
> John
>
>"pix" > wrote in message
...
>> How much an hour did you pay for the endorsement, John? And how many hours
>> did it take you to do?
>>
>> cheers...pix
>> <who is thinking of getting a TW End.>
>> "John Harper" > wrote in message
>> news:1070762767.667218@sj-nntpcache-3...
>> > Well, I finally got my tailwheel endorsement this week, and today was my
>> > first solo tailwheel flight. I took the Decathlon, since I need to
>> practice
>> > my landings. With my previous instrcutor I was struggling, in the
>> Citabria,
>> > but my acro instructor took care of me and within three lessons I did
>ten
>> > good wheel-landings straight off, so I guess he must be doing something
>> > right.
>> >
>> > The Decathlon is a real fun plane to fly. It's great for acro, much
>better
>> > than the Grob I've been flying until recently. Landing is a bit of a
>> > challenge, because the symmetrical wing means that lift drops off very
>> > quickly at lower speeds. It hardly floats at all, in fact if you don't
>> keep
>> > speed up on final it drops in like a brick.
>> >
>> > Solo, it has pretty impressive performance. The take off run is over
>> before
>> > you know it. On LVK's 5000' runway, I just about managed to get it to
>> > pattern altitude before the opposite threshold, using a Vx (58 mph)
>climb.
>> >
>> > It's fun. It has been a struggle at times, especially when I was trying
>to
>> > conquer wheel landings with my first instructor. But in the end it's
>been
>> > worth it.
>> >
>> > John
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>

[Robert M. Gary]

The D is a very nice, gentle plane to fly and land. Its a bit unusual
as a tailwheel in that you do not full stall your 3 point landings
(unless you have a really good butt cushion). You just fly it on in
the 3 point attitude. A full stall leaves the mains quite high in the
air and causes a hard "bounce" on the mains.
It wheel lands a lot like a Cessna 140 in that you can't smash it on,
you've got to be soft on the wheel landings.
The D is very nice in that you can land it by looking out over the
cowl (like in a 172), you don't need to hang your head around the side
of the plane and look around the side of the cowl.
-Robert, CFI

"John Harper" > wrote in message news:<1070762767.667218@sj-nntpcache-3>...
> Well, I finally got my tailwheel endorsement this week, and today was my
> first solo tailwheel flight. I took the Decathlon, since I need to practice
> my landings. With my previous instrcutor I was struggling, in the Citabria,
> but my acro instructor took care of me and within three lessons I did ten
> good wheel-landings straight off, so I guess he must be doing something
> right.
>
> The Decathlon is a real fun plane to fly. It's great for acro, much better
> than the Grob I've been flying until recently. Landing is a bit of a
> challenge, because the symmetrical wing means that lift drops off very
> quickly at lower speeds. It hardly floats at all, in fact if you don't keep
> speed up on final it drops in like a brick.
>
> Solo, it has pretty impressive performance. The take off run is over before
> you know it. On LVK's 5000' runway, I just about managed to get it to
> pattern altitude before the opposite threshold, using a Vx (58 mph) climb.
>
> It's fun. It has been a struggle at times, especially when I was trying to
> conquer wheel landings with my first instructor. But in the end it's been
> worth it.
>
> John

[Robert M. Gary]

I think one of the most important skills a CFI can have is tailwheel
time. I can't tell you how valuable it is to have those rudder skills
when student pilots are driving you off the side of the runway in a
172. The more trouble you can let a student get into, the better they
will learn. The better foot work the CFI has, the further he can let
the student go and not go outside his comfort zone.



(Dan Thomas) wrote in message >...
> I learned to fly tailwheel in a couple of hours in 1976 or so. But
> that doesn't mean I could have wheel landed it, or handled anything
> more than a light crosswind. These things take time. More than two
> hours.
> We run 172s, an R182 and a Citabria. Most of the ab initios start
> in the 172 and get the tailwheel training after they've done the
> Private in the 172. It takes them at least four or five hours before
> they can handle the thing, since they've been flying an airplane that
> has an impotent and mostly unnecessary rudder.
> The few students that we start from scratch in the Citabria can
> handle it much better by five hours, having no bad habits (lazy feet)
> to break. It takes them no longer to reach solo than the 172 guys, and
> when they finish the Private and get into a 172 they are very precise.
> Always coordinated, always on centreline and perfectly aligned with
> the runway. The taildragger has taught them well. And, they say, the
> 172 is no fun.
>
> Dan

[Dave Stadt]

"Cub Driver" > wrote in message
...
>
> > We run 172s, an R182 and a Citabria. Most of the ab initios start
> >in the 172 and get the tailwheel training after they've done the
> >Private in the 172.
>
> I wonder if I stumbled across the only airport in the world that still
> does its primary training in taildraggers?

There are others, thank goodness.


> Hampton Airport 7B3 in New Hampshire generally has two Cubs on the
> line (this year just one). Everyone who learns to fly at 7B3 solos
> first in the Cub. (Well, I suppose if somebody insisted on starting
> out in one of the 172s, he could find an instructor to oblige him.)
>
> The usual drill is then to segue into the 172 for high-faluting stuff
> like radio work, ATC, and night landings. Personally, I was so
> addicted to the Cub that I opted for a recreational license so I
> wouldn't have to move, and at least one other pilot has followed me in
> that decision. (Not the best one I ever made, perhaps.)
>
>
>
> all the best -- Dan Ford
> email:
>
> see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
> and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[EDR]

In article >, Robert M.
Gary > wrote:

> The D is very nice in that you can land it by looking out over the
> cowl (like in a 172), you don't need to hang your head around the side
> of the plane and look around the side of the cowl.

I certainly hope you are not teaching your students to look to one side
when full stall/three point landing a taildragger.

[Cub Driver]

On Mon, 08 Dec 2003 15:34:52 GMT, "Henry Bibb" >
wrote:

>From what I understand, New London (W90) in Virginia, does it
>that way, too. Except they use a J-4.

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

all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

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

[PJ]

> First period was three point touch and go and full stop on hard
> surface with light winds down the R/W. Included systems
> instruction.
>
> 2nd flight was three point landings on hard surface with 20 mph cross
> wind and review of systems.
>
> 3rd flight was three point on gravel an dirt runway and review of
> systems.
>
> Signed off.

Big John,

Sounds like you forgot the wheel landings.

FAR 61.31(i)(1)(ii) requires it unless recommended against by the
manufacturer.

Or perhaps the last tailwheel checkout you gave fell under FAR 61.31(i)(2)

After several thousand hours of tailwheel time and several more under
'instruction given', I've seen some really sharp people show profiecncy in a
very short time. But even the best of them could not demonstrate normal and
crosswind takeoffs and landings, wheel landings and go-around procedures in
the times given by some of the posters on this board.

I'm always amazed at how many tailwheel pilots I've met who say they never
did wheel landings during their training. And of the vast majority who did
do them say, "but we only did one or two".

IMHO, beyond just what's required by the FAA, I feel we do a disservice to
ourselves and mostly to our tailwheel students if we don't do the best we
can at trying to 'mix things up' for them. They need to know, and feel what
it's like to land without enough right rudder, or what happens when it
starts to swerve on them, or applying to much brake to soon, or using
differential braking improperly, etc...

If the student never experiences these things with us on board, what are
their chances of a good out come when it happens in real life?

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.
=========================================


"Big John" > wrote in message
...
> John
>
> Last time I gave a TW check out.
>
> Pilot had about 200 hours in 172 size A/C.
>
> Boss had a 180 and said he coud fly if got check out.
>
> First period was three point touch and go and full stop on hard
> surface with light winds down the R/W. Included systems
> instruction.
>
> 2nd flight was three point landings on hard surface with 20 mph cross
> wind and review of systems.
>
> 3rd flight was three point on gravel an dirt runway and review of
> systems.
>
> Signed off.
>
> Next week he borrow the bird from boss and took to Big Bend Park area
> in south Texas, landing on a very primitative (out back) strip.
>
> Only shot a couple of wheel landings so he could say he had shot
> some.
>
> Big John
>
>
> On Sat, 6 Dec 2003 21:52:31 -0800, "John Harper" >
> wrote:
>
> >It took me far too long to do it, because I had an instructor who was
only
> >available for one week a month and whose technique, I realised late in
> >the game, was not really right for me. I'm writing the full story for my
web
> >page. So it took me over 20 hours. A more reasonable time would probably
> >be about 10 hours. IIRC I was paying about $70/hr wet for the Citabria,
> >plus the instructor who was about $35 until I started working with my
> >acro instructor who is rather more expensive (and a lot better).
> >
> > John
> >
> >"pix" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> How much an hour did you pay for the endorsement, John? And how many
hours
> >> did it take you to do?
> >>
> >> cheers...pix
> >> <who is thinking of getting a TW End.>
> >> "John Harper" > wrote in message
> >> news:1070762767.667218@sj-nntpcache-3...
> >> > Well, I finally got my tailwheel endorsement this week, and today was
my
> >> > first solo tailwheel flight. I took the Decathlon, since I need to
> >> practice
> >> > my landings. With my previous instrcutor I was struggling, in the
> >> Citabria,
> >> > but my acro instructor took care of me and within three lessons I did
> >ten
> >> > good wheel-landings straight off, so I guess he must be doing
something
> >> > right.
> >> >
> >> > The Decathlon is a real fun plane to fly. It's great for acro, much
> >better
> >> > than the Grob I've been flying until recently. Landing is a bit of a
> >> > challenge, because the symmetrical wing means that lift drops off
very
> >> > quickly at lower speeds. It hardly floats at all, in fact if you
don't
> >> keep
> >> > speed up on final it drops in like a brick.
> >> >
> >> > Solo, it has pretty impressive performance. The take off run is over
> >> before
> >> > you know it. On LVK's 5000' runway, I just about managed to get it to
> >> > pattern altitude before the opposite threshold, using a Vx (58 mph)
> >climb.
> >> >
> >> > It's fun. It has been a struggle at times, especially when I was
trying
> >to
> >> > conquer wheel landings with my first instructor. But in the end it's
> >been
> >> > worth it.
> >> >
> >> > John
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >
>

[EDR]

In article >, Cub Driver
> wrote:

> >From what I understand, New London (W90) in Virginia, does it
> >that way, too. Except they use a J-4.

> 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.

[vincent p. norris]

>Pix... the better question is,
>"What are the minimum insurance requirements?"

Ridiculous, that's what they are!

A friend of mine, a CFII with lots of time in trikes, bought a Cessna
140 a couple of years ago.

His insurance co. requried 20 (twenty) hours of dual before they'd
insure him.

In the old days, students cusomarily soloed a J-3 Cub in 8 hours or
less!

And in 1949, when I arrived at Pensacola, the Navy was putting kids
who had never been in an airplane in an SNJ, and soloing them in 12
hours.

vince norris

[Big John]

PJ

Re-read my original post. You clipped in your post the wheel comment I
made originally.

Comment on landings.

Wheel landings.

Two basic types of wheel landings.

1. High airspeed on final and when over the runway and flared stick it
on the ground with lots of forward stick. This puts the prop near the
ground and the tail way up in the air.

If you have a short R/W (out back) there is a good chance it is not
long enough to make that kind of a wheel landing.

As bird slows down you have to transition from the main gear to a
three point attitude to get the tail wheel on the ground and with a
cross wind this takes proficiency that a flight once or twice a month
with one landing each will not give even if both are wheel landings..

2. Normal final air speed and normal flare and hold bird off in a tail
low (not three point ) attitude . As main gear touches release the
back pressure on stick (maybe add a 'little' forward stick) and roll
down the R/W on main gear using rudder for directional control.

Same problems transitioning from main wheels to three point.

Three point landing.

Three point touch down at minimum speed (bird stalled). Won't bounce
back in air like a wheel landing can do if forward stick is not
applied correctly.

During and after three point touch down you hold the stick full back
all the time which holds the tail wheel firmly on the ground and helps
prevent ground loops (that happen oftener in wheel landings).

I've clipped some of my text but believe you will get the idea of my
years of tail wheel flying in all kinds of WX, R/W and aircraft.

errata

If you have floats do you try to stick the floats on or do you try to
touch down in a tail low attitude?

My '51 Group had one Sq who made all wheel landings. My Sq made three
point. We had half the landing accidents the other Sq had.

I wonder if any of the AK jocks are reading this post and can comment
on wheel landings in AK?

Big John


On Mon, 8 Dec 2003 13:51:08 -0800, "PJ" <pj at off airport dot com>
wrote:

>> First period was three point touch and go and full stop on hard
>> surface with light winds down the R/W. Included systems
>> instruction.
>>
>> 2nd flight was three point landings on hard surface with 20 mph cross
>> wind and review of systems.
>>
>> 3rd flight was three point on gravel an dirt runway and review of
>> systems.
>>
>> Signed off.
>
>Big John,
>
>Sounds like you forgot the wheel landings.
>
>FAR 61.31(i)(1)(ii) requires it unless recommended against by the
>manufacturer.
>
>Or perhaps the last tailwheel checkout you gave fell under FAR 61.31(i)(2)
>
>After several thousand hours of tailwheel time and several more under
>'instruction given', I've seen some really sharp people show profiecncy in a
>very short time. But even the best of them could not demonstrate normal and
>crosswind takeoffs and landings, wheel landings and go-around procedures in
>the times given by some of the posters on this board.
>
>I'm always amazed at how many tailwheel pilots I've met who say they never
>did wheel landings during their training. And of the vast majority who did
>do them say, "but we only did one or two".
>
>IMHO, beyond just what's required by the FAA, I feel we do a disservice to
>ourselves and mostly to our tailwheel students if we don't do the best we
>can at trying to 'mix things up' for them. They need to know, and feel what
>it's like to land without enough right rudder, or what happens when it
>starts to swerve on them, or applying to much brake to soon, or using
>differential braking improperly, etc...
>
>If the student never experiences these things with us on board, what are
>their chances of a good out come when it happens in real life?
>
>PJ

[Big John]

EDR

How do you think we landed the PT-19, T-6, P-51, etc.,etc.? You went
blind as soon as you pulled nose up on landing.

Big John

On Mon, 08 Dec 2003 21:14:39 GMT, EDR > wrote:

>In article >, Robert M.
>Gary > wrote:
>
>> The D is very nice in that you can land it by looking out over the
>> cowl (like in a 172), you don't need to hang your head around the side
>> of the plane and look around the side of the cowl.
>
>I certainly hope you are not teaching your students to look to one side
>when full stall/three point landing a taildragger.

[Robert M. Gary]

EDR > wrote in message >...
> In article >, Robert M.
> Gary > wrote:
>
> > The D is very nice in that you can land it by looking out over the
> > cowl (like in a 172), you don't need to hang your head around the side
> > of the plane and look around the side of the cowl.
>
> I certainly hope you are not teaching your students to look to one side
> when full stall/three point landing a taildragger.

I find that being able to see the ground is helpful. Have you ever
flown a J-3, Stearman, etc...?

-Robert

[PJ]

Hi Big John,

Please understand, this is not an attack on your abilities as a tailwheel
pilot. I merely observed something in your post that I've seen many times
before so I used it to bring up a few points about 'tailwheel training'.

You said;

>>
You clipped in your post the wheel comment I made originally.
>>

If I'm interpreting your message correctly, I suppose this was in reference
to the fact that you said,

>>
"Next week he borrow the bird from boss and took to Big Bend Park area in
south Texas, landing on a very primitative (out back) strip. Only shot a
couple of wheel landings so he could say he had shot some."
>>

The points I were making in my original post were:

#1 He was (according to your message) signed off prior to ever having done
any wheel landings.
#2 When he finally did do wheel landings, he only did two. (Just to say, "he
had shot some".)
#3 Simply satisfying the FAR is just the bare minimum required for sign off.

These points substantiate my views posted previously, about so many
tailwheel pilots being signed off having no or very little training in wheel
landings. The FAR's say they have to 'show proficiency' prior to the
endorsement.

As for the float flying, you never push the stick/yoke forward while
landing. I'm sure you know that and I'm not exactly sure what your point was
with that comment. And if you compare it to .landing a tailwheel, it's more
like doing a wheel as opposed to a 3 point landing.

As for the Alaska pilots, I can only speak from my own personal experience.
I fly Part 135 in Alaska, mostly 185's and Beaver's. I Instruct for fun (on
the side - when I'm in the mood) in mostly Super Cub's, Citabria's and
140's, sometimes the 185. I personally do wheel landings most of the time.
This includes landings on snow, glaciers, ridges, river bars and in and out
of short 600 foot strips, what ever. It's really very rare that I'll do a 3
point landing. It seems that 'most' pilots that I work with up here also do
wheel landings most of the time. But that's not to say that there's not
people who do mostly 3 point landings. It's just my experience that with my
flying and watching all the other pilots I see in my area, that the wheel
landings are the most often used.

There are obvious advantages and disadvantages of both types of landings,
and we could argue them all day long. Personally, I like wheel landings,
they work for me and I've never had and accident doing them.

If you ever get up to Alaska, drop me a note and I'll show you around.
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.
=========================================


"Big John" > wrote in message
...
> PJ
>
> Re-read my original post. You clipped in your post the wheel comment I
> made originally.
>
> Comment on landings.
>
> Wheel landings.
>
> Two basic types of wheel landings.
>
> 1. High airspeed on final and when over the runway and flared stick it
> on the ground with lots of forward stick. This puts the prop near the
> ground and the tail way up in the air.
>
> If you have a short R/W (out back) there is a good chance it is not
> long enough to make that kind of a wheel landing.
>
> As bird slows down you have to transition from the main gear to a
> three point attitude to get the tail wheel on the ground and with a
> cross wind this takes proficiency that a flight once or twice a month
> with one landing each will not give even if both are wheel landings..
>
> 2. Normal final air speed and normal flare and hold bird off in a tail
> low (not three point ) attitude . As main gear touches release the
> back pressure on stick (maybe add a 'little' forward stick) and roll
> down the R/W on main gear using rudder for directional control.
>
> Same problems transitioning from main wheels to three point.
>
> Three point landing.
>
> Three point touch down at minimum speed (bird stalled). Won't bounce
> back in air like a wheel landing can do if forward stick is not
> applied correctly.
>
> During and after three point touch down you hold the stick full back
> all the time which holds the tail wheel firmly on the ground and helps
> prevent ground loops (that happen oftener in wheel landings).
>
> I've clipped some of my text but believe you will get the idea of my
> years of tail wheel flying in all kinds of WX, R/W and aircraft.
>
> errata
>
> If you have floats do you try to stick the floats on or do you try to
> touch down in a tail low attitude?
>
> My '51 Group had one Sq who made all wheel landings. My Sq made three
> point. We had half the landing accidents the other Sq had.
>
> I wonder if any of the AK jocks are reading this post and can comment
> on wheel landings in AK?
>
> Big John
>
>
> On Mon, 8 Dec 2003 13:51:08 -0800, "PJ" <pj at off airport dot com>
> wrote:
>
> >> First period was three point touch and go and full stop on hard
> >> surface with light winds down the R/W. Included systems
> >> instruction.
> >>
> >> 2nd flight was three point landings on hard surface with 20 mph cross
> >> wind and review of systems.
> >>
> >> 3rd flight was three point on gravel an dirt runway and review of
> >> systems.
> >>
> >> Signed off.
> >
> >Big John,
> >
> >Sounds like you forgot the wheel landings.
> >
> >FAR 61.31(i)(1)(ii) requires it unless recommended against by the
> >manufacturer.
> >
> >Or perhaps the last tailwheel checkout you gave fell under FAR
61.31(i)(2)
> >
> >After several thousand hours of tailwheel time and several more under
> >'instruction given', I've seen some really sharp people show profiecncy
in a
> >very short time. But even the best of them could not demonstrate normal
and
> >crosswind takeoffs and landings, wheel landings and go-around procedures
in
> >the times given by some of the posters on this board.
> >
> >I'm always amazed at how many tailwheel pilots I've met who say they
never
> >did wheel landings during their training. And of the vast majority who
did
> >do them say, "but we only did one or two".
> >
> >IMHO, beyond just what's required by the FAA, I feel we do a disservice
to
> >ourselves and mostly to our tailwheel students if we don't do the best we
> >can at trying to 'mix things up' for them. They need to know, and feel
what
> >it's like to land without enough right rudder, or what happens when it
> >starts to swerve on them, or applying to much brake to soon, or using
> >differential braking improperly, etc...
> >
> >If the student never experiences these things with us on board, what are
> >their chances of a good out come when it happens in real life?
> >
> >PJ
>

[Dylan Smith]

In article >, vincent p norris wrote:
> Ridiculous, that's what they are!
>
> A friend of mine, a CFII with lots of time in trikes, bought a Cessna
> 140 a couple of years ago.

Depends on the insurance company.

> His insurance co. requried 20 (twenty) hours of dual before they'd
> insure him.

Our club insurance only required a checkout (no minimum hours,
instructor discretion) when I got checked out in the C170.

My partner in the C140 taught his first student to fly from zero hours
in our aircraft. Again, the insurance company didn't specify a minimum,
just that the requirements of the FARs for soloing were met. This was in
2002. His student did his first solo off a grass airfield. IIRC, he had
on the order of 12 hours.

I must admit, I did watch his student *very* apprehensively during those
first solos in my plane :-)

The funny thing is (and I have it on videotape) is Paul watching his
student on his third solo, at Houston Gulf airport (5000x60, sadly now
closed). Another instructor is standing in the grass with Paul, watching
his student at about the same stage, in a Cessna 150. They are talking
about their respective students first solos. The conversation went like
this:

Paul: Yeah, I soloed him off the grass runway at Anhuac (a 3500 x 300
grass runway)
Other instructor: A grass runway? Is that considered safe!?

Paul then explained that grass runways (especially ones in reasonable
condition, and 300 feet wide) are SAFER, definitely for taildraggers,
and probably for nosedraggers.

--
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]

In article >, Robert M.
Gary wrote:
>> I certainly hope you are not teaching your students to look to one side
>> when full stall/three point landing a taildragger.
>
> I find that being able to see the ground is helpful. Have you ever
> flown a J-3, Stearman, etc...?

You don't have to look to one side to see the ground unless you have
a medical condition that stops your peripheral vision from working.

The taildragger I'm flying now is an Auster 5J1 (with 160hp engine) and
you can't see over the cowling on the ground (you need to S-turn when
taxiing). I don't move my head or look sideways when landing it -
peripheral vision is more than adequate to judge the flare and landing
(with the shape of the cowling, I'm not sure moving your head would do
any good anyway).

--
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"

[John Harper]

I just posted my writeup of getting the endorsement. It's at:

www.john-a-harper.com/flying/tailwheel.htm

John

[Cub Driver]

>I'm always amazed at how many tailwheel pilots I've met who say they never
>did wheel landings during their training. And of the vast majority who did
>do them say, "but we only did one or two".

Harvey Plourde addresses this in "The Compleat Taildragger Pilot". He
sketches the scene where the typical checkout ends with the instructor
saying something like "You get the idea; practice it some time when
there's no cross-wind," signing the endorsement, then moving to
another state or changing his name.

He also notes that it may be some comfort to the student who is
sweating out his first wheelie to know that the instructor is even
more terrified. (It is, after all, the instructor's insurance policy
that is on the line. And in the Cub, the instructor is usually in the
front seat. I often wondered what it is like to teach somebody you
can't see! Shucks, the student could have fainted, for all the
instructor knows.)

all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

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

[Cub Driver]

>> 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

[Cub Driver]

Well, I am not looking to the side when I land the Cub (Super Cub,
Husky, Great Lakes). Seems to me it's done with peripheral vision.

Of course, the fields in New England are mostly bordered by pine
trees. I admit this was much more of a challenge when I had to do it
in Arizona (Super Cub, Great Lakes). But I still don't think I
actually turned my head and looked to the side.

>How do you think we landed the PT-19, T-6, P-51, etc.,etc.? You went
>blind as soon as you pulled nose up on landing.
>
>Big John
>
>On Mon, 08 Dec 2003 21:14:39 GMT, EDR > wrote:
>
>>In article >, Robert M.
>>Gary > wrote:
>>
>>> The D is very nice in that you can land it by looking out over the
>>> cowl (like in a 172), you don't need to hang your head around the side
>>> of the plane and look around the side of the cowl.
>>
>>I certainly hope you are not teaching your students to look to one side
>>when full stall/three point landing a taildragger.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

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

[EDR]

In article >, Big John
> wrote:

> EDR
> How do you think we landed the PT-19, T-6, P-51, etc.,etc.? You went
> blind as soon as you pulled nose up on landing.

I was taught and use my peripheral vision (the equal triangle method)
to maintain directional control. I don't look out the side until I
begin S-turning.

[EDR]

In article >, Cub Driver
> wrote:

> I often wondered what it is like to teach somebody you
> can't see! Shucks, the student could have fainted, for all the
> instructor knows.)

Dan, most instructors install a small convex mirror to one of the cross
frame members above and ahead of the front seat.

[G.R. Patterson III]

EDR wrote:
>
> I certainly hope you are not teaching your students to look to one side
> when full stall/three point landing a taildragger.

Many of them can't be landed any other way.

George Patterson
Some people think they hear a call to the priesthood when what they really
hear is a tiny voice whispering "It's indoor work with no heavy lifting".

[G.R. Patterson III]

Dylan Smith wrote:
>
> You don't have to look to one side to see the ground unless you have
> a medical condition that stops your peripheral vision from working.

I do. It's called myopia. Blind as a bat outside the frame of my glasses.

George Patterson
Some people think they hear a call to the priesthood when what they really
hear is a tiny voice whispering "It's indoor work with no heavy lifting".

[Corky Scott]

On Tue, 09 Dec 2003 10:40:32 -0000, Dylan Smith
> wrote:

>In article >, Robert M.
>Gary wrote:
>>> I certainly hope you are not teaching your students to look to one side
>>> when full stall/three point landing a taildragger.
>>
>> I find that being able to see the ground is helpful. Have you ever
>> flown a J-3, Stearman, etc...?
>
>You don't have to look to one side to see the ground unless you have
>a medical condition that stops your peripheral vision from working.

>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"

I have some stick time in a Waco UPF-7, which I've flown from the
front seat only. My experience is that once the airplane flares, not
only do you not see the ground or runway anymore, you don't even see
the airport.

The round engine up front wipes out any forward vision and the wing
below masks nearly the entire airport. The only way to see would be
to hang your head out the cockpit, but I'm not allowed to do that
because the owner behind me needs to have my head out of the way to
see.

Corky Scott

[Robert M. Gary]

Cub Driver > wrote in message >...
> Well, I am not looking to the side when I land the Cub (Super Cub,
> Husky, Great Lakes). Seems to me it's done with peripheral vision.
>
> Of course, the fields in New England are mostly bordered by pine
> trees. I admit this was much more of a challenge when I had to do it
> in Arizona (Super Cub, Great Lakes). But I still don't think I
> actually turned my head and looked to the side.

Your right, and perhaps I didn't describe it correctly. In the J-3
(the Super Cub is different because you are in the front seat) I
"crane" my head to the side but look forward around the cylinders on
the side. So I'm looking forward, but my head to hanging around the
side.

[Robert M. Gary]

Dylan Smith > wrote in message >...

> You don't have to look to one side to see the ground unless you have
> a medical condition that stops your peripheral vision from working.

I like to see what is in front of my (at least on that one side). I
also usually land to the side of the center line.

[Cub Driver]

> I
>"crane" my head to the side but look forward around the cylinders on
>the side. So I'm looking forward, but my head to hanging around the
>side.

I suppose this is one reason I like to slip it in. You get to see the
runway that way.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

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

[EDR]

If you use the "look to the side method", how do you correct for drift?
How far away from the aircraft do you look?
Do you look at the upwind or downwind side?

[PJ]

Hi Cub Driver

>
And in the Cub, the instructor is usually in the front seat.
>

Well, that would be in the J-3, which I think I've seen one of up here. But
there's lots of 11's, 12's and 18's, all of which the instructor sits in the
back.

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. No matter how good the heater
is, (which they usually aren't), the planes are sealed so poorly that
there's always cold air blowing in from everywhere. The guy in the front
seat never notices it, seems all the cold air comes in through the back
area.

This is even the case in the newer built models, the ones that have been
rebuilt, and the brand new Husky's from Aviat.

You should see me sitting back there in my Parka, Fat-Boy pants, gloves and
Sorels trying to keep warm. Actually, now that you bring it up.

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
...
>
> >I'm always amazed at how many tailwheel pilots I've met who say they
never
> >did wheel landings during their training. And of the vast majority who
did
> >do them say, "but we only did one or two".
>
> Harvey Plourde addresses this in "The Compleat Taildragger Pilot". He
> sketches the scene where the typical checkout ends with the instructor
> saying something like "You get the idea; practice it some time when
> there's no cross-wind," signing the endorsement, then moving to
> another state or changing his name.
>
> He also notes that it may be some comfort to the student who is
> sweating out his first wheelie to know that the instructor is even
> more terrified. (It is, after all, the instructor's insurance policy
> that is on the line. And in the Cub, the instructor is usually in the
> front seat. I often wondered what it is like to teach somebody you
> can't see! Shucks, the student could have fainted, for all the
> instructor knows.)
>
> all the best -- Dan Ford
> email:
>
> see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
> and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Jim]

Congrats! I've been working on my TW endorsement in a SuperCub and the only
thing left to work on is crosswinds. We've been waiting for some decent but
not insane crosswinds here lately and so far it's been either nothing or
20-40. But man what a blast!!! Went up Sunday and practiced wheel
landings, first one I botched bad and learned why not to try to save it, add
power and go around ! :) Second and third ones I nailed. Then it was on to
short and soft field TO/L's, the SuperCub goes up like an elevator! So far
I've got 7 1/2 hours and 34 TO/L's.
--
Jim Burns III

Remove "nospam" to reply

[Big John]

pj

I've been down this rabbit trail before.

There are those who swear by three point and those who 'swear' by
wheels first.

I'll agree there are times when one or the other are 'best' but since
I started in the three point group I find it more comfortable and
safer from my experience and therefore have talked and taught it for
many years with good success both to myself and those I have taught or
converted <G>.

As an example, on my CFI check ride, I touched down three point with
full up elevator, full left aileron and full right rudder in a Super
Cub in a 30 MPH cross wind. Following this one landing the FAA check
pilot took the controls and spent the rest of the flight instructing
me how he expected a student to fly on his check ride for PP.

I am not sure the average pilot could have made a wheel landing in a
Super Cub in the conditions that existed that day. (At that time I
could fly the box a bird came in <G>)

Would love to get a tail wheel bird and fly around the back woods of
Alaska like some of my friends who were stationed in Alaska did but
time marches on.

So, you teach your wheels and I'll go with the three point and we can
argue at the bar.

Big John

Looking back, my going with three point probably goes back to my
Primary Instructor in the PT-19. I could make the smoothest tail low
wheel landings you ever would want . He said that he would wash me out
if I didn't' make three point landings. I then made three 'Navy'
landings from about three feet in the air and he soloed me and have
made three pointers ever since except in the C-45 and on occasion in a
few other birds.

I think he had to go to the dentist after those three landings, solid
to say the least and never bounced. <G>



On Mon, 8 Dec 2003 22:39:09 -0800, "PJ" <pj at offairport dot com>
wrote:

>Hi Big John,
>
>Please understand, this is not an attack on your abilities as a tailwheel
>pilot. I merely observed something in your post that I've seen many times
>before so I used it to bring up a few points about 'tailwheel training'.
>
>You said;
>
>>>
>You clipped in your post the wheel comment I made originally.
>>>
>
>If I'm interpreting your message correctly, I suppose this was in reference
>to the fact that you said,
>
>>>
>"Next week he borrow the bird from boss and took to Big Bend Park area in
>south Texas, landing on a very primitative (out back) strip. Only shot a
>couple of wheel landings so he could say he had shot some."
>>>
>
>The points I were making in my original post were:
>
>#1 He was (according to your message) signed off prior to ever having done
>any wheel landings.
>#2 When he finally did do wheel landings, he only did two. (Just to say, "he
>had shot some".)
>#3 Simply satisfying the FAR is just the bare minimum required for sign off.
>
>These points substantiate my views posted previously, about so many
>tailwheel pilots being signed off having no or very little training in wheel
>landings. The FAR's say they have to 'show proficiency' prior to the
>endorsement.
>
>As for the float flying, you never push the stick/yoke forward while
>landing. I'm sure you know that and I'm not exactly sure what your point was
>with that comment. And if you compare it to .landing a tailwheel, it's more
>like doing a wheel as opposed to a 3 point landing.
>
>As for the Alaska pilots, I can only speak from my own personal experience.
>I fly Part 135 in Alaska, mostly 185's and Beaver's. I Instruct for fun (on
>the side - when I'm in the mood) in mostly Super Cub's, Citabria's and
>140's, sometimes the 185. I personally do wheel landings most of the time.
>This includes landings on snow, glaciers, ridges, river bars and in and out
>of short 600 foot strips, what ever. It's really very rare that I'll do a 3
>point landing. It seems that 'most' pilots that I work with up here also do
>wheel landings most of the time. But that's not to say that there's not
>people who do mostly 3 point landings. It's just my experience that with my
>flying and watching all the other pilots I see in my area, that the wheel
>landings are the most often used.
>
>There are obvious advantages and disadvantages of both types of landings,
>and we could argue them all day long. Personally, I like wheel landings,
>they work for me and I've never had and accident doing them.
>
>If you ever get up to Alaska, drop me a note and I'll show you around.
>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.
>=========================================
>
>
>"Big John" > wrote in message
...
>> PJ
>>
>> Re-read my original post. You clipped in your post the wheel comment I
>> made originally.
>>
>> Comment on landings.
>>
>> Wheel landings.
>>
>> Two basic types of wheel landings.
>>
>> 1. High airspeed on final and when over the runway and flared stick it
>> on the ground with lots of forward stick. This puts the prop near the
>> ground and the tail way up in the air.
>>
>> If you have a short R/W (out back) there is a good chance it is not
>> long enough to make that kind of a wheel landing.
>>
>> As bird slows down you have to transition from the main gear to a
>> three point attitude to get the tail wheel on the ground and with a
>> cross wind this takes proficiency that a flight once or twice a month
>> with one landing each will not give even if both are wheel landings..
>>
>> 2. Normal final air speed and normal flare and hold bird off in a tail
>> low (not three point ) attitude . As main gear touches release the
>> back pressure on stick (maybe add a 'little' forward stick) and roll
>> down the R/W on main gear using rudder for directional control.
>>
>> Same problems transitioning from main wheels to three point.
>>
>> Three point landing.
>>
>> Three point touch down at minimum speed (bird stalled). Won't bounce
>> back in air like a wheel landing can do if forward stick is not
>> applied correctly.
>>
>> During and after three point touch down you hold the stick full back
>> all the time which holds the tail wheel firmly on the ground and helps
>> prevent ground loops (that happen oftener in wheel landings).
>>
>> I've clipped some of my text but believe you will get the idea of my
>> years of tail wheel flying in all kinds of WX, R/W and aircraft.
>>
>> errata
>>
>> If you have floats do you try to stick the floats on or do you try to
>> touch down in a tail low attitude?
>>
>> My '51 Group had one Sq who made all wheel landings. My Sq made three
>> point. We had half the landing accidents the other Sq had.
>>
>> I wonder if any of the AK jocks are reading this post and can comment
>> on wheel landings in AK?
>>
>> Big John
>>
>>
>> On Mon, 8 Dec 2003 13:51:08 -0800, "PJ" <pj at off airport dot com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >> First period was three point touch and go and full stop on hard
>> >> surface with light winds down the R/W. Included systems
>> >> instruction.
>> >>
>> >> 2nd flight was three point landings on hard surface with 20 mph cross
>> >> wind and review of systems.
>> >>
>> >> 3rd flight was three point on gravel an dirt runway and review of
>> >> systems.
>> >>
>> >> Signed off.
>> >
>> >Big John,
>> >
>> >Sounds like you forgot the wheel landings.
>> >
>> >FAR 61.31(i)(1)(ii) requires it unless recommended against by the
>> >manufacturer.
>> >
>> >Or perhaps the last tailwheel checkout you gave fell under FAR
>61.31(i)(2)
>> >
>> >After several thousand hours of tailwheel time and several more under
>> >'instruction given', I've seen some really sharp people show profiecncy
>in a
>> >very short time. But even the best of them could not demonstrate normal
>and
>> >crosswind takeoffs and landings, wheel landings and go-around procedures
>in
>> >the times given by some of the posters on this board.
>> >
>> >I'm always amazed at how many tailwheel pilots I've met who say they
>never
>> >did wheel landings during their training. And of the vast majority who
>did
>> >do them say, "but we only did one or two".
>> >
>> >IMHO, beyond just what's required by the FAA, I feel we do a disservice
>to
>> >ourselves and mostly to our tailwheel students if we don't do the best we
>> >can at trying to 'mix things up' for them. They need to know, and feel
>what
>> >it's like to land without enough right rudder, or what happens when it
>> >starts to swerve on them, or applying to much brake to soon, or using
>> >differential braking improperly, etc...
>> >
>> >If the student never experiences these things with us on board, what are
>> >their chances of a good out come when it happens in real life?
>> >
>> >PJ
>>
>

[PJ]

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

--
===============
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.
=========================================


"Big John" > wrote in message
...
> pj
>
> I've been down this rabbit trail before.
>
> There are those who swear by three point and those who 'swear' by
> wheels first.
>
> I'll agree there are times when one or the other are 'best' but since
> I started in the three point group I find it more comfortable and
> safer from my experience and therefore have talked and taught it for
> many years with good success both to myself and those I have taught or
> converted <G>.
>
> As an example, on my CFI check ride, I touched down three point with
> full up elevator, full left aileron and full right rudder in a Super
> Cub in a 30 MPH cross wind. Following this one landing the FAA check
> pilot took the controls and spent the rest of the flight instructing
> me how he expected a student to fly on his check ride for PP.
>
> I am not sure the average pilot could have made a wheel landing in a
> Super Cub in the conditions that existed that day. (At that time I
> could fly the box a bird came in <G>)
>
> Would love to get a tail wheel bird and fly around the back woods of
> Alaska like some of my friends who were stationed in Alaska did but
> time marches on.
>
> So, you teach your wheels and I'll go with the three point and we can
> argue at the bar.
>
> Big John
>
> Looking back, my going with three point probably goes back to my
> Primary Instructor in the PT-19. I could make the smoothest tail low
> wheel landings you ever would want . He said that he would wash me out
> if I didn't' make three point landings. I then made three 'Navy'
> landings from about three feet in the air and he soloed me and have
> made three pointers ever since except in the C-45 and on occasion in a
> few other birds.
>
> I think he had to go to the dentist after those three landings, solid
> to say the least and never bounced. <G>
>
>
>
> On Mon, 8 Dec 2003 22:39:09 -0800, "PJ" <pj at offairport dot com>
> wrote:
>
> >Hi Big John,
> >
> >Please understand, this is not an attack on your abilities as a tailwheel
> >pilot. I merely observed something in your post that I've seen many times
> >before so I used it to bring up a few points about 'tailwheel training'.
> >
> >You said;
> >
> >>>
> >You clipped in your post the wheel comment I made originally.
> >>>
> >
> >If I'm interpreting your message correctly, I suppose this was in
reference
> >to the fact that you said,
> >
> >>>
> >"Next week he borrow the bird from boss and took to Big Bend Park area in
> >south Texas, landing on a very primitative (out back) strip. Only shot a
> >couple of wheel landings so he could say he had shot some."
> >>>
> >
> >The points I were making in my original post were:
> >
> >#1 He was (according to your message) signed off prior to ever having
done
> >any wheel landings.
> >#2 When he finally did do wheel landings, he only did two. (Just to say,
"he
> >had shot some".)
> >#3 Simply satisfying the FAR is just the bare minimum required for sign
off.
> >
> >These points substantiate my views posted previously, about so many
> >tailwheel pilots being signed off having no or very little training in
wheel
> >landings. The FAR's say they have to 'show proficiency' prior to the
> >endorsement.
> >
> >As for the float flying, you never push the stick/yoke forward while
> >landing. I'm sure you know that and I'm not exactly sure what your point
was
> >with that comment. And if you compare it to .landing a tailwheel, it's
more
> >like doing a wheel as opposed to a 3 point landing.
> >
> >As for the Alaska pilots, I can only speak from my own personal
experience.
> >I fly Part 135 in Alaska, mostly 185's and Beaver's. I Instruct for fun
(on
> >the side - when I'm in the mood) in mostly Super Cub's, Citabria's and
> >140's, sometimes the 185. I personally do wheel landings most of the
time.
> >This includes landings on snow, glaciers, ridges, river bars and in and
out
> >of short 600 foot strips, what ever. It's really very rare that I'll do
a 3
> >point landing. It seems that 'most' pilots that I work with up here also
do
> >wheel landings most of the time. But that's not to say that there's not
> >people who do mostly 3 point landings. It's just my experience that with
my
> >flying and watching all the other pilots I see in my area, that the wheel
> >landings are the most often used.
> >
> >There are obvious advantages and disadvantages of both types of landings,
> >and we could argue them all day long. Personally, I like wheel landings,
> >they work for me and I've never had and accident doing them.
> >
> >If you ever get up to Alaska, drop me a note and I'll show you around.
> >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.
> >=========================================
> >
> >
> >"Big John" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> PJ
> >>
> >> Re-read my original post. You clipped in your post the wheel comment I
> >> made originally.
> >>
> >> Comment on landings.
> >>
> >> Wheel landings.
> >>
> >> Two basic types of wheel landings.
> >>
> >> 1. High airspeed on final and when over the runway and flared stick it
> >> on the ground with lots of forward stick. This puts the prop near the
> >> ground and the tail way up in the air.
> >>
> >> If you have a short R/W (out back) there is a good chance it is not
> >> long enough to make that kind of a wheel landing.
> >>
> >> As bird slows down you have to transition from the main gear to a
> >> three point attitude to get the tail wheel on the ground and with a
> >> cross wind this takes proficiency that a flight once or twice a month
> >> with one landing each will not give even if both are wheel landings..
> >>
> >> 2. Normal final air speed and normal flare and hold bird off in a tail
> >> low (not three point ) attitude . As main gear touches release the
> >> back pressure on stick (maybe add a 'little' forward stick) and roll
> >> down the R/W on main gear using rudder for directional control.
> >>
> >> Same problems transitioning from main wheels to three point.
> >>
> >> Three point landing.
> >>
> >> Three point touch down at minimum speed (bird stalled). Won't bounce
> >> back in air like a wheel landing can do if forward stick is not
> >> applied correctly.
> >>
> >> During and after three point touch down you hold the stick full back
> >> all the time which holds the tail wheel firmly on the ground and helps
> >> prevent ground loops (that happen oftener in wheel landings).
> >>
> >> I've clipped some of my text but believe you will get the idea of my
> >> years of tail wheel flying in all kinds of WX, R/W and aircraft.
> >>
> >> errata
> >>
> >> If you have floats do you try to stick the floats on or do you try to
> >> touch down in a tail low attitude?
> >>
> >> My '51 Group had one Sq who made all wheel landings. My Sq made three
> >> point. We had half the landing accidents the other Sq had.
> >>
> >> I wonder if any of the AK jocks are reading this post and can comment
> >> on wheel landings in AK?
> >>
> >> Big John
> >>
> >>
> >> On Mon, 8 Dec 2003 13:51:08 -0800, "PJ" <pj at off airport dot com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >> First period was three point touch and go and full stop on hard
> >> >> surface with light winds down the R/W. Included systems
> >> >> instruction.
> >> >>
> >> >> 2nd flight was three point landings on hard surface with 20 mph
cross
> >> >> wind and review of systems.
> >> >>
> >> >> 3rd flight was three point on gravel an dirt runway and review of
> >> >> systems.
> >> >>
> >> >> Signed off.
> >> >
> >> >Big John,
> >> >
> >> >Sounds like you forgot the wheel landings.
> >> >
> >> >FAR 61.31(i)(1)(ii) requires it unless recommended against by the
> >> >manufacturer.
> >> >
> >> >Or perhaps the last tailwheel checkout you gave fell under FAR
> >61.31(i)(2)
> >> >
> >> >After several thousand hours of tailwheel time and several more under
> >> >'instruction given', I've seen some really sharp people show
profiecncy
> >in a
> >> >very short time. But even the best of them could not demonstrate
normal
> >and
> >> >crosswind takeoffs and landings, wheel landings and go-around
procedures
> >in
> >> >the times given by some of the posters on this board.
> >> >
> >> >I'm always amazed at how many tailwheel pilots I've met who say they
> >never
> >> >did wheel landings during their training. And of the vast majority who
> >did
> >> >do them say, "but we only did one or two".
> >> >
> >> >IMHO, beyond just what's required by the FAA, I feel we do a
disservice
> >to
> >> >ourselves and mostly to our tailwheel students if we don't do the best
we
> >> >can at trying to 'mix things up' for them. They need to know, and feel
> >what
> >> >it's like to land without enough right rudder, or what happens when it
> >> >starts to swerve on them, or applying to much brake to soon, or using
> >> >differential braking improperly, etc...
> >> >
> >> >If the student never experiences these things with us on board, what
are
> >> >their chances of a good out come when it happens in real life?
> >> >
> >> >PJ
> >>
> >
>

[Bob Fry]

"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."

[Andrew Boyd]

(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

[Big John]

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 :o)

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

[Cub Driver]

>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

[PJ]

< 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

[Jim]

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

[Jim]

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."

[Robert M. Gary]

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.

[Michael]

(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

[Rocky]

(Michael) wrote in message >...
> (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