[Rant Warning] Tailwheel Training [Archive]

zatatime

May 16th 04, 04:34 AM

On Sun, 16 May 2004 01:11:51 GMT, EDR > wrote:

>I just came from my flying club's office where I scheduled a plane for
>tomorrow (Sunday).
>Both of the club's 182 are down for inspections and maintenance after
>hard landings. Two weeks ago, the club's Katana went down for the same
>reason. Three airplanes in two weeks!!!
>What are flight instructors allowing to pass for landings before
>signing students off for solo and PPL's for checkouts!!!
>If they are not holding the nosewheel off, they are going to break it
>off or bend the firewall!!!
>This is where tailwheel training comes in.
>It's about time the Feds require that all students must spend the first
>20 hours of their training in taildraggers. It's the only way they are
>going to learn propper control input on landings.

I'm sure I'll be in the minority here, but I tend to agee with you. I
worked at an airport that used a Cub as the Primary trainer until
solo. Then the students switched to a 172 for ticket completion (but
could solo the Cub if they wanted). Average was abou 10-12 hours in
the Cub. I have to say some of the best low time Private pilot's I've
known were products of that methodology.

Basics are the best foundation, and an under powered tailwheel
airplane without alot of radios sure does teach the basics of Flight!

z

(Just so you don't think I'm blowing my own horn, I didn't do much
instruction at that time, I mostly watched how the students
progressed.)

Dale

May 16th 04, 06:06 AM

In article >,
EDR > wrote:

> I just came from my flying club's office where I scheduled a plane for
> tomorrow (Sunday).
> Both of the club's 182 are down for inspections and maintenance after
> hard landings. Two weeks ago, the club's Katana went down for the same
> reason. Three airplanes in two weeks!!!
> What are flight instructors allowing to pass for landings before
> signing students off for solo and PPL's for checkouts!!!
> If they are not holding the nosewheel off, they are going to break it
> off or bend the firewall!!!
> This is where tailwheel training comes in.
> It's about time the Feds require that all students must spend the first
> 20 hours of their training in taildraggers. It's the only way they are
> going to learn propper control input on landings.

Oh horse ****!!! I have very little tail-wheel time but you can bet
your butt I know how to apply the proper control inputs...and I knew how
long before flying a tail-dragger!!

What a bunch of crap.

--
Dale L. Falk

There is nothing - absolutely nothing - half so much worth doing
as simply messing around with airplanes.

http://home.gci.net/~sncdfalk/flying.html

tony

May 16th 04, 10:10 AM

>
>> I just came from my flying club's office where I scheduled a plane for
>> tomorrow (Sunday).
>> Both of the club's 182 are down for inspections and maintenance after
>> hard landings. Two weeks ago, the club's Katana went down for the same
>> reason. Three airplanes in two weeks!!!
>> What are flight instructors allowing to pass for landings before
>> signing students off for solo and PPL's for checkouts!!!
>> If they are not holding the nosewheel off, they are going to break it
>> off or bend the firewall!!!
>> This is where tailwheel training comes in.
>> It's about time the Feds require that all students must spend the first
>> 20 hours of their training in taildraggers. It's the only way they are
>> going to learn propper control input on landings.
>
>
>Oh horse ****!!! I have very little tail-wheel time but you can bet
>your butt I know how to apply the proper control inputs...and I knew how
>long before flying a tail-dragger!!
>
>What a bunch of crap.

You may want to look at whoever signs off renters at your club. Sounds like he
or she has a special skill in selecting people,huh? I don't think the renters
all 747 pilots in real life, trying to touch down when their butss are 40 feet
from the runway.

Cub Driver

May 16th 04, 11:45 AM

>I'm sure I'll be in the minority here, but I tend to agee with you. I
>worked at an airport that used a Cub as the Primary trainer until
>solo. Then the students switched to a 172 for ticket completion (but
>could solo the Cub if they wanted). Average was abou 10-12 hours in
>the Cub. I have to say some of the best low time Private pilot's I've
>known were products of that methodology.

Hampton NH 7B3 still follows this procedure. I suppose that if a
student insisted, he could start out in a Cessna, but of all the
T-shirts I've seen posted over the pasted six years, none has boasted
about soloing in a 172.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
The Piper Cub Forum www.pipercubforum.com
Viva Bush! blog www.vivabush.org

C J Campbell

May 16th 04, 04:22 PM

So, your club is having a problem with hard landings, and you have
nonsensical solution that you want to apply to everybody else in the whole
world?

Tell me, if somebody in your club cuts their finger, do you think everybody
else should wear a Band-Aid (tm)?

Tom Sixkiller

May 16th 04, 05:35 PM

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
> So, your club is having a problem with hard landings, and you have
> nonsensical solution that you want to apply to everybody else in the whole
> world?
>
> Tell me, if somebody in your club cuts their finger, do you think
everybody
> else should wear a Band-Aid (tm)?
>
Now you know why our traffic laws were written for the "lowest denominator"
drivers. :~(

Robert M. Gary

May 16th 04, 06:44 PM

EDR > wrote in message >...
> I just came from my flying club's office where I scheduled a plane for
> tomorrow (Sunday).
> Both of the club's 182 are down for inspections and maintenance after
> hard landings. Two weeks ago, the club's Katana went down for the same
> reason. Three airplanes in two weeks!!!
> What are flight instructors allowing to pass for landings before
> signing students off for solo and PPL's for checkouts!!!
> If they are not holding the nosewheel off, they are going to break it
> off or bend the firewall!!!
> This is where tailwheel training comes in.
> It's about time the Feds require that all students must spend the first
> 20 hours of their training in taildraggers. It's the only way they are
> going to learn propper control input on landings.

The insurance for a tailwheel vs. similar nosewheel is amost as much
more as a retract vs. fixed gear. That should tell you something about
the rate of low time pilots putting tailwheels in the maintenance
shop.

-Robert, CFI (tailwheel and Mooney owner)

Newps

May 16th 04, 07:29 PM

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
om...
>
> The insurance for a tailwheel vs. similar nosewheel is amost as much
> more as a retract vs. fixed gear. That should tell you something about
> the rate of low time pilots putting tailwheels in the maintenance
> shop.

It never ceases to amaze me the stupid things seemingly sesnible people to.
Especially you EAA types. Three of these morons, all in their 60's and zero
TW time, each decided to build a tail wheel plane. The first contestant
decided to build an experimental version of a Piper Vagabond. He
groundlooped on his high speed taxi test, three times. He ground loops on
takeoff, on landing, ****, just getting in the damn thing. He has
groundlooped at least a dozen times. Got so damn funny somebody took a
screw gun and and screwed a set of training wheels off their kids bike onto
the wingtips. Somehow he has managed to only scrape the wing and not really
bend anything important. Second guy actually built a good performing
airplane. He built an experimental version of a PA-18. Took him exactly
two flights to end up on his nose. Minor damage to the prop and a new
spinner and he was good to go. Third moron, with thousands of hours in Navy
fighters and bombers and quite a few in a Mooney, decided to build a Kitfox.
This guy puts a full gyro panel in a Kitfox. Oh yeah he also put in an air
horn. You heard me, an airhorn, just like a semi. Two batteries and a
cargo pod later he is 50 pounds overgross with full tanks and just him in
the plane. 65 HP Rotax. With no wind he needs 2400 feet to get this crate
off the ground. Won't leave the ground until it gets to 50 MPH IAS. Max
cruise turns out to be 70 MPH IAS. Climbs at 300 fpm if he is lucky, needds
full forward stick just to stay airborne. Has a set of amphibs that were
supposed to be mounted. Never got the chance. Last Sunday he lost his
engine and landed with a 25 knot tailwind. Totally destroyed. He walked
away. He broke his back but he walked away. I look at these EAA guys and
it's clear the absolute worst thing that can happen is they actually finish
their plane.

EDR

May 16th 04, 10:23 PM

In article >, Robert M.
Gary > wrote:

> EDR > wrote in message
> >...
> > I just came from my flying club's office where I scheduled a plane for
> > tomorrow (Sunday).
> > Both of the club's 182 are down for inspections and maintenance after
> > hard landings. Two weeks ago, the club's Katana went down for the same
> > reason. Three airplanes in two weeks!!!
> > What are flight instructors allowing to pass for landings before
> > signing students off for solo and PPL's for checkouts!!!
> > If they are not holding the nosewheel off, they are going to break it
> > off or bend the firewall!!!
> > This is where tailwheel training comes in.
> > It's about time the Feds require that all students must spend the first
> > 20 hours of their training in taildraggers. It's the only way they are
> > going to learn propper control input on landings.
>
>
> The insurance for a tailwheel vs. similar nosewheel is amost as much
> more as a retract vs. fixed gear. That should tell you something about
> the rate of low time pilots putting tailwheels in the maintenance
> shop.

What you are saying reinforces my comments about poor quality
instructing. If instructors were doing their job properly and
correctly, these types of accidents would occur so frequently.
Next, one has to wonder about the DE's that are signing students off on
the PPL flight test!

EDR

May 16th 04, 11:09 PM

> EDR > wrote in message
> >...
> > I just came from my flying club's office where I scheduled a plane for
> > tomorrow (Sunday).
> > Both of the club's 182 are down for inspections and maintenance after
> > hard landings. Two weeks ago, the club's Katana went down for the same
> > reason. Three airplanes in two weeks!!!
> > What are flight instructors allowing to pass for landings before
> > signing students off for solo and PPL's for checkouts!!!
> > If they are not holding the nosewheel off, they are going to break it
> > off or bend the firewall!!!
> > This is where tailwheel training comes in.
> > It's about time the Feds require that all students must spend the first
> > 20 hours of their training in taildraggers. It's the only way they are
> > going to learn propper control input on landings.

> In article >, Robert M.
> Gary > wrote:
> The insurance for a tailwheel vs. similar nosewheel is amost as much
> more as a retract vs. fixed gear. That should tell you something about
> the rate of low time pilots putting tailwheels in the maintenance
> shop.

What you are saying reinforces my comments about poor quality
instructing. If instructors were doing their job properly and
correctly, these types of accidents would not occur so frequently.
Next, one has to wonder about the DE's that are signing students off on
the PPL flight test!

Dave Stadt

May 17th 04, 01:56 AM

"Newps" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
> om...
> >
> > The insurance for a tailwheel vs. similar nosewheel is amost as much
> > more as a retract vs. fixed gear. That should tell you something about
> > the rate of low time pilots putting tailwheels in the maintenance
> > shop.

Mostly because there are so few CFIs that know how to teach the basics.

C J Campbell

May 17th 04, 02:51 AM

"Dave Stadt" > wrote in message
. com...
>
> "Newps" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
> > om...
> > >
> > > The insurance for a tailwheel vs. similar nosewheel is amost as much
> > > more as a retract vs. fixed gear. That should tell you something about
> > > the rate of low time pilots putting tailwheels in the maintenance
> > > shop.
>
> Mostly because there are so few CFIs that know how to teach the basics.

Then there never in the entire history of aviation been CFIs that know how
to teach the basics. Tailwheel aircraft have always had a higher accident
rate than tricycle gear aircraft and they always will. There is absolutely
no reason to learn to fly a tailwheel aircraft unless you plan on owning one
or have some other special need, such as bush piloting or you are a CFI who
wants to instruct in them.

Tailwheel aircraft are obsolete. The only reason some people still build
them is to satisfy a bunch of macho technophobes who run around spreading
the myth that 'real' pilots fly tailwheel aircraft. If you are so insecure
that you need to do that then it is useless to point out that tailwheel
aircraft will make you no more of a man than any other airplane will.

The only reason tailwheel aircraft lasted as long as they did was because
the puny engines of the day needed to swing a bigger propeller than a
tricycle airplane can handle. Apparently there are a few pilots on this
forum who want a bigger propeller in order to compensate for something else.

Dave Stadt

May 17th 04, 04:29 AM

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Dave Stadt" > wrote in message
> . com...
> >
> > "Newps" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
> > > om...
> > > >
> > > > The insurance for a tailwheel vs. similar nosewheel is amost as much
> > > > more as a retract vs. fixed gear. That should tell you something
about
> > > > the rate of low time pilots putting tailwheels in the maintenance
> > > > shop.
> >
> > Mostly because there are so few CFIs that know how to teach the basics.
>
> Then there never in the entire history of aviation been CFIs that know how
> to teach the basics. Tailwheel aircraft have always had a higher accident
> rate than tricycle gear aircraft and they always will. There is absolutely
> no reason to learn to fly a tailwheel aircraft unless you plan on owning
one
> or have some other special need, such as bush piloting or you are a CFI
who
> wants to instruct in them.
>
> Tailwheel aircraft are obsolete. The only reason some people still build
> them is to satisfy a bunch of macho technophobes who run around spreading
> the myth that 'real' pilots fly tailwheel aircraft. If you are so insecure
> that you need to do that then it is useless to point out that tailwheel
> aircraft will make you no more of a man than any other airplane will.
>
> The only reason tailwheel aircraft lasted as long as they did was because
> the puny engines of the day needed to swing a bigger propeller than a
> tricycle airplane can handle. Apparently there are a few pilots on this
> forum who want a bigger propeller in order to compensate for something
else.

Basics are basics. Doesn't matter where the small wheel is.

OtisWinslow

May 17th 04, 01:34 PM

"EDR" > wrote in message
...
> It's about time the Feds require that all students must spend the first
> 20 hours of their training in taildraggers. It's the only way they are
> going to learn propper control input on landings.

If these CFIs can't train people to properly fly a nose dragger, why
would there be any reason to believe they'd do any better in
a tail dragger. There'd just be more wrecks. I think whoever is training
these people needs a little recurrent training themselves.

C J Campbell

May 17th 04, 03:39 PM

"OtisWinslow" > wrote in message
.. .
>
> "EDR" > wrote in message
> ...
> > It's about time the Feds require that all students must spend the first
> > 20 hours of their training in taildraggers. It's the only way they are
> > going to learn propper control input on landings.
>
> If these CFIs can't train people to properly fly a nose dragger, why
> would there be any reason to believe they'd do any better in
> a tail dragger. There'd just be more wrecks. I think whoever is training
> these people needs a little recurrent training themselves.

There are some people who seem to think that modern flight instructors do
not know how to fly or that they are generally all incompetent. It is a
variant of the old "the next generation is going to hell in a handbasket"
attitude.

The fact is that when these old codgers learned to fly the instructors
really were generally incompetent. They let people solo after an hour and a
half of instruction, there were no standards, and nobody cared about
airspace, radio procedures, or aircraft systems. The accident rate in those
days was five times higher than what it is now. The FAA was threatening to
shut down GA for good.

Now these old-timers go in for their flight reviews and find that they don't
understand the things they should have learned when they first got into an
airplane. They don't know airspace, can't hold heading or altitude, and
their landings can best be described as controlled crashes. Their judgment
is terrible; they will take off into thunderstorms and fly broken airplanes.
Many of them are completely incapable of landing on a paved runway. They
don't like being criticized by people who could be their own grandchildren
and they don't think 'the kids' have anything to teach them. Most of all,
they don't want to face the truth -- they are incompetent pilots and always
have been.

So they like to say that instructors who don't fly tailwheels or do loops or
who don't do much instruction are better instructors. They blame the
instructors for the fact that they themselves can't fly and will never
learn. EDR's rant is very typical of these people.

Henry and Debbie McFarland

May 17th 04, 04:13 PM

<If you are so insecure
> that you need to do that then it is useless to point out that tailwheel
> aircraft will make you no more of a man than any other airplane will.

Well...flying a taildragger didn't make me more of a man, thank God, but it
did make my boobs bigger.

That comment and the rest in this particular post is based on ignorance.
Folks fly tailwheel airplanes because they are just plain fun! Anyway, it's
hard to swagger away from a C-172.

Deb
--
1946 Luscombe 8A (His)
1948 Luscombe 8E (Hers)
1954 Cessna 195B, restoring (Ours)
Jasper, Ga. (JZP)

Henry and Debbie McFarland

May 17th 04, 04:19 PM

> So they like to say that instructors who don't fly tailwheels or do loops
or
> who don't do much instruction are better instructors. They blame the
> instructors for the fact that they themselves can't fly and will never
> learn. EDR's rant is very typical of these people.
>

And your rant is typical of the instructor we all fear.... Of the fifteen or
so CFI's I have flown with for various checkouts, the best were those who
were proficient in ALL types of aircraft, including tailwheel.

The teacher who continuously learns has something grand to share.

Deb

--
1946 Luscombe 8A (His)
1948 Luscombe 8E (Hers)
1954 Cessna 195B, restoring (Ours)
Jasper, Ga. (JZP)

Dale

May 17th 04, 04:39 PM

In article . net>,
"Henry and Debbie McFarland" > wrote:

> Folks fly tailwheel airplanes because they are just plain fun! Anyway, it's
> hard to swagger away from a C-172.

My swagger comes not from the airplane I've flown, but from how well
I've flown it.

--
Dale L. Falk

There is nothing - absolutely nothing - half so much worth doing
as simply messing around with airplanes.

http://home.gci.net/~sncdfalk/flying.html

EDR

May 17th 04, 05:25 PM

In article >, C J Campbell
> wrote:

> So they like to say that instructors who don't fly tailwheels or do loops or
> who don't do much instruction are better instructors. They blame the
> instructors for the fact that they themselves can't fly and will never
> learn. EDR's rant is very typical of these people.

And I am only 49 and learned got my PPL in 1980!
I'm such a crumudgeon!
The difference is, I learned to fly from the graybeards who taught me
not to make the mistakes they did.

Henry and Debbie McFarland

May 17th 04, 05:41 PM

> My swagger comes not from the airplane I've flown, but from how well
> I've flown it.
>

That's it! If you've landed your taildragger without hitting the weeds, you
and the rest of the world know you've flown it well
:-). If you managed to get the thing died down, then you know you're damned
good! If you manage to kiss the ground in glee and not be seen by your
tricycle-geared brethren, then you're Aviation Hall of Fame material.

Actually, anybody can land a tailwheel airplane, and if you've had good
primary training, the transition is easy. I think that's the gist of this
rant. The docile C-172 will let many pilots and instructors learn and pass
on bad habits. The tailwheel airplane weeds those bad habits out, literally.
I know. I learned to fly in my own C-172. I didn't really 'fly" it, however,
until I learned to fly the Luscombe. The Luscombe taught me how the fly the
C-172 and fly it well.

Ironically, we jest about swaggering taildragger pilots, but you will find
that a tailwheel aircraft will teach you humility like no other airplane. If
it doesn't, you'll be one those chasing yer tail in the weeds.

Deb

--
1946 Luscombe 8A (His)
1948 Luscombe 8E (Hers)
1954 Cessna 195B, restoring (Ours)
Jasper, Ga. (JZP)

C J Campbell

May 17th 04, 06:20 PM

"EDR" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, C J Campbell
> > wrote:
>
> > So they like to say that instructors who don't fly tailwheels or do
loops or
> > who don't do much instruction are better instructors. They blame the
> > instructors for the fact that they themselves can't fly and will never
> > learn. EDR's rant is very typical of these people.
>
> And I am only 49 and learned got my PPL in 1980!
> I'm such a crumudgeon!
> The difference is, I learned to fly from the graybeards who taught me
> not to make the mistakes they did.

I am older than you, so mind your manners, Sonny! :-)

Robert M. Gary

May 17th 04, 07:19 PM

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message >...
> There is absolutely
> no reason to learn to fly a tailwheel aircraft unless you plan on owning one
> or have some other special need, such as bush piloting or you are a CFI who
> wants to instruct in them.

My tailwheel background certainly makes me a much better Mooney pilot.
It certainly makes me a better CFI. I'm able to let students take the
172 further towards the weeds with confidence that I can control it.
Non-tailwheel CFIs have to jump in there right away and the students
takes 3 times longer to learn foot work.

-Robert, CFI

C J Campbell

May 17th 04, 08:43 PM

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
om...
> "C J Campbell" > wrote in message
>...
> > There is absolutely
> > no reason to learn to fly a tailwheel aircraft unless you plan on owning
one
> > or have some other special need, such as bush piloting or you are a CFI
who
> > wants to instruct in them.
>
> My tailwheel background certainly makes me a much better Mooney pilot.
> It certainly makes me a better CFI. I'm able to let students take the
> 172 further towards the weeds with confidence that I can control it.
> Non-tailwheel CFIs have to jump in there right away and the students
> takes 3 times longer to learn foot work.

It is not your tailwheel background that lets you do that. It is your
experience, pure and simple.

It is awfully hard for a student to run off into the weeds on a 150' wide
runway. I just let them go where they want. They learn pretty quick.

JFLEISC

May 17th 04, 09:30 PM

>Well...flying a taildragger didn't make me more of a man, thank God, but it
>did make my boobs bigger.
>
>That comment and the rest in this particular post is based on ignorance.
>Folks fly tailwheel airplanes because they are just plain fun! Anyway, it's
>hard to swagger away from a C-172.
>
>Deb

My tail dragger was "put up" for the winter and I wound up flying my wife's
C-172 during that time. I found it made me lazy. No matter if I flaired it,
plunked it or flew it onto the runway the landings always came out the same.
It is amazing how much punishment it would take. If I landed like that in my
"tail" plane I might not walk away. Getting back into it in the spring I got
the "wake up call" and had to start paying attention again during landings.
I also agree; That 172 is good, just boring.
Incidently, I once flew an 8A and found it to be one of the most difficult
ground handling airplanes I ever flew. My hat's off to those who do it well.
Also, this 'bigger boobs' thing is interesting. Does it cause any CG problems?
;-)

Jim (RV-4 driver)

G.R. Patterson III

May 18th 04, 12:18 AM

Henry and Debbie McFarland wrote:
>
> Well...flying a taildragger didn't make me more of a man, thank God, but it
> did make my boobs bigger.

Details please! Yet another argument I can use to encourage Elisabeth to take flight
training. Not that she needs any improvement in that area, but I've met few women who
didn't *think* they needed improvement there.

George Patterson
I childproofed my house, but they *still* get in.

G.R. Patterson III

May 18th 04, 12:20 AM

EDR wrote:
>
> The difference is, I learned to fly from the graybeards who taught me
> not to make the mistakes they did.

In other words, you learned from some of the people C.J. is talking about.

George Patterson
I childproofed my house, but they *still* get in.

EDR

May 18th 04, 01:13 AM

In article >, G.R. Patterson III
> wrote:

> EDR wrote:
> > The difference is, I learned to fly from the graybeards who taught me
> > not to make the mistakes they did.

> In other words, you learned from some of the people C.J. is talking about.

Yea, you could probably say that.

Dave Russell

May 18th 04, 02:00 AM

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message >...

> Apparently there are a few pilots on this
> forum who want a bigger propeller in order to compensate for something else.

OK CJ.... but tell us this: How many taildragger hours do you have?
How about glider? Aerobatic? Formation?

IMHO, learning any of those skills will make you a better, safer, and
more confident pilot. They all demand quality piloting skills and
provide immediate, get-your-attention feedback when you make any
mistakes.

Anybody with a pulse can learn to land a 172 safely while making some
pretty gross mistakes on the airmanship-front. (And I know, because
I've done that, too. :-)

-Dave Russell
8KCAB

Andrew Sarangan

May 18th 04, 03:40 AM

In my limited experience dealing with those who earned their certificates
long before I was even born, I do tend to agree somewhat with CJ's
comments. I have done several flight reviews with such individuals, and
it was not a pleasant experience. The ground review is dominated by them
telling me war stories and never really answering my questions. I try to
be polite and listen to the stories, but my questions go unanswered. It
is a very frustrating experience for me. I had one guy who flew the
entire time with his feet on the floor. However, some of the greatest
pilots I have met are also from the same generation, so I would not
generalize this observation. It is however safe to say that on average we
are training better pilots today than we did several decades ago.

"C J Campbell" > wrote in
:

>
> "OtisWinslow" > wrote in message
> .. .
>>
>> "EDR" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > It's about time the Feds require that all students must spend the
>> > first 20 hours of their training in taildraggers. It's the only way
>> > they are going to learn propper control input on landings.
>>
>> If these CFIs can't train people to properly fly a nose dragger, why
>> would there be any reason to believe they'd do any better in
>> a tail dragger. There'd just be more wrecks. I think whoever is
>> training these people needs a little recurrent training themselves.
>
> There are some people who seem to think that modern flight instructors
> do not know how to fly or that they are generally all incompetent. It
> is a variant of the old "the next generation is going to hell in a
> handbasket" attitude.
>
> The fact is that when these old codgers learned to fly the instructors
> really were generally incompetent. They let people solo after an hour
> and a half of instruction, there were no standards, and nobody cared
> about airspace, radio procedures, or aircraft systems. The accident
> rate in those days was five times higher than what it is now. The FAA
> was threatening to shut down GA for good.
>
> Now these old-timers go in for their flight reviews and find that they
> don't understand the things they should have learned when they first
> got into an airplane. They don't know airspace, can't hold heading or
> altitude, and their landings can best be described as controlled
> crashes. Their judgment is terrible; they will take off into
> thunderstorms and fly broken airplanes. Many of them are completely
> incapable of landing on a paved runway. They don't like being
> criticized by people who could be their own grandchildren and they
> don't think 'the kids' have anything to teach them. Most of all, they
> don't want to face the truth -- they are incompetent pilots and always
> have been.
>
> So they like to say that instructors who don't fly tailwheels or do
> loops or who don't do much instruction are better instructors. They
> blame the instructors for the fact that they themselves can't fly and
> will never learn. EDR's rant is very typical of these people.
>
>

Dave Stadt

May 18th 04, 04:46 AM

"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> EDR wrote:
> >
> > The difference is, I learned to fly from the graybeards who taught me
> > not to make the mistakes they did.
>
> In other words, you learned from some of the people C.J. is talking about.

The ones CJ says don't know how to fly. Funny, I learn more from the grey
beards in five minutes than several hours with the airline wannabes. Many
of the grey beards have flown anything and everything and learned from all
of them. The wannabes and other CFIs with 500 or even 5,000 of the same
hour in a 152/172 have very little to offer.

> George Patterson
> I childproofed my house, but they *still* get in.

Capt.Doug

May 18th 04, 04:50 AM

>"C J Campbell" wrote in message > It is not your tailwheel background that
>lets you do that. It is your experience, pure and simple.

I see your point. However, I've also seen many new-hire first officers who
never learned good rudder control during landing. In a C-172, poor rudder
control is of little consequence. In a larger plane were they are seated far
forward of the wingspar (C.G.), poor rudder control manifests itself as
prematurely worn landing gear parts. Taildragger training emphasizes rudder
control. I'd much rather have them hone their rudder control on 2 tires
instead of 4 tires.

D.

Dylan Smith

May 18th 04, 09:29 AM

In article >, C J Campbell wrote:
> Then there never in the entire history of aviation been CFIs that know how
> to teach the basics. Tailwheel aircraft have always had a higher accident
> rate than tricycle gear aircraft and they always will. There is absolutely
> no reason to learn to fly a tailwheel aircraft unless you plan on owning one
> or have some other special need, such as bush piloting or you are a CFI who
> wants to instruct in them.

Please keep telling your students this - it will hopefully become a good
meme that will lower the demand for tailwheel planes, therefore making
the purchase price for those of us who like them less due to the laws of
supply and demand :-)

Speaking for myself, I did my first ~300 hrs in nosedraggers, then did a
tailwheel checkout so I could fly the club's 170. It really did improve
my landings because it forces you to (a) always land perfectly straight
and (b) always in the correct attitude. It's easy to get sloppy or out
of practice when flying something that essentially lands itself like a
C172.

Additionally, the C170 has much better over-the-nose visibility than a
C172 or a Warrior *on the ground* in the 3-point attitude. In flight,
the view is spectacular.

--
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"

Henry and Debbie McFarland

May 18th 04, 01:04 PM

All that extra ego I gained had to go somewhere ;-).

Deb

--
1946 Luscombe 8A (His)
1948 Luscombe 8E (Hers)
1954 Cessna 195B, restoring (Ours)
Jasper, Ga. (JZP)

"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Henry and Debbie McFarland wrote:
> >
> > Well...flying a taildragger didn't make me more of a man, thank God, but
it
> > did make my boobs bigger.
>
> Details please! Yet another argument I can use to encourage Elisabeth to
take flight
> training. Not that she needs any improvement in that area, but I've met
few women who
> didn't *think* they needed improvement there.
>
> George Patterson
> I childproofed my house, but they *still* get in.

Andrew Sarangan

May 18th 04, 03:03 PM

"C J Campbell" > wrote in
:

>
> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
> om...
>> "C J Campbell" > wrote in
>> message
> >...
>> > There is absolutely
>> > no reason to learn to fly a tailwheel aircraft unless you plan on
>> > owning
> one
>> > or have some other special need, such as bush piloting or you are a
>> > CFI
> who
>> > wants to instruct in them.
>>
>> My tailwheel background certainly makes me a much better Mooney
>> pilot. It certainly makes me a better CFI. I'm able to let students
>> take the 172 further towards the weeds with confidence that I can
>> control it. Non-tailwheel CFIs have to jump in there right away and
>> the students takes 3 times longer to learn foot work.
>
> It is not your tailwheel background that lets you do that. It is your
> experience, pure and simple.
>
> It is awfully hard for a student to run off into the weeds on a 150'
> wide runway. I just let them go where they want. They learn pretty
> quick.
>
>

I tend to agree with CJ on this. I am a tailwheel instructor now, but I
was not always one. Because I kept hearing comments like 'you are not a
real pilot until you have flown a tailwheel', I took the challenge to
transition to a 1946 Luscomb 8A. I did not find anything particularly
difficult about it, probably because I was already using the correct
techniques in the tricycle gear airplanes. The limited view over the nose
was the most difficult thing I had to get over. We even landed in 15 knot
cross winds.

Dan Thomas

May 18th 04, 03:20 PM

Andrew Sarangan > wrote in message >...
> In my limited experience dealing with those who earned their certificates
> long before I was even born, I do tend to agree somewhat with CJ's
> comments. I have done several flight reviews with such individuals, and
> it was not a pleasant experience. The ground review is dominated by them
> telling me war stories and never really answering my questions. I try to
> be polite and listen to the stories, but my questions go unanswered. It
> is a very frustrating experience for me. I had one guy who flew the
> entire time with his feet on the floor. However, some of the greatest
> pilots I have met are also from the same generation, so I would not
> generalize this observation. It is however safe to say that on average we
> are training better pilots today than we did several decades ago.

We run three 172s, a 182RG and a Citabria, and that Citabria is
the most popular airplane among both students and instructors. It's
worth as many dollars as any of the 172s, but the insurance costs no
more than a 172. The students that start in it are more competent when
they finish the PPL than those who do it all in a 172, and that's in
all areas except basic instrument flying, since it has a rather basic
panel. The student has to maintain control of an unruly airplane and
has to be able to read a map, use a wet compass and and a watch. No
fancy radios to do all the work for him, no self-landing gear. And the
student spends no more time learning all this than he does in the 172.
He goes on to the 172 and 182 with sharp flying skills and is a much
better pilot in the end.
We just bought another Citabria, and they can't wait until it's
ready to go.
As far as another poster's rant about EAA types: As with any group
of people, you have the black sheep that seem bent on giving the rest
a bad name. We could paint all private pilots with the same brush, as
this poster did with the homebuilders, since there are enough weekend
warriors that will tangle with thunderstorms and winds and unairworthy
airplanes, and who will buzz friend's houses and ultimately kill
themselves and a couple of friends. But that wouldn't be fair, would
it? You only hear about the few brainless EAAers, not the thousands of
earnest guys/gals building and flying airplanes that are light-years
ahead of anything Wichita sells.

Dan

Newps

May 18th 04, 04:11 PM

"Dan Thomas" > wrote in message
om...

The student has to maintain control of an unruly airplane and
> has to be able to read a map, use a wet compass and and a watch.

Huh? Once in the air a plane is a plane. Maybe yours isn't rigged right.

C J Campbell

May 18th 04, 04:34 PM

"Henry and Debbie McFarland" > wrote in message
link.net...
> > So they like to say that instructors who don't fly tailwheels or do
loops
> or
> > who don't do much instruction are better instructors. They blame the
> > instructors for the fact that they themselves can't fly and will never
> > learn. EDR's rant is very typical of these people.
> >
>
> And your rant is typical of the instructor we all fear.... Of the fifteen
or
> so CFI's I have flown with for various checkouts, the best were those who
> were proficient in ALL types of aircraft, including tailwheel.
>

And my point is that it is no more fair to say that all the modern
instructors are incompetent than it is to say that all the old pilots are
incompetent. I myself am an older pilot, a gray haired old geezer (if I
actually had any hair).

My other point is that it does not take tailwheel training to learn to land
an airplane. It is something you should be taught no matter what airplane
you fly. Blaming instructors just because they have no tailwheel training is
way off the mark.

The funniest thing, though, is that the guy who took me most severely to
task about tailwheel training has no rudder pedals at all on his airplane!
(And a beautiful airplane it is, too!)

And I won't even make mention of the fact that the guy who had his head down
in the cockpit trying to read his map when he ran into another airplane near
Tenino on Sunday was flying a tailwheel airplane. That is just a cheap shot,
so I won't mention it. Nope, not me. :-)

Dylan Smith

May 18th 04, 04:49 PM

In article >, C J Campbell wrote:
> There are some people who seem to think that modern flight instructors do
> not know how to fly or that they are generally all incompetent...

I'm sure it's always been the case that there's been a body of flight
instructors who can't teach (as well as students who aren't interested
in learning).

The main problem with dodgy flight instruction, as far as I can tell,
isn't that most students aren't taught in tailwheel planes but there's a
high number of "certificate mill" instructors who don't have much real
experience either of teaching or of flying. Because of this, old wives'
tales get propagated (the best one I've heard recently is "Never slip
the aircraft after you've had an engine failure as you'll lose airspeed
and might stall", and one I have recorded on video was "You let your
student solo on grass!? Isn't that dangerous?" from one CFI to another -
both CFIs, I might mention, were in their 30s). Not only do OWTs get
propagated simply because the instructor doesn't have the experience to
know better, but bad technique gets handed down from certificate mill
instructor to the next certificate mill instructor - such as thinking
that there's nothing wrong with a fast flat landing or touching down in
a slight crab instead of having the wheels moving in the direction of
travel over the ground.

--
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"

Greg Esres

May 18th 04, 05:22 PM

<<bad technique gets handed down from certificate mill
instructor to the next certificate mill instructor>>

There's another possible culprit...flying is so expensive that lots of
people simply don't want to spend the money to learn to fly well.

I also suspect that Part 141 instruction lends itself to turning out
pilots with marginal stick and rudder skills.

zatatime

May 18th 04, 07:32 PM

On Tue, 18 May 2004 15:49:51 -0000, Dylan Smith
> wrote:

>In article >, C J Campbell wrote:
>> There are some people who seem to think that modern flight instructors do
>> not know how to fly or that they are generally all incompetent...
>
>I'm sure it's always been the case that there's been a body of flight
>instructors who can't teach (as well as students who aren't interested
>in learning).
>
>The main problem with dodgy flight instruction, as far as I can tell,
>isn't that most students aren't taught in tailwheel planes but there's a
>high number of "certificate mill" instructors who don't have much real
>experience either of teaching or of flying. Because of this, old wives'
>tales get propagated (the best one I've heard recently is "Never slip
>the aircraft after you've had an engine failure as you'll lose airspeed
>and might stall", and one I have recorded on video was "You let your
>student solo on grass!? Isn't that dangerous?" from one CFI to another -
>both CFIs, I might mention, were in their 30s). Not only do OWTs get
>propagated simply because the instructor doesn't have the experience to
>know better, but bad technique gets handed down from certificate mill
>instructor to the next certificate mill instructor - such as thinking
>that there's nothing wrong with a fast flat landing or touching down in
>a slight crab instead of having the wheels moving in the direction of
>travel over the ground.

This one is a little scary:

"Never slip
>the aircraft after you've had an engine failure as you'll lose airspeed
>and might stall",

....But this one made my day!!!

"You let your
>student solo on grass!? Isn't that dangerous?"

If you really have that on video - make a backup and keep it forever.

Thanks,
z

Rocky

May 18th 04, 07:41 PM

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message >...
> "OtisWinslow" > wrote in message
> .. .
> >
> > "EDR" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > It's about time the Feds require that all students must spend the first
> > > 20 hours of their training in taildraggers. It's the only way they are
> > > going to learn propper control input on landings.
> >
> > If these CFIs can't train people to properly fly a nose dragger, why
> > would there be any reason to believe they'd do any better in
> > a tail dragger. There'd just be more wrecks. I think whoever is training
> > these people needs a little recurrent training themselves.
>
> There are some people who seem to think that modern flight instructors do
> not know how to fly or that they are generally all incompetent. It is a
> variant of the old "the next generation is going to hell in a handbasket"
> attitude.
>
> The fact is that when these old codgers learned to fly the instructors
> really were generally incompetent. They let people solo after an hour and a
> half of instruction, there were no standards, and nobody cared about
> airspace, radio procedures, or aircraft systems. The accident rate in those
> days was five times higher than what it is now. The FAA was threatening to
> shut down GA for good.
>
> Now these old-timers go in for their flight reviews and find that they don't
> understand the things they should have learned when they first got into an
> airplane. They don't know airspace, can't hold heading or altitude, and
> their landings can best be described as controlled crashes. Their judgment
> is terrible; they will take off into thunderstorms and fly broken airplanes.
> Many of them are completely incapable of landing on a paved runway. They
> don't like being criticized by people who could be their own grandchildren
> and they don't think 'the kids' have anything to teach them. Most of all,
> they don't want to face the truth -- they are incompetent pilots and always
> have been.
>
> So they like to say that instructors who don't fly tailwheels or do loops or
> who don't do much instruction are better instructors. They blame the
> instructors for the fact that they themselves can't fly and will never
> learn. EDR's rant is very typical of these people.

Wow
That is quite an indictment towards us old gray haired guys. My
original instructor has a 6 digit license and still flies. He has
probably forgotten more than I'll know about aviation and much of what
he taught me is still valid.
During a recent flight review, the CFI wanted to pay me for the ride
after I showed him so many things that are not in the book or required
of new pilots.
I've made more mistakes than most but mainly because I got out there
in the tough world of ag and bush flying. The mistakes I made allows
me to teach new or lesser experienced pilots how to avoid those same
mistakes. They are free to learn their own! The regulations, radio
procedures, new avionics, additional restrictions on where and when we
can fly are all part of advancing technology. The flying is still the
same even when the aircraft are different. Many of the techniques that
are used in a J3 Cub are just as applicable to a slick turboprop or
jet.
As for the tail wheel discussions, I learned in tailwheel aircraft in
the 50's and now have someplace in the neighborhood of 8000 hours in
them with lots of it doing takeoff and landings. I've done a lot of
instructing in them as well and there is no doubt that the pilots who
learn to control tailwheel aircraft are much better with takeoffs and
landings than those who only fly trikes. It even shows in helicopters,
and yes I have a lot of time in them too. I kind of take it personal
when someone makes a blanket statement that us old gray haired guys
are incompetent and full of crap.
Ol Shy & Bashful 21,000+ and still going - CFI/IRAM Gold Seal

C J Campbell

May 18th 04, 08:23 PM

"Rocky" > wrote in message
om...
>I kind of take it personal
> when someone makes a blanket statement that us old gray haired guys
> are incompetent and full of crap.
> Ol Shy & Bashful 21,000+ and still going - CFI/IRAM Gold Seal

Speaking as a gray haired guy, all I can say is that the accident statistics
speak for themselves. Back when everybody learned in tailwheel aircraft the
accident rate was much higher. The accident rate for even tailwheel aircraft
has gone down considerably with better instruction. In 1946 the GA accident
rate was 77.83 per 100,000 hours of flight. In 1982 the GA accident rate was
10.9 per 100,000 hours. By 2001 it had dropped to 5.96. Fatal accidents show
a similar trend downward.

I don't buy the idea that flight instruction is worse now than it used to
be, plain and simple. The accident rate says that flight instruction now is
better. Anyone who says it isn't is full of it. I also stand by my assertion
that the worst complainers are old guys who were poorly trained in the first
place, have not kept current, and who themselves are a menace to aviation.

Are all old guys like that? Of course not. But neither are all the flight
instructors incompetent simply because they have not flown tailwheel
aircraft, flown loops or rolls, have 22,000 hours, or have shot down five
enemy aircraft. I know one guy on this forum who probably thinks that you
should not be flight instructing, simply because you have more hours
instructing than you do flying other missions. Apparently that idiot thinks
the best instructors are those that don't instruct.

Neither do I buy the idea that flying a bunch of different types makes you a
better instructor. All instructors fly many different types, but if you look
at their logs you will see that the preponderance of hours has always been
in two or three types. That has always been true of flight instructors and
always will be. It is a complete mischaracterization to suggest that flight
instructors working their way into the airlines are 'wannabes' who are not
real pilots. I know many such flight instructors and respect them deeply.
I'll bet they have time in more types than some of the people who say that
those instructors' experience is limited only to 172s. Airlines don't hire
pilots who have flown only Skyhawks.

I will put it plain. EDR's post was way off base. It was offensive. It was
stupid. It contained a bunch of flat-out generalizations and old wives tales
that at best are only slightly dangerous and at worst evidence of serious
hatred. EDR owes an apology to flight instructors.

EDR

May 18th 04, 09:28 PM

In article >, C J Campbell
> wrote:

> I will put it plain. EDR's post was way off base. It was offensive. It was
> stupid. It contained a bunch of flat-out generalizations and old wives tales
> that at best are only slightly dangerous and at worst evidence of serious
> hatred. EDR owes an apology to flight instructors.

No, I don't.
I found out yesterday that the one 182 that was damaged badly, was
flown by the owner.
I also spoke with one of the instructors who has flown with him.
That checkout instructor told me point blank that the 182 was too much
airplane for that pilot and that he has been trying everything he can
think of to get the pilot's crosswind landings to be what they should.

Well... why did he sign him off if he didn't think the guy could handle
the airplane?
Probably because a) the airplane is on leaseback to the club, and b)
the guy owns the airplane. (Did I mention the owner is a lawyer?)
This is an old time instructor, too. But there is obviously a conflict
of interest.

Again, I go back to the original instructor and the examiner. Why was
this student allowed to take PPL flight test if he could not handle the
airplane to the PPL standards?

As others have posted, the 172 is a forgiving aircraft and allows a
poorly trained student to slip through the system.

JFLEISC

May 18th 04, 09:54 PM

>Funny, I learn more from the grey
>beards in five minutes than several hours with the airline wannabes. Many
>of the grey beards have flown anything and everything and learned from all
>of them. The wannabes and other CFIs with 500 or even 5,000 of the same
>hour in a 152/172 have very little to offer.

Amen to that!

Dale

May 18th 04, 10:26 PM

In article >,
EDR > wrote:

> As others have posted, the 172 is a forgiving aircraft and allows a
> poorly trained student to slip through the system.

The airplane doesn't allow anthing to happen. The system allows poorly
trained pilots - taildragger and well as nosedragger - to slip through
the system.

And about the "super" taildragger pilots. I used to fly a tricycle gear
airplane that had virtually everyone who flew it wimpering in
frustration just trying to get it to the runway for takeoff. It made a
tailwheel airplane seem easy.

--
Dale L. Falk

There is nothing - absolutely nothing - half so much worth doing
as simply messing around with airplanes.

http://home.gci.net/~sncdfalk/flying.html

Dylan Smith

May 18th 04, 11:18 PM

In article >, Dale wrote:
> And about the "super" taildragger pilots. I used to fly a tricycle gear
> airplane that had virtually everyone who flew it wimpering in
> frustration just trying to get it to the runway for takeoff. It made a
> tailwheel airplane seem easy.

I'm intrigued...what was it and what made it so difficult to taxi?

The only nosewheel plane I've found tricky to taxi was the Nangchang
CJ6, and that's because it had vastly different systems to anything
I'd flown. The brakes were pneumatic. The nosewheel was castoring.
The over-the-nose visibility on the ground wasn't very good. To steer,
you pushed the rudder pedal to the floor in the direction you wanted
to steer, then used the stick-mounted handbrake to dab the brake,
and the braking would be applied to the wheel on the inside of the
turn. The brakes were more or less digital (either on or off, very
little inbetween) It just took getting used to after taxiing with hydraulic
toe brakes and a steerable nosewheel (or tailwheel for that matter).

--
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"

Dan Thomas

May 19th 04, 02:09 AM

"Newps" > wrote in message >...
> "Dan Thomas" > wrote in message
> om...
>
>
> The student has to maintain control of an unruly airplane and
> > has to be able to read a map, use a wet compass and and a watch.
>
> Huh? Once in the air a plane is a plane. Maybe yours isn't rigged right.

Oh, man. Have you never flown a Champ or Cub or some other older
design that had lots of adverse yaw, and that might flick over into a
spin if you skidded it around the base-to-final turn? One that
required some serious attention in most maneuvers if you were going to
gain any proficiency in it at all? Even if it's rigged perfectly?
These older designs make the pilot aware of his need for precision,
and once he learns it his flying of all other aircraft improves
enormously. In 12 years here I've seen these taildraggers cure a lot
of sloppiness. We've used them to demonstrate the skidding-turn spin,
thereby showing the student what eventually awaits him if he gets
stupid at low altitude. Some guys get their PPL in a 172 or Warrior
and then go buy an old 140 or Champ or Tri-Pacer and get into trouble
almost immediately.
We also use the Citabria for emergency maneuvers training (basic
aerobatics) to show the control inputs required to get an airplane
upright again if control is lost in extreme turbulence or wake
turbulence. Try THAT in a 172.
A plane is not a plane. That idea has killed way to many
uninitated folks.

Dan

Dale

May 19th 04, 04:12 AM

In article >,
Dylan Smith > wrote:

> I'm intrigued...what was it and what made it so difficult to taxi?

B-24. It has a castoring nosewheel that wants to turn with the
slightest provacation, expander-tube brakes (slow to react), and a CG
very close to the main gear...get rough on the brakes and you could
bounce the nose off the ground.

The expander tube brakes work off of an open hydraulic system...there is
a slight delay when you press the brake pedal until you get some braking
action..just enough delay that until you get used to them you think "I
need more brake" and mash the pedal a little farther. About then you
find out you now have way to much brake, the nose dives and she lurches
to whichever side you've applied brake to..repeat until your eyes water.
<G> The airplane can make you look like a spastic idiot in a very short
time...but once you get the hang of it there is a great deal of
satisfaction in being able to smoothly taxi and park her. We used to
joke that if you had the skills to get it to the runway you could
probably fly it. <G>

By contrast the B-17 was very easy to taxi...she was however a wee bit
more challenging to land in a crosswind than the B-24.

--
Dale L. Falk

There is nothing - absolutely nothing - half so much worth doing
as simply messing around with airplanes.

http://home.gci.net/~sncdfalk/flying.html

C J Campbell

May 19th 04, 04:44 AM

"EDR" > wrote in message
...
>
> As others have posted, the 172 is a forgiving aircraft and allows a
> poorly trained student to slip through the system.

Damn, your eyes are brown.

Teacherjh

May 19th 04, 05:52 AM

>>
Oh, man. Have you never flown a Champ or Cub or some other older
design that had lots of adverse yaw, and that might flick over into a
spin if you skidded it around the base-to-final turn?
<<

is this behavior =caused= by the position of the middle wheel, or is it just
coincidence and history that they are taildraggers?

Jose

--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

Tom Sixkiller

May 19th 04, 06:24 AM

"EDR" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, C J Campbell
> > wrote:
>
> > I will put it plain. EDR's post was way off base. It was offensive. It
was
> > stupid. It contained a bunch of flat-out generalizations and old wives
tales
> > that at best are only slightly dangerous and at worst evidence of
serious
> > hatred. EDR owes an apology to flight instructors.
>
> No, I don't.
> I found out yesterday that the one 182 that was damaged badly, was
> flown by the owner.
> I also spoke with one of the instructors who has flown with him.
> That checkout instructor told me point blank that the 182 was too much
> airplane for that pilot and that he has been trying everything he can
> think of to get the pilot's crosswind landings to be what they should.
>
> Well... why did he sign him off if he didn't think the guy could handle
> the airplane?
> Probably because a) the airplane is on leaseback to the club, and b)
> the guy owns the airplane. (Did I mention the owner is a lawyer?)
> This is an old time instructor, too. But there is obviously a conflict
> of interest.
>
> Again, I go back to the original instructor and the examiner. Why was
> this student allowed to take PPL flight test if he could not handle the
> airplane to the PPL standards?
>
> As others have posted, the 172 is a forgiving aircraft and allows a
> poorly trained student to slip through the system.

And on this instance you generalize about all instructors and techniques?
Tailwheel training?

Michael

May 19th 04, 06:34 AM

EDR > wrote
> No, I want to weed out the lame instructors!!!

Then the real solution is to require that in order to instruct, you
have to make 10 solo takeoffs and landings in a tailwheel airplane.
BTW, I favor such a requirement. It's not a hardship to anyone who
has any business instructing.

Michael

Tom Sixkiller

May 19th 04, 07:55 AM

Cub Driver

May 19th 04, 10:03 AM

>And I won't even make mention of the fact that the guy who had his head down
>in the cockpit trying to read his map when he ran into another airplane near
>Tenino on Sunday was flying a tailwheel airplane. That is just a cheap shot,
>so I won't mention it. Nope, not me. :-)

The Centurion is a taildragger?

Must have been a conversion!

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
The Piper Cub Forum www.pipercubforum.com
Viva Bush! blog www.vivabush.org

Cub Driver

May 19th 04, 10:14 AM

On Tue, 18 May 2004 19:12:44 -0800, Dale > wrote:

> once you get the hang of it there is a great deal of
>satisfaction in being able to smoothly taxi and park her.

I think you have just hit upon the factor that makes taildragger
pilots so pleased with themselves.

I reckon I spent a thousand dollars just learning how to taxi the Cub.
But once I'd soloed in the sucker, no other airplane seemed genuine to
me. I even got a recreational rather than a private cert so I wouldn't
have to transition to the 172.

Since then I've flown the Husky, Great Lakes, and Super Cub, not to
mention the occasional Colt and 172, and still the only smoke that
satisfies is the J-3 Piper Cub. It's the Lucky Strike of light
aircraft.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
The Piper Cub Forum www.pipercubforum.com
Viva Bush! blog www.vivabush.org

Bob Martin

May 19th 04, 01:26 PM

Greg Esres > wrote in message >...
> <<bad technique gets handed down from certificate mill
> instructor to the next certificate mill instructor>>
>
> There's another possible culprit...flying is so expensive that lots of
> people simply don't want to spend the money to learn to fly well.
>
> I also suspect that Part 141 instruction lends itself to turning out
> pilots with marginal stick and rudder skills.

I've noticed that "conversion training" into an RV-6 has drastically
improved both my aircraft handling and my situational awareness
(especially in the pattern). It no longer feels like I'm flying
around in a little bubble with the airplane about half a step in front
of me, like it used to in the 150's. The RV is much less forgiving
than the Cessna was, and really makes you be careful.

EDR

May 19th 04, 01:39 PM

In article >, C J Campbell
> wrote:

> "EDR" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > As others have posted, the 172 is a forgiving aircraft and allows a
> > poorly trained student to slip through the system.
>
> Damn, your eyes are brown.

Nope... blue like the sky!

[email protected]

May 19th 04, 02:28 PM

On 18 May 2004 18:09:20 -0700, (Dan
Thomas) wrote:

> Oh, man. Have you never flown a Champ or Cub or some other older
>design that had lots of adverse yaw, and that might flick over into a
>spin if you skidded it around the base-to-final turn? One that
>required some serious attention in most maneuvers if you were going to
>gain any proficiency in it at all? Even if it's rigged perfectly?
>These older designs make the pilot aware of his need for precision,
>and once he learns it his flying of all other aircraft improves
>enormously.

You sure about that? Adverse yaw has nothing to do with being a
taildragger, it's the ailerons causing that. Put tricycle landing
gear on it and it would still fly the same, requiring just as much
rudder as when it was a taildragger.

Corky Scott

Dan Thomas

May 19th 04, 03:11 PM

(Teacherjh) wrote in message >...
> >>
> Oh, man. Have you never flown a Champ or Cub or some other older
> design that had lots of adverse yaw, and that might flick over into a
> spin if you skidded it around the base-to-final turn?
> <<
>
> is this behavior =caused= by the position of the middle wheel, or is it just
> coincidence and history that they are taildraggers?
>
> Jose

Taildraggers tend to be older designs, and older designs often
didn't have the benign behaviour of newer designs, which tend to be
nosewheel airplanes. So taildraggers, while the gear has no effect in
the air, are usually harder to fly and require more effort and
understanding. More effort results in a better pilot. And since
takeoff and landing are the most likely places for an accident, and
since they also require the most skill, the taildragger is invaluable
for sharpening those skills.
A comparison could be made to cameras. Fully-automatic cameras
are really easy to use, and can take decent pictures. Fully-manual
cameras require knowledge about light and aperture and shutter speed
and film types and depth of field and so on, but they allow you to get
the impressive special effects impossible with the automatic. The
manual makes you a far better photographer. You either learn all about
photography or you remain a mediocre picture-taker.
Every pilot should get in at least a couple of hours of dual in an
older taildragger.

Dan

C J Campbell

May 19th 04, 03:36 PM

"Cub Driver" > wrote in message
...
>
> >And I won't even make mention of the fact that the guy who had his head
down
> >in the cockpit trying to read his map when he ran into another airplane
near
> >Tenino on Sunday was flying a tailwheel airplane. That is just a cheap
shot,
> >so I won't mention it. Nope, not me. :-)
>
> The Centurion is a taildragger?
>
> Must have been a conversion!

No, but the 170 is a taildragger.

C J Campbell

May 19th 04, 03:41 PM

"Michael" > wrote in message
om...
> EDR > wrote
> > No, I want to weed out the lame instructors!!!
>
> Then the real solution is to require that in order to instruct, you
> have to make 10 solo takeoffs and landings in a tailwheel airplane.
> BTW, I favor such a requirement. It's not a hardship to anyone who
> has any business instructing.

Baloney.

By the time instructors met all the additional requirements that you want to
impose on them the cost of becoming an instructor would triple at the least.
They would be no safer nor would they be better pilots in any measurable
sense. The accident rate would not be improved.

Apparently you have some strange idea that good instruction consists of
developing a macho, anti-authority attitude just waiting to get you or
somebody else killed.

I am beginning to believe that you have no business whatsoever near an
airplane.

C J Campbell

May 19th 04, 04:40 PM

The Air Force and Navy, both of whom ostensibly know something about flying,
do all their training in tricycle gear aircraft. Yet they arguably turn out
some of the best pilots in the world.

I have given initial pilot training in Cessna 172s to four Air Force Academy
graduates so far. All of them have been assigned to F-16s. Apparently the
Air Force is happy with my work.

I will tell you one thing about old pilots: I have never flown with a pilot
who had more than 15,000 hours who did not scare me to death. The last one,
a guy who had 17,000 hours and more than 7,000 hour in type (a twin), could
not hold altitude within 200 feet and had no idea how to set up an
instrument approach. He knew it, too.

There comes a time when a pilot goes from 'experienced' to 'washed up.'

EDR

May 19th 04, 04:48 PM

In article >, C J Campbell
> wrote:

> I am beginning to believe that you have no business whatsoever near an
> airplane.

I am having difficulty discerning whether C J is really indignint about
this issue, or he is just baiting us for more so that others may learn.

Let's look at another aspect...
The taildragger (regardless of make/model) requires that the pilot
raise the nose to land (only slightly for wheel landings).
There are tricycle gear aircraft out there with big engines up front
(PA28-235/6, C182, etc) and under light loading conditions (front two
seats occupied, full fuel) the cg is towards the front of the envelope.
If the pilot doesn't learn to get the nose up on landing, the nose gear
and firewall are going to get damaged.
Normally, with no flaps, the nose will come up as the aircraft is
slowed for landing. Now add flaps and the pitch attitude is lowered
(flatter) and the pilot is lulled into the false belief that the nose
is sufficiently high to land on the mains.
Now you have a wheelbarrowing condition, which if the pilot lands too
fast, doesn't flair soon enough or flairs too high will lead to loss of
control and/or damage.
It's about proper piloting technique, it has nothing to do with ego.
(Although, the theory that it makes women's boobs bigger has marketing
potential. ;-))

Tom Sixkiller

May 19th 04, 05:13 PM

"EDR" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, C J Campbell
> > wrote:
>
> > I am beginning to believe that you have no business whatsoever near an
> > airplane.
>
> I am having difficulty discerning whether C J is really indignint about
> this issue, or he is just baiting us for more so that others may learn.
>
> Let's look at another aspect...
> The taildragger (regardless of make/model) requires that the pilot
> raise the nose to land (only slightly for wheel landings).

Yes, and so does a tricycle gear. Ever heard of ground loops and nose-overs?
I suppose those never happened when everyone learned in tail-draggers.

> It's about proper piloting technique, it has nothing to do with ego.

So what equipment is used has noting to do with it, it's how it's taught? So
what's all the blather about requiring tail-dragger instruction?

> (Although, the theory that it makes women's boobs bigger has marketing
> potential. ;-))

I think the "ego" problem here is someone inserted their foot in their mouth
and is now trying to justify himself.

EDR

May 19th 04, 05:36 PM

In article >, C J Campbell
> wrote:

> The Air Force and Navy, both of whom ostensibly know something about flying,
> do all their training in tricycle gear aircraft. Yet they arguably turn out
> some of the best pilots in the world.

I think their sylabus and standards are little tougher and higher than
that found in the FAA PTS and the way most civilian flight instructors
actually teach.

How many wannabe students do the military weed out in the interview
process, even before the training starts, followed by the washouts that
do meet the standards once training begins.

The civilians pay their money and get through it.
Some take more time, some less. Some are given multiple opportunities
to pass the test. The military decides when to cut its losses and not
spend more money on a losing proposition.

EDR

May 19th 04, 05:43 PM

In article >, Tom Sixkiller
> wrote:

> > Let's look at another aspect...
> > The taildragger (regardless of make/model) requires that the pilot
> > raise the nose to land (only slightly for wheel landings).
>
> Yes, and so does a tricycle gear. Ever heard of ground loops and nose-overs?
> I suppose those never happened when everyone learned in tail-draggers.

If you ground loop or nose over a tric, you've really screwed up. You
can ground loop or nose over either one, the taildragger does a better
job of teaching you how not to get in that situation (it the stick/yoke
isn't in you gut, you are heading for a problem).

> > It's about proper piloting technique, it has nothing to do with ego.
>
> So what equipment is used has noting to do with it, it's how it's taught? So
> what's all the blather about requiring tail-dragger instruction?

Again, the taildragger is a better teacher. If you don't do it right
every time, it will bite you.

> > (Although, the theory that it makes women's boobs bigger has marketing
> > potential. ;-))
>
> I think the "ego" problem here is someone inserted their foot in their mouth
> and is now trying to justify himself.

Why was the wheel moved from the back to the front?
It is more stable and forgiving, and because of those qualities it
allows for more mistakes.

G.R. Patterson III

May 19th 04, 06:21 PM

EDR wrote:
>
> There are tricycle gear aircraft out there with big engines up front
> (PA28-235/6, C182, etc) and under light loading conditions (front two
> seats occupied, full fuel) the cg is towards the front of the envelope.
> If the pilot doesn't learn to get the nose up on landing, the nose gear
> and firewall are going to get damaged.

Then someone who buys such an aircraft should learn to keep the nose up in that
plane. That's nowhere near enough justification for requiring training in
conventional gear for anyone.

George Patterson
I childproofed my house, but they *still* get in.

G.R. Patterson III

May 19th 04, 06:29 PM

EDR wrote:
>
> If you ground loop or nose over a tric, you've really screwed up. You
> can ground loop or nose over either one, the taildragger does a better
> job of teaching you how not to get in that situation (it the stick/yoke
> isn't in you gut, you are heading for a problem).

If the yoke *is* in your gut in my aircraft, you're about to have a big problem
(unless you're already on the ground). When the wings stall (as they're about to),
the mains will drop faster than the tail. The results can be anywhere from a very
hard landing to a seesaw as the mains bounce, bringing the tail down, which bounces,
bringing the mains down, which bounce ..... "and awaaayyy we go!"

You need to learn the proper attitude for whatever aircraft you fly. Learning to land
a Cessna 170 will not improve your landings in a 182. Learning to land a 182 will.

George Patterson
I childproofed my house, but they *still* get in.

C J Campbell

May 19th 04, 06:32 PM

"EDR" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, Tom Sixkiller
> > wrote:
>
> > > Let's look at another aspect...
> > > The taildragger (regardless of make/model) requires that the pilot
> > > raise the nose to land (only slightly for wheel landings).
> >
> > Yes, and so does a tricycle gear. Ever heard of ground loops and
nose-overs?
> > I suppose those never happened when everyone learned in tail-draggers.
>
> If you ground loop or nose over a tric, you've really screwed up. You
> can ground loop or nose over either one, the taildragger does a better
> job of teaching you how not to get in that situation (it the stick/yoke
> isn't in you gut, you are heading for a problem).
>

If the yoke is in your gut in most Cessnas, you are heading for a destroyed
tiedown ring and possibly a tail cone replacement.

C J Campbell

May 19th 04, 06:34 PM

"EDR" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, C J Campbell
> > wrote:
>
> > The Air Force and Navy, both of whom ostensibly know something about
flying,
> > do all their training in tricycle gear aircraft. Yet they arguably turn
out
> > some of the best pilots in the world.
>
> I think their sylabus and standards are little tougher and higher than
> that found in the FAA PTS and the way most civilian flight instructors
> actually teach.

Then you think wrong. The Air Force guys use the same Cessna Pilot Center
syllabus and PTS standards as the rest of our students.

>
> How many wannabe students do the military weed out in the interview
> process, even before the training starts, followed by the washouts that
> do meet the standards once training begins.

I have not had one wash out yet. In fact, none of our instructors have had
one wash out.

[email protected]

May 19th 04, 06:36 PM

On Wed, 19 May 2004 15:48:33 GMT, EDR > wrote:

>There are tricycle gear aircraft out there with big engines up front
>(PA28-235/6, C182, etc) and under light loading conditions (front two
>seats occupied, full fuel) the cg is towards the front of the envelope.
>If the pilot doesn't learn to get the nose up on landing, the nose gear
>and firewall are going to get damaged.

Right. And the people who own or fly in those airplanes are taught
not to land nose down. Doesn't seem like you have to take taildragger
lessons to know this.

Not all taildraggers are landed with the tail low either: The P-51
Mustang was often wheeled on, although some guys three pointed them.

The DC-3 is most often wheel landed.

Corky Scott

Bill Denton

May 19th 04, 07:21 PM

There's one note of hilarity in here that I'm surprised no one has picked up
on...

I think it's probably a safe bet that most of the ardent advocates of
tailwheel training drive cars and trucks with automatic transmissions. Even
though a manual transmission teaches you more about power management,
traction control, and stuff like that than an automatic would. (Of course,
you could also learn all of that stuff from "Dukes Of Hazard" reruns.)

But from what I've read on this thread, I think tailwheel training probably
falls into the same category as does a lot of the other training I see
discussed here: it's not going to hurt you, but it may not be totally
necessary.

Dylan Smith

May 19th 04, 07:23 PM

In article >, G.R. Patterson III wrote:
> You need to learn the proper attitude for whatever aircraft you fly. Learning to land
> a Cessna 170 will not improve your landings in a 182. Learning to land a 182 will.

Having flown both, I'd have to disagree with that. The landing technique
to three-point a C170 works great in a C182. Airspeeds are different,
but that's it really.

--
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

May 19th 04, 07:24 PM

In article >, C J Campbell wrote:
> If the yoke is in your gut in most Cessnas, you are heading for a destroyed
> tiedown ring and possibly a tail cone replacement.

Not in a C150, 152, 172, 182 it isn't. You have to yank the yoke
back quickly to cause the tail to strike. If you smoothly apply back
pressure as you flare, you won't strike the tail - in fact you'll make a
nice touchdown on the main wheels.

--
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

May 19th 04, 07:46 PM

In article >, Dan Thomas wrote:
> Taildraggers tend to be older designs, and older designs often
> didn't have the benign behaviour of newer designs, which tend to be
> nosewheel airplanes. So taildraggers, while the gear has no effect in
> the air, are usually harder to fly and require more effort and
> understanding.

Actually, many of these older aircraft aren't really much harder at all.
Some are, many aren't. Our C140 for example was easy and pleasant to
fly, with light control forces and a good strong rudder. It required a
lot more finesse on landing than a nosewheel plane of course, and I
think that improved my finesse when flying any aircraft. But it just
wasn't difficult to fly, just a bit different.

I think that was reflected by our insurance rates - we had at one time a
zero-hours student on the insurance, and the extra cost compared to a
C150 of the same hull value was IIRC only about $50/year. I never had a
nasty moment (although I did botch some landings) in the C140, and that
included landing in a 20 knot direct crosswind (which I have on video).
My aircraft insurance for a $20,000 hull value and $1M liability
insurance was significantly cheaper than the insurance on my Ford F150,
worth $8000 at the time (and I have no accidents/tickets).

The Auster on the other hand...actually, in the air, it flies a lot like
a C172 with a stick instead of a yoke (and climbs a lot better, it
weighs about 500lbs less and has an O-320) - very little adverse yaw
etc. is an absolute bear to land nicely. Partly because you can't see
anything forwards in the three point attitude, partly because it has a
free castoring tailwheel, and partly because the cable operated heel
brakes are virtually impossible to use at the same time as making rudder
inputs (heel brakes suck, I'm sorry). Mitigating this though is the
approach speed of 50 mph so stuff happens slowly. Should new instructors
have to fly something like this? I wouldn't insist on it, but it's a
nice-to-have in the increasing the depth of experience department.

I think taildragger training is a nice to have but not essential. What
is essential is teaching proper technique, and many certificate mill
instructors who have little experience outside of flying the traffic
pattern are a bit lacking in that area, and it shows in the old wives'
tales they tend to repeat.

Personally, if there was one additional requirement that I think new
CFIs should meet before teaching is a long solo cross country of a good
1000NM. That way they are likely to have had to have made real world
weather decisions, have probably had to fly in mountainous terrain and
so forth. And my requirement would be to do it by mag compass, chart and
clock so they internalize the fundamentals of navigation too.

--
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"

Robert M. Gary

May 19th 04, 08:05 PM

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message >...
> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
> om...
> > "C J Campbell" > wrote in message
> >...
> > > There is absolutely
> > > no reason to learn to fly a tailwheel aircraft unless you plan on owning
> one
> > > or have some other special need, such as bush piloting or you are a CFI
> who
> > > wants to instruct in them.
> >
> > My tailwheel background certainly makes me a much better Mooney pilot.
> > It certainly makes me a better CFI. I'm able to let students take the
> > 172 further towards the weeds with confidence that I can control it.
> > Non-tailwheel CFIs have to jump in there right away and the students
> > takes 3 times longer to learn foot work.
>
> It is not your tailwheel background that lets you do that. It is your
> experience, pure and simple.

I disagree. I think its my tailwheel experience. I had almost 100
hours in my book (and my private) before I sat in a nosewheel GA
plane.

-Robert

Henry and Debbie McFarland

May 19th 04, 08:22 PM

> You need to learn the proper attitude for whatever aircraft you fly.
Learning to land
> a Cessna 170 will not improve your landings in a 182. Learning to land a
182 will.
>
> George Patterson

I whole-heartedly agree with this statement. I got my tailwheel endorsement
in my husband's Luscombe 8A. I flew it 70 hours before I bought my own 8E. I
tried to fly Lester like his 8A and it didn't work! Once I understood that
my airplane had it's own set of peculiar characteristics, things settled
down.

I do believe that tailwheel training does help a pilot understand the
meaning of straight. Flying the Luscombes improved my landings in my C-172.

Deb

--
1946 Luscombe 8A (His)
1948 Luscombe 8E (Hers)
1954 Cessna 195B, restoring (Ours)
Jasper, Ga. (JZP)

Henry and Debbie McFarland

May 19th 04, 08:27 PM

"C J Campbell"
> If the yoke is in your gut in most Cessnas, you are heading for a
destroyed
> tiedown ring and possibly a tail cone replacement.

Not in a 1962 Cessna 172C! Yoke in your gut was the only way I could keep
from landing flat. It was a rather annoying trait in that airplane. Luckily,
on my checkride, a 250 lb. FAA inspector rode along in the backseat so my
soft field landings were finally what they should be ;-).

Deb

--
1946 Luscombe 8A (His)
1948 Luscombe 8E (Hers)
1954 Cessna 195B, restoring (Ours)
Jasper, Ga. (JZP)

> "EDR" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >, Tom Sixkiller
> > > wrote:
> >
> > > > Let's look at another aspect...
> > > > The taildragger (regardless of make/model) requires that the pilot
> > > > raise the nose to land (only slightly for wheel landings).
> > >
> > > Yes, and so does a tricycle gear. Ever heard of ground loops and
> nose-overs?
> > > I suppose those never happened when everyone learned in tail-draggers.
> >
> > If you ground loop or nose over a tric, you've really screwed up. You
> > can ground loop or nose over either one, the taildragger does a better
> > job of teaching you how not to get in that situation (it the stick/yoke
> > isn't in you gut, you are heading for a problem).
> >
>

Henry and Debbie McFarland

May 19th 04, 08:34 PM

>"C J Campbell" > wrote
I have given initial pilot training in Cessna 172s to four Air Force Academy
> graduates so far. All of them have been assigned to F-16s. Apparently the
> Air Force is happy with my work.

Oh no! CJ, please don't mention this at a Luscombe fly-in! There is a
standing joke in the Luscombe community; if you want to have your airplane
ground-looped, let a military pilot fly it. They don't seem to do well in
our birds... ;-).

All kidding aside, I'm sure you're a fine instructor.

Deb
--
1946 Luscombe 8A (His)
1948 Luscombe 8E (Hers)
1954 Cessna 195B, restoring (Ours)
Jasper, Ga. (JZP)

Bob Moore

May 19th 04, 08:34 PM

"C J Campbell" wrote

> I will tell you one thing about old pilots: I have never flown with a
> pilot who had more than 15,000 hours who did not scare me to death.
> The last one, a guy who had 17,000 hours and more than 7,000 hour in
> type (a twin), could not hold altitude within 200 feet and had no idea
> how to set up an instrument approach. He knew it, too.

Well CJ, here's one 69 year old pilot that thinks that you're full
of ****! I logged my 20,000th hour about 12 years ago and I spent
this past Friday out teaching spins to a Private Pilot who wanted
some advanced instruction. As a bonus, I threw in a few "to-the-
stops" flap 40 slips in his C-172.

Bob Moore

Teacherjh

May 19th 04, 08:40 PM

>>
I think it's probably a safe bet that most of the ardent advocates of
tailwheel training drive cars and trucks with automatic transmissions.
<<

Interestingly, in NY (at least when I got my licence, %& years ago) if you took
the test in an automatic, you were legal in a manual. However, if you took the
test in a manual, you were restricted to a manual transmission.

Go figure.

Jose

--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

C J Campbell

May 19th 04, 08:49 PM

"Bob Moore" > wrote in message
. 6...
> "C J Campbell" wrote
>
> > I will tell you one thing about old pilots: I have never flown with a
> > pilot who had more than 15,000 hours who did not scare me to death.
> > The last one, a guy who had 17,000 hours and more than 7,000 hour in
> > type (a twin), could not hold altitude within 200 feet and had no idea
> > how to set up an instrument approach. He knew it, too.
>
> Well CJ, here's one 69 year old pilot that thinks that you're full
> of ****! I logged my 20,000th hour about 12 years ago and I spent
> this past Friday out teaching spins to a Private Pilot who wanted
> some advanced instruction. As a bonus, I threw in a few "to-the-
> stops" flap 40 slips in his C-172.
>
> Bob Moore

Well, you can be the exception then. I don't know when we could get together
to fly, though.

Henry and Debbie McFarland

May 19th 04, 09:04 PM

"Dylan Smith" > wrote in message:
"And my requirement would be to do it by mag compass, chart and clock so
they internalize the fundamentals of navigation too."

I think every pilot should have one cross-country with just a compass, chart
and clock. I did mine when my husband checked me out in his 8A. It was
different. I'd been flying a C-172 with a DG, VOR and GPS. Now, I have an
8E with a handheld GPS, but I still keep my eyeball on my compass heading.
You never know when that sucker will die!

I've also had hood time in his non-electrical 8A. I flew a two hour cross
country using the needle/ball, airspeed, VSI and compass. His airplane is
rather slow (about 90 mph). It was a way to pass the time over country I'd
seen before.

Deb

--
1946 Luscombe 8A (His)
1948 Luscombe 8E (Hers)
1954 Cessna 195B, restoring (Ours)
Jasper, Ga. (JZP)

...
> In article >, Dan Thomas
wrote:
> > Taildraggers tend to be older designs, and older designs often
> > didn't have the benign behaviour of newer designs, which tend to be
> > nosewheel airplanes. So taildraggers, while the gear has no effect in
> > the air, are usually harder to fly and require more effort and
> > understanding.
>
> Actually, many of these older aircraft aren't really much harder at all.
> Some are, many aren't. Our C140 for example was easy and pleasant to
> fly, with light control forces and a good strong rudder. It required a
> lot more finesse on landing than a nosewheel plane of course, and I
> think that improved my finesse when flying any aircraft. But it just
> wasn't difficult to fly, just a bit different.
>
> I think that was reflected by our insurance rates - we had at one time a
> zero-hours student on the insurance, and the extra cost compared to a
> C150 of the same hull value was IIRC only about $50/year. I never had a
> nasty moment (although I did botch some landings) in the C140, and that
> included landing in a 20 knot direct crosswind (which I have on video).
> My aircraft insurance for a $20,000 hull value and $1M liability
> insurance was significantly cheaper than the insurance on my Ford F150,
> worth $8000 at the time (and I have no accidents/tickets).
>
> The Auster on the other hand...actually, in the air, it flies a lot like
> a C172 with a stick instead of a yoke (and climbs a lot better, it
> weighs about 500lbs less and has an O-320) - very little adverse yaw
> etc. is an absolute bear to land nicely. Partly because you can't see
> anything forwards in the three point attitude, partly because it has a
> free castoring tailwheel, and partly because the cable operated heel
> brakes are virtually impossible to use at the same time as making rudder
> inputs (heel brakes suck, I'm sorry). Mitigating this though is the
> approach speed of 50 mph so stuff happens slowly. Should new instructors
> have to fly something like this? I wouldn't insist on it, but it's a
> nice-to-have in the increasing the depth of experience department.
>
> I think taildragger training is a nice to have but not essential. What
> is essential is teaching proper technique, and many certificate mill
> instructors who have little experience outside of flying the traffic
> pattern are a bit lacking in that area, and it shows in the old wives'
> tales they tend to repeat.
>
> Personally, if there was one additional requirement that I think new
> CFIs should meet before teaching is a long solo cross country of a good
> 1000NM. That way they are likely to have had to have made real world
> weather decisions, have probably had to fly in mountainous terrain and
> so forth. And my requirement would be to do it by mag compass, chart and
> clock so they internalize the fundamentals of navigation too.
>
> --
> 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"

Bob Moore

May 19th 04, 09:08 PM

EDR > wrote
>
> I think their sylabus and standards are little tougher and higher than
> that found in the FAA PTS and the way most civilian flight instructors
> actually teach.

A "little tougher"? HA! With less than 100 hours in my logbook, the
final test in the T-28 formation flying course in addition to the
routine stuff, consisted of the check pilot (in his own T-28) leading
four student flown T-28s through a five plane, echelon right barrel
roll. I was unlucky enough to be number five. With 115 hours in the
book, I planted that thing on the deck of the USS Antietam in the Gulf
just off Pensacola.

> How many wannabe students do the military weed out in the interview
> process, even before the training starts, followed by the washouts
> that do meet the standards once training begins.

The Cessna 172 course that CJ talks about is simply a "weed-em-out"
before they get to flight training program that the AF uses.

> The civilians pay their money and get through it.
> Some take more time, some less. Some are given multiple opportunities
> to pass the test. The military decides when to cut its losses and not
> spend more money on a losing proposition.

All true! All that it takes for a civilian to obtain a pilot
certificate is money and time. I once refused to "check-out" a new
Private Pilot in a C-172. He had simply "worn-down" his instructor and
examiner. I then called the examiner and "chewed-out" his butt.

Bob Moore

Greg Esres

May 19th 04, 09:11 PM

<<Non-tailwheel CFIs have to jump in there right away and the students
takes 3 times longer to learn foot work.>>

Nonsense.

Bob Moore

May 19th 04, 09:17 PM

wrote

> Not all taildraggers are landed with the tail low either: The P-51
> Mustang was often wheeled on, although some guys three pointed them.

The first "tail dragger" that I flew was a Navy SNB (Beechcraft D-18).
Never three-pointed it. I guess then, that one could say that I never
learned to fly taildraggers. Probably not....because after building
my MiniMax, I always "wheel-landed" it. In fact, even without brakes,
I always taxied it with the tail up.

Bob Moore

JFLEISC

May 19th 04, 09:23 PM

>Not in a 1962 Cessna 172C! Yoke in your gut was the only way I could keep
>from landing flat. It was a rather annoying trait in that airplane. Luckily,
>on my checkride, a 250 lb. FAA inspector rode along in the backseat so my
>soft field landings were finally what they should be ;-).
>
>Deb
>
>--
>1946 Luscombe 8A (His)
>1948 Luscombe 8E (Hers)
>1954 Cessna 195B, restoring (Ours)
>Jasper, Ga. (JZP)
>
Holy smokes!, Finally someone who understands the fun of landing my wife's
C-172B. Even both her first 2 instructors (both high hour tail wheel
indorsement instructors) had trouble with "plunking" down like a pancake on the
runway. After taking it to Oshkosh with the rear seat out and camping gear
packed to the ceiling I "greased" every landing. From then on we keep a 60 lb
bag of sand in the baggage compartment and everyone's happy. Still have to use
the 'yoke in the gut' trick but it now will land on the mains.

Jim

C J Campbell

May 19th 04, 09:30 PM

"Dylan Smith" > wrote in message
...
>
> Personally, if there was one additional requirement that I think new
> CFIs should meet before teaching is a long solo cross country of a good
> 1000NM. That way they are likely to have had to have made real world
> weather decisions, have probably had to fly in mountainous terrain and
> so forth. And my requirement would be to do it by mag compass, chart and
> clock so they internalize the fundamentals of navigation too.

How do you fly 1000 miles on the Isle of Mann? :-)

Anyway, maybe you could take away the chart. Make them really internalize
those 'fundamentals.' In fact, let's lose the clock, too. And the compass.
Pure fluff. Get rid of it. Then, to make sure he really learns something,
let's put a blindfold on him and stop up his ears. And make him fly while
being pecked by chickens. With his feet and hands tied together. That'll
make a man of him. :-)

Dave Stadt

May 20th 04, 12:38 AM

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
>
> "EDR" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >, Tom Sixkiller
> > > wrote:
> >
> > > > Let's look at another aspect...
> > > > The taildragger (regardless of make/model) requires that the pilot
> > > > raise the nose to land (only slightly for wheel landings).
> > >
> > > Yes, and so does a tricycle gear. Ever heard of ground loops and
> nose-overs?
> > > I suppose those never happened when everyone learned in tail-draggers.
> >
> > If you ground loop or nose over a tric, you've really screwed up. You
> > can ground loop or nose over either one, the taildragger does a better
> > job of teaching you how not to get in that situation (it the stick/yoke
> > isn't in you gut, you are heading for a problem).
> >
>
> If the yoke is in your gut in most Cessnas, you are heading for a
destroyed
> tiedown ring and possibly a tail cone replacement.

If that isn't one of the worst statements ever posted to this newsgroup I
don't know what is.

C J Campbell

May 20th 04, 02:12 AM

"Dave Stadt" > wrote in message
.com...
>
> "C J Campbell" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "EDR" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > In article >, Tom Sixkiller
> > > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > > Let's look at another aspect...
> > > > > The taildragger (regardless of make/model) requires that the pilot
> > > > > raise the nose to land (only slightly for wheel landings).
> > > >
> > > > Yes, and so does a tricycle gear. Ever heard of ground loops and
> > nose-overs?
> > > > I suppose those never happened when everyone learned in
tail-draggers.
> > >
> > > If you ground loop or nose over a tric, you've really screwed up. You
> > > can ground loop or nose over either one, the taildragger does a better
> > > job of teaching you how not to get in that situation (it the
stick/yoke
> > > isn't in you gut, you are heading for a problem).
> > >
> >
> > If the yoke is in your gut in most Cessnas, you are heading for a
> destroyed
> > tiedown ring and possibly a tail cone replacement.
>
> If that isn't one of the worst statements ever posted to this newsgroup I
> don't know what is.

Yeah, well, we replace half a dozen tiedown rings a year, thanks to the
idiotic advice of people like you. I ought to send you the bill.

Tom Sixkiller

May 20th 04, 03:52 AM

Bob Martin

May 20th 04, 03:54 AM

> Not all taildraggers are landed with the tail low either: The P-51
> Mustang was often wheeled on, although some guys three pointed them.
>
> The DC-3 is most often wheel landed.
>
> Corky Scott

The RV series (or at least the 6) seems easier to wheel on than
3-point, especially if there's any kind of wind. I learned wheel
landings and had them figured out long before "3-point" (which is
actually 1-2 point; the tailwheel tends to hit just before the mains,
and then you bounce a bit).

Dave Stadt

May 20th 04, 04:33 AM

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Dave Stadt" > wrote in message
> .com...
> >
> > "C J Campbell" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "EDR" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > > In article >, Tom Sixkiller
> > > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > > Let's look at another aspect...
> > > > > > The taildragger (regardless of make/model) requires that the
pilot
> > > > > > raise the nose to land (only slightly for wheel landings).
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes, and so does a tricycle gear. Ever heard of ground loops and
> > > nose-overs?
> > > > > I suppose those never happened when everyone learned in
> tail-draggers.
> > > >
> > > > If you ground loop or nose over a tric, you've really screwed up.
You
> > > > can ground loop or nose over either one, the taildragger does a
better
> > > > job of teaching you how not to get in that situation (it the
> stick/yoke
> > > > isn't in you gut, you are heading for a problem).
> > > >
> > >
> > > If the yoke is in your gut in most Cessnas, you are heading for a
> > destroyed
> > > tiedown ring and possibly a tail cone replacement.
> >
> > If that isn't one of the worst statements ever posted to this newsgroup
I
> > don't know what is.
>
> Yeah, well, we replace half a dozen tiedown rings a year, thanks to the
> idiotic advice of people like you. I ought to send you the bill.

If you can't land a Cessna with the yoke all the way back you have serious
problems. Sounds like a training issue to me. Send me the bill if you
like.

[email protected]

May 20th 04, 05:05 AM

On 18 May 2004 07:20:58 -0700, (Dan
Thomas) wrote:

> We run three 172s, a 182RG and a Citabria, and that Citabria is
>the most popular airplane among both students and instructors. It's
>worth as many dollars as any of the 172s, but the insurance costs no
>more than a 172. The students that start in it are more competent when
>they finish the PPL than those who do it all in a 172, and that's in
>all areas except basic instrument flying, since it has a rather basic
>panel. The student has to maintain control of an unruly airplane and
>has to be able to read a map, use a wet compass and and a watch. No
>fancy radios to do all the work for him, no self-landing gear. And the
>student spends no more time learning all this than he does in the 172.
>He goes on to the 172 and 182 with sharp flying skills and is a much
>better pilot in the end.
> We just bought another Citabria, and they can't wait until it's
>ready to go.
> As far as another poster's rant about EAA types: As with any group
>of people, you have the black sheep that seem bent on giving the rest
>a bad name. We could paint all private pilots with the same brush, as
>this poster did with the homebuilders, since there are enough weekend
>warriors that will tangle with thunderstorms and winds and unairworthy
>airplanes, and who will buzz friend's houses and ultimately kill
>themselves and a couple of friends. But that wouldn't be fair, would
>it? You only hear about the few brainless EAAers, not the thousands of
>earnest guys/gals building and flying airplanes that are light-years
>ahead of anything Wichita sells.

IMHO one of the best responses in this thread, so far. As a low-time
VFR pilot, I tend to avoid commenting much on "flying" issues. As
someone who has been repeatedly painted with the "all mechanics are
idiot parts-changers" brush, I am truly tickled ****e-less by some of
the former world-famous flight instructor's responses.

After spending many years riding along with freight dogs (having
somebody to talk to helps keep 'em awake/alive) and manipulating the
controls-opposed to "flying", I was handed the opportunity to get my
PPL.

Honestly, after living at the airport and seeing more
airline-by-gosh-bound right-seat-indentured-servant instructors than I
can recall, I wasn't too keen on the idea. Of this group, I was only
exposed to one that behaved anything like a professional instructor.
After working next door to professional pilots with a median
experience greater than a random-picked half-dozen ABGBRSISIs
combined, the idea of learning to fly from an "instructor" that is
basically going through the motions while building hours didn't have a
lot of appeal.

I received my initial primary flight instruction in a classic
conventional gear no-flap no-gyro "unruly airplane" with no electrical
system, mechanical heel brakes, and a 65 hp Continental that preferred
to run on three cylinders while occasionally spitting oil on the
windshield. My primary instructor was a kid that had spent six of the
last eight years hauling checks (the other two years were spent
relief/missionary flying in Africa).

I was quickly forced to learn coordinated turns, how to fly with my
head outside of the cockpit (nuthin much to look at inside), the power
of a properly performed slip, spin recovery, proper airspeed/attitude
management to the basic power-off minimal-energy spot landing, and
that brakes don't really need to be used for anything but taxiing. I
also became quite proficient at precautionary/engine out landings.

There is absolutely positively no physical/mechanical reason that
these things cannot be taught/learned in a modern tricycle gear
trainer, but there is also no way that a "classic" airplane can be
flown properly and safely without learning them.

Possessing advanced and detailed systems knowledge of virtually every
common single-engine GA aircraft, combined with the solid foundation
in basic flying skills made transitioning to other aircraft stone
simple. The first time I ever flew a Bonanza (K35 fitted with a
*******-ized TW Smith engine and a BAC constant-speed propeller), I
felt it was the "easiest" flying/landing single in the world. Seven
years and a couple dozen aircraft models of varying brands later, I
still pretty much feel the same way.

CJ doesn't seem to want to admit it, but I've been exposed to about
the same percentage of pilots lacking what he would consider to be
essential basic VFR piloting skills as certificated mechanics that
lack what I would consider to be essential basic troubleshooting
skills.

That doesn't mean that he can't properly teach someone how to fly in a
tri-gear plane any more than it means that I can't properly maintain
it.

Although he feels that conventional gear aircraft experience is
unnecessay (FWIW I tend to agree), it does not mean that it has no
inherent value in learning to fly.

I don't feel that navigation needs to be performed with a sextant and
a chronometer, but I also feel that the hand-held GPS is a pile on the
ass that is basic map-based VFR navigation.

YMMV;

TC

C J Campbell

May 20th 04, 06:27 AM

"Dave Stadt" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> "C J Campbell" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Dave Stadt" > wrote in message
> > .com...
> > >
> > > "C J Campbell" > wrote in
message
> > > ...
> > > > > > I suppose those never happened when everyone learned in
> > tail-draggers.
> > > > >
> > > > > If you ground loop or nose over a tric, you've really screwed up.
> You
> > > > > can ground loop or nose over either one, the taildragger does a
> better
> > > > > job of teaching you how not to get in that situation (it the
> > stick/yoke
> > > > > isn't in you gut, you are heading for a problem).
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > If the yoke is in your gut in most Cessnas, you are heading for a
> > > destroyed
> > > > tiedown ring and possibly a tail cone replacement.
> > >
> > > If that isn't one of the worst statements ever posted to this
newsgroup
> I
> > > don't know what is.
> >
> > Yeah, well, we replace half a dozen tiedown rings a year, thanks to the
> > idiotic advice of people like you. I ought to send you the bill.
>
> If you can't land a Cessna with the yoke all the way back you have serious
> problems. Sounds like a training issue to me. Send me the bill if you
> like.

Personally, I think the manufacturer probably has a better idea of how the
airplane should be flown than a bunch of Usenet know-it-alls. You pitch for
airspeed, not for position of the yoke. If you can't control your airspeed,
you have serious problems.

You have just convinced me that flying taildraggers not only does not make
you a better pilot, it makes you worse to the point of being destructive.
The Cessna 172 was not meant to be landed like a tailwheel aircraft.
Attempts to do that are both dangerous and wasteful.

Not only that, I am increasingly disturbed by tailwheel pilots' obsession
with landing as the only measure of the quality of a pilot. It really tells
me something -- like, they don't know how to do anything else. I hope you
will excuse me now. It is obvious that I have disturbed a bunch of religious
fanatics.

Cub Driver

May 20th 04, 10:29 AM

On Wed, 19 May 2004 13:21:03 -0500, "Bill Denton"
> wrote:

>I think it's probably a safe bet that most of the ardent advocates of
>tailwheel training drive cars and trucks with automatic transmissions.

Well, I'm not an ardent advocate, though I did learn in a taildragger
and I continue to fly one.

And I have always driven a standard transmission.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
The Piper Cub Forum www.pipercubforum.com
Viva Bush! blog www.vivabush.org

Cub Driver

May 20th 04, 10:30 AM

On 19 May 2004 19:40:12 GMT, (Teacherjh)
wrote:

>Interestingly, in NY (at least when I got my licence, %& years ago) if you took
>the test in an automatic, you were legal in a manual. However, if you took the
>test in a manual, you were restricted to a manual transmission.

Are you sure about this? New Hampshire had the same rule about
automatic transmissions: you got a restricted license. Only if you
took the test in a stick-shift car were you legal in any car.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
The Piper Cub Forum www.pipercubforum.com
Viva Bush! blog www.vivabush.org

Cub Driver

May 20th 04, 10:34 AM

On Wed, 19 May 2004 13:36:54 -0400,
wrote:

>Not all taildraggers are landed with the tail low either: The P-51
>Mustang was often wheeled on,

The only three-point landings I make in the Cub are the mistakes.

A stall-down landing is how I recover from a botched wheelie.
(Generally it's easier than going around :)

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
The Piper Cub Forum www.pipercubforum.com
Viva Bush! blog www.vivabush.org

Cub Driver

May 20th 04, 10:36 AM

On Wed, 19 May 2004 07:36:44 -0700, "C J Campbell"
> wrote:

>No, but the 170 is a taildragger.

From what I read, the Centurion descended upon the 170.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
The Piper Cub Forum www.pipercubforum.com
Viva Bush! blog www.vivabush.org

Henry and Debbie McFarland

May 20th 04, 01:37 PM

> > > > "C J Campbell" > wrote in
> message

> You have just convinced me that flying taildraggers not only does not make
> you a better pilot, it makes you worse to the point of being destructive.
> The Cessna 172 was not meant to be landed like a tailwheel aircraft.
> Attempts to do that are both dangerous and wasteful.
>

CJ,

I am sorry you feel this way. As a teacher, you are denying yourself a
really fun learning experience that you can pass on to your students. Having
a tailwheel endorsement opens up your horizons. I know it did mine. It's
just like having a HP endorsement or complex rating. It allows you to learn
a little more about flying than you knew before, and let's one experience
more of the aircraft available out there. I have been checked out in a
Citabria, every Luscombe model except a D, a C-170, a Hatz and of course, a
Cub. Later I moved on to the C-195. I have learned some thing from each and
every airplane, as well as each and every instructor who checked me out in
them.

I also fly tricycle-geared airplanes. I owned a C-172C and put 600 hours on
it. The yoke must be pulled back in many of these earlier models in order
not to land flat. Experience would teach you this. And for what it's worth,
my husband is an A&P and he can vouch that more repairs are made on the
*nose gears* of Cessnas than any other parts. I've flown a C-150 (just an
hour), the C-182 (just 2 hours) and a Hawk XP with instructors, but my love
is classic airplanes with conventional gears. What I've learned flying these
airplanes all over the country has enriched my flying experience, and has
shown me that there's a difference between driving the dang thang and flying
with artistry.

> Personally, I think the manufacturer probably has a better idea of how the
> airplane should be flown than a bunch of Usenet know-it-alls. You pitch
for
> airspeed, not for position of the yoke. If you can't control your
airspeed,
> you have serious problems.

Again, lack of well rounded experience is evident in this statement. If you
have light tailwheel airplane experience, you would know that the pilot
*must* control the airspeed to land safely. The tailwheel was never a
problem for me. I had to learn to land a butterfly ;-). Remember too, that
we don't typically have flaps. Luckily, my instructor insisted that I become
proficient in no flap landings in the C-172. That good primary training
carried over into my Luscombe training.

> Not only that, I am increasingly disturbed by tailwheel pilots' obsession
> with landing as the only measure of the quality of a pilot. It really
tells
> me something -- like, they don't know how to do anything else. I hope you
> will excuse me now. It is obvious that I have disturbed a bunch of
religious
> fanatics.

This sounds like the whinings of my six-year old. But there is a grain of
truth here. We are fanatics. I am part of a very active brotherhood and
sisterhood of pilots who find joy in flying their airplanes. To me, there is
nothing better than flying with the window open and hearing that 65 hp
Continental sing. For just a little while, I'm completely free, and God's
glorious earth is spread out just for me and my pleasure.

Personally, I don't think any kind of extra training will help some
instructors and their students. Those who teach that landing faster is
better and then ram the nose into the pavement will just ground loop our
glorious birds. I'd hate to lose a good airplane to another fool.

Deb
A very dangerous taildragger pilot

--
1946 Luscombe 8A (His)
1948 Luscombe 8E (Hers)
1954 Cessna 195B, restoring (Ours)
Jasper, Ga. (JZP)

Teacherjh

May 20th 04, 02:05 PM

>>
> However, if you took the
> test in a manual, you were
> restricted to a manual transmission.

Are you sure about this?
<<

Yes, I'm sure. Because it seemed so backward it made an impression. (I took
the test in an automatic).

Jose

--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

Dan Thomas

May 20th 04, 03:17 PM

wrote in message >...
> On 18 May 2004 18:09:20 -0700, (Dan
> Thomas) wrote:
>
> > Oh, man. Have you never flown a Champ or Cub or some other older
> >design that had lots of adverse yaw, and that might flick over into a
> >spin if you skidded it around the base-to-final turn? One that
> >required some serious attention in most maneuvers if you were going to
> >gain any proficiency in it at all? Even if it's rigged perfectly?
> >These older designs make the pilot aware of his need for precision,
> >and once he learns it his flying of all other aircraft improves
> >enormously.
>
> You sure about that? Adverse yaw has nothing to do with being a
> taildragger, it's the ailerons causing that. Put tricycle landing
> gear on it and it would still fly the same, requiring just as much
> rudder as when it was a taildragger.
>
> Corky Scott

I know that. I'm a CFI too. As I said somewhere earlier, the
taildraggers tend to be older designs that don't have the pussycat
behavior of newer types, which tend to be trikes.
The taildragger's big contribution is forcing the student to use
lots of appropriate rudder in takeoff and landing. Our trike students
quickly realize that their feet are going to have to learn new skills
for departing and arriving, and those skills translate into greater
precision on the rest of the flight.
I made up a term for the disease that afflicts tricycle pilots:
Somnopedosis. It means "sleepy feet." No trike pilot realizes how lazy
his feet are until he gets into a taildragger. I have a friend who
flies bizjets all over the world for a living. One of his colleagues,
a 6000-hour jet jock, would laugh at the taildragger training stuff.
My friend, who also has many hours in a 185, took this fella for some
dual in the 185. After an hour the guy had his "tail between his
legs," as my friend put it, and made no more noises about the value of
tailwheel training.
It's akin to the guy who thinks he could handle a helicopter
because he understands all the physics and controls behind it, like
me. Until, like me, he spends a few minutes trying to hover the darn
thing. I wish I could afford to master the diabolical machine. I have
the greatest respect for the guys who can artfully maneuver those
things.

Dan

C J Campbell

May 20th 04, 04:05 PM

"Henry and Debbie McFarland" > wrote in message
link.net...
> > > > > "C J Campbell" > wrote in
> > message
>
> > You have just convinced me that flying taildraggers not only does not
make
> > you a better pilot, it makes you worse to the point of being
destructive.
> > The Cessna 172 was not meant to be landed like a tailwheel aircraft.
> > Attempts to do that are both dangerous and wasteful.
> >
>
> CJ,
>
> I am sorry you feel this way. As a teacher, you are denying yourself a
> really fun learning experience that you can pass on to your students.
Having
> a tailwheel endorsement opens up your horizons.

As I said originally, this is the reason to get a tailwheel endorsement.
Saying it makes you a 'better' pilot, however, is silly.

>
> I also fly tricycle-geared airplanes. I owned a C-172C and put 600 hours
on
> it. The yoke must be pulled back in many of these earlier models in order
> not to land flat.

Which is my point exactly. You cannot generalize from one aircraft to
another how airplanes should be flown. If you cannot land a C-172S like a
C-172C, then why would you expect everyone to land both planes as if they
were Piper Cubs?

Tom Sixkiller

May 20th 04, 04:54 PM

"Cub Driver" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 19 May 2004 13:21:03 -0500, "Bill Denton"
> > wrote:
>
> >I think it's probably a safe bet that most of the ardent advocates of
> >tailwheel training drive cars and trucks with automatic transmissions.
>
> Well, I'm not an ardent advocate, though I did learn in a taildragger
> and I continue to fly one.
>
> And I have always driven a standard transmission.
>
Elitist bigot! :~)

(Stuck with Auto Trans due to a wife with three left feet)

[email protected]

May 20th 04, 05:59 PM

On Thu, 20 May 2004 12:37:43 GMT, "Henry and Debbie McFarland"
> wrote:

>To me, there is
>nothing better than flying with the window open and hearing that 65 hp
>Continental sing.

65 hp Continental sing? I always thought they chugged. <BIG GRIN>

That reminds me, went to a Waco fly-in at an airfield somewhere south
of Dayton Ohio back around '91 or 2. There was an early vintage Waco
there (two of them actually) that were powered by OX-5's. I hung out
right next to them to hear what those V8's sounded like.

When the one I was about 10 feet away from was propped, I was
flabbergasted: it sounded exactly like "depocket depocket depocket"

When it "revved up" for takeoff, the sound changed to: "DEPOCKET
DEPOCKET DEPOCKET" and it leisurely bumped down the runway and gently
lifted off.

Rent the movie "Chitty Chitty Bang Bang" and you'll have the sound
exactly.

Corky Scott

[email protected]

May 20th 04, 06:35 PM

On 20 May 2004 07:17:17 -0700, (Dan
Thomas) wrote:

> I made up a term for the disease that afflicts tricycle pilots:
>Somnopedosis. It means "sleepy feet." No trike pilot realizes how lazy
>his feet are until he gets into a taildragger. I have a friend who
>flies bizjets all over the world for a living. One of his colleagues,
>a 6000-hour jet jock, would laugh at the taildragger training stuff.
>My friend, who also has many hours in a 185, took this fella for some
>dual in the 185. After an hour the guy had his "tail between his
>legs," as my friend put it, and made no more noises about the value of
>tailwheel training.

I understand, I really do. But I actually do use the rudder pedals in
the 172. I have to use them during crosswind takeoff's and during
normal takeoffs, to hold the nose straight while climbing, to hold the
nose straight while descending and also to get the airplane straight
when reaching for the runway. The only time I'm not putting pressure
on the rudder pedals for some sort of flight direction correction, is
during cruise in calm winds. Coincidentally, you don't need to apply
rudder in taildraggers at that point either.

I understand that in addition to that, taildragger pilots need to be
sharply aware of wind while taxiing. "Ya got ta fly it till it's tied
down", is something I've heard for 30 years. On the other hand, I was
trained to pay attention to the wind while taxiing the 172 too. I
also understand that because the weight of the airplane is behind the
main wheels, taildraggers would very much like to swap ends during
rollout, should the pilot be so kind as to let it.

I have a friend who owns a taildragger and he really HATES landing it
on paved runways because it's just much more sensitive to input on
those kinds of surfaces. Give him a grass field which is much more
forgiving, and he's happy.

Corky Scott

EDR

May 20th 04, 09:03 PM

In article >,
> wrote:

> That reminds me, went to a Waco fly-in at an airfield somewhere south
> of Dayton Ohio back around '91 or 2.

(KHAO) Hamilton, Ohio

JFLEISC

May 20th 04, 10:52 PM

> > I will tell you one thing about old pilots: I have never flown with a
>> > pilot who had more than 15,000 hours who did not scare me to death.
>> > The last one, a guy who had 17,000 hours and more than 7,000 hour in
>> > type (a twin), could not hold altitude within 200 feet and had no idea
>> > how to set up an instrument approach. He knew it, too.
>>
>> Well CJ, here's one 69 year old pilot that thinks that you're full
>> of ****! I logged my 20,000th hour about 12 years ago and I spent
>> this past Friday out teaching spins to a Private Pilot who wanted
>> some advanced instruction. As a bonus, I threw in a few "to-the-
>> stops" flap 40 slips in his C-172.
>
>
>Yup...you scared him to death.

Right on! I guess the required placard that prohibits full flap slips doesn't
mean anything. Just what we need; Someone teaching students that it's "OK" to
do prohibited or unauthorized maneuvers. Dosen't matter if "he" can get away
with it. Reminds me of the guy who posted some time back about the instructor
who looped his Cessna during a lesson. If anyone ever did that while giving a
lesson to my wife I'd rat him out to the FAA at the least and wouldn't want to
consider the worst.

Jim

Dan Thomas

May 21st 04, 12:04 AM

"Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message >...
> "Bob Moore" > wrote in message
> . 6...
> > "C J Campbell" wrote
> >
> > > I will tell you one thing about old pilots: I have never flown with a
> > > pilot who had more than 15,000 hours who did not scare me to death.
> > > The last one, a guy who had 17,000 hours and more than 7,000 hour in
> > > type (a twin), could not hold altitude within 200 feet and had no idea
> > > how to set up an instrument approach. He knew it, too.
> >
> > Well CJ, here's one 69 year old pilot that thinks that you're full
> > of ****! I logged my 20,000th hour about 12 years ago and I spent
> > this past Friday out teaching spins to a Private Pilot who wanted
> > some advanced instruction. As a bonus, I threw in a few "to-the-
> > stops" flap 40 slips in his C-172.
>
>
> Yup...you scared him to death.

What's wrong with full-slipping a 172 with 40 flap? We do that, and
the airplane won't drop nearly as radically as a Citabria. The 172's
rudder is mostly cosmetic, I think.

Dan

Bob Moore

May 21st 04, 12:49 AM

(JFLEISC) wrote

> Right on! I guess the required placard that prohibits full flap slips
> doesn't mean anything. Just what we need; Someone teaching students
> that it's "OK" to do prohibited or unauthorized maneuvers. Dosen't
> matter if "he" can get away with it. Reminds me of the guy who posted
> some time back about the instructor who looped his Cessna during a
> lesson. If anyone ever did that while giving a lesson to my wife I'd
> rat him out to the FAA at the least and wouldn't want to consider the
> worst.

Come down off your high horse sonny. No where in the airplane is there
a placard that states "prohibited" about anything. Doesn't say anything
about "unauthorized" either. I don't have the POH here in front of me
at the time, but as I recall it does say something about slips and flaps
during landing, but at 4,000' AGL, we wern't anywhere near landing.

I repost this excerpt from a book written by William Thompson, Manager of
Flight Test and Aerodynamics at the Cessna Aircraft Company. I take it
that you didn't read the entire paragraph posted earlier in another thread.

"For this reason a caution note was placed in most of the owner's manuals
under "Landings" reading "Slips should be avoided with flap settings
greater than 30° due to a downward pitch encountered under certain
combinations of airspeed, side-slip angle, and center of gravity loadings".

Bob Moore

mikem

May 21st 04, 01:16 AM

JFLEISC wrote:
> Right on! I guess the required placard that prohibits full flap slips doesn't
> mean anything. Just what we need; Someone teaching students that it's "OK" to
> do prohibited or unauthorized maneuvers. Dosen't matter if "he" can get away
> with it. Reminds me of the guy who posted some time back about the instructor
> who looped his Cessna during a lesson. If anyone ever did that while giving a
> lesson to my wife I'd rat him out to the FAA at the least and wouldn't want to
> consider the worst.
>
> Jim

Jim,

methinks that it is you that is full of (sh)it...

There is no prohibition against slipping most 172 models with full
flaps. Only certain models mention it in the manual. It is not
a required placard.

MikeM

mike regish

May 21st 04, 01:39 AM

How can you get in trouble in a tripacer? I find it almost TOO forgiving.

mike regish

"Dan Thomas" > wrote in message
om...
> "Newps" > wrote in message
>...
> > "Dan Thomas" > wrote in message
> > om...
> >
> >
> > The student has to maintain control of an unruly airplane and
> > > has to be able to read a map, use a wet compass and and a watch.
> >
> > Huh? Once in the air a plane is a plane. Maybe yours isn't rigged
right.
>
> Oh, man. Have you never flown a Champ or Cub or some other older
> design that had lots of adverse yaw, and that might flick over into a
> spin if you skidded it around the base-to-final turn? One that
> required some serious attention in most maneuvers if you were going to
> gain any proficiency in it at all? Even if it's rigged perfectly?
> These older designs make the pilot aware of his need for precision,
> and once he learns it his flying of all other aircraft improves
> enormously. In 12 years here I've seen these taildraggers cure a lot
> of sloppiness. We've used them to demonstrate the skidding-turn spin,
> thereby showing the student what eventually awaits him if he gets
> stupid at low altitude. Some guys get their PPL in a 172 or Warrior
> and then go buy an old 140 or Champ or Tri-Pacer and get into trouble
> almost immediately.
> We also use the Citabria for emergency maneuvers training (basic
> aerobatics) to show the control inputs required to get an airplane
> upright again if control is lost in extreme turbulence or wake
> turbulence. Try THAT in a 172.
> A plane is not a plane. That idea has killed way to many
> uninitated folks.
>
> Dan

JFLEISC

May 21st 04, 01:41 AM

>No where in the airplane is there
>a placard that states "prohibited" about anything. Doesn't say anything
>about "unauthorized" either. I don't have the POH here in front of me
>at the time, but as I recall it does say something about slips and flaps
>during landing, but at 4,000' AGL, we wern't anywhere near landing.
>
>

I have our '61 C-172 POH in front of me and it lists 'authorized' operations.
I guess if it's not on the list "my" interpretation would be "unauthorized". It
also goes on to state 'No acrobatic manuvers are approved except those listed
below'. Loops wasn't one of them. I guess it was "my" interpretation that if it
wasn't 'approved' it was "prohibited". As for the prohibited 40 slip placard,
it was an AD, I believe, and my A&P put it (the label, placard, whatever you
want to call it) on the flap handle. I argued about it and he showed me the AD
number (please don't make me dig that one up) and instructions.

Dale

May 21st 04, 04:22 AM

In article >,
Bob Moore > wrote:

> Come down off your high horse sonny. No where in the airplane is there
> a placard that states "prohibited" about anything. Doesn't say anything
> about "unauthorized" either. I don't have the POH here in front of me
> at the time, but as I recall it does say something about slips and flaps
> during landing, but at 4,000' AGL, we wern't anywhere near landing.

Depends on which year 172it is. I was looking at Info Manuals a while
back concerning the slips with flaps stuff and found 2 years (66 and 67
I think it was) that do Prohibit slips with flaps. The year prior and
the years after do not prohibit slips -- which is odd since there are no
big changes to the airframe (the extended dorsal came along in '73).

--
Dale L. Falk

There is nothing - absolutely nothing - half so much worth doing
as simply messing around with airplanes.

http://home.gci.net/~sncdfalk/flying.html

Dale

May 21st 04, 04:31 AM

In article >,
(JFLEISC) wrote:

> I have our '61 C-172 POH in front of me and it lists 'authorized'
> operations.
> I guess if it's not on the list "my" interpretation would be "unauthorized".
> It
> also goes on to state 'No acrobatic manuvers are approved except those listed
> below'. Loops wasn't one of them. I guess it was "my" interpretation that if
> it
> wasn't 'approved' it was "prohibited". As for the prohibited 40 slip placard,
> it was an AD, I believe, and my A&P put it (the label, placard, whatever you
> want to call it) on the flap handle. I argued about it and he showed me the
> AD
> number (please don't make me dig that one up) and instructions.

So does it actually say in your Owners Manual that slips with flaps are
prohibited? In my reply to Bob Moore you'll see that I've found that
different years have different procedures re: slips with flaps...curious
about your '61 model.

I've never seen slips mentioned as an authorized operation on any of the
airplanes I've flown and certainly wouldn't consider them prohibited
simply because they weren't mentioned. The airplane is licensed in the
normal category which allows "any maneuvers incidental to normal
flying"...slips certainly aren't abnormal for light aircraft.

--
Dale L. Falk

There is nothing - absolutely nothing - half so much worth doing
as simply messing around with airplanes.

http://home.gci.net/~sncdfalk/flying.html

[email protected]

May 21st 04, 05:12 AM

On Wed, 19 May 2004 22:27:00 -0700, "C J Campbell"
> wrote:

>Personally, I think the manufacturer probably has a better idea of how the
>airplane should be flown than a bunch of Usenet know-it-alls. You pitch for
>airspeed, not for position of the yoke. If you can't control your airspeed,
>you have serious problems.

Dude, have been reading your stuff for quite awhile here in the
groups, always enjoyed it. Am really having a tuff time figuring out
just what is going on inside yer head on this one.

WTF are you trying to say here? I expect "the manufacturer" to provide
me with basic operating limitations, and I'll follow them to the
letter. Flap "speeds", gear extend/retract "speeds", never exceed
"speeds", operating weight/moment/envelope limitations, etc. I expect
the Feds to set operating limitations, how I can fly, where I can fly,
even when I can fly, I'll follow them also.

Other than that, I'll fly the damn thing in whatever manner I choose
as PIC. Is Cessna/Piper/Beech going to tell me how to deal with the
infinite combinations of day-to-day
TO/climb/cruise/descend/approach/land flight conditions? Heck no, they
are going to shoot for the average and hope for the best.

Screw the average. For that matter, screw any pilot that is happy with
being "average".

I've never flown two "identical" make/ model aircraft that reacted in
exactly the same manner to control inputs, and I've never been lucky
enuff to fly on two days where the temperature/humidity/winds were the
same.

I really couldn't care less whether or not a CFI feels a "standard
stabilized approach" profile is the only one acceptable. If I feel
like doing one, I will, if I don't I won't.

"Pitch for airspeed"-real original. "If you can't control your
airspeed, you have serious problems" No ****? My all-time favorite is
"all you really need to fly is oil pressure". Doh! Forgot about the
glider rating-that one won't work. Know-it-all? I don't know squat,
and am not afraid to prove it!

>You have just convinced me that flying taildraggers not only does not make
>you a better pilot, it makes you worse to the point of being destructive.
>The Cessna 172 was not meant to be landed like a tailwheel aircraft.
>Attempts to do that are both dangerous and wasteful.

You have apparently been trying really, really hard to convince me
that you are incapable of thinking anywhere outside of the lines of
your own personal experience. What exactly is "dangerous and
wasteful" about setting up a Cessna 172 for a full-stall spot landing
at an altitude of 4-6 inches AGL and an infinitesimal rate of descent
if local conditions will permit it, and the PIC can perform it? What
part of this is going to put the tail tie-down into the pavement? At
this point, who really cares what the "airspeed" is?

>Not only that, I am increasingly disturbed by tailwheel pilots' obsession
>with landing as the only measure of the quality of a pilot. It really tells
>me something -- like, they don't know how to do anything else. I hope you
>will excuse me now. It is obvious that I have disturbed a bunch of religious
>fanatics.

Last time I checked, most GA pilots tend to bend things after running
out gas, or at some point in the sequence of events involved in
ceasing to fly. Not that there is a limit to the inventive ways they
can make the media think that the sky is falling.

Do you instruct pilots in airplanes, at airports? Do the BFR deal?
You mean to tell me that you've never been exposed to an
obsessed/possessed pilot before? With some it's airspeed, some
stalling-and-dying, strictly overhead mid-field pattern guys, only
carrier-landing gals, always looking at the instruments, never looking
at the instruments, hog the freq or ignore the comms, some are afraid
of the pavement, some are not afraid of anything.

Never met one without an ego.

Why do you think it would be any different here?

puzzled, not ****ed-off;

TC

Bela P. Havasreti

May 21st 04, 06:31 AM

On Thu, 20 May 2004 19:22:52 -0800, Dale > wrote:

>In article >,
> Bob Moo re > wrote:
>
>
>> Come down off your high horse sonny. No where in the airplane is there
>> a placard that states "prohibited" about anything. Doesn't say anything
>> about "unauthorized" either. I don't have the POH here in front of me
>> at the time, but as I recall it does say something about slips and flaps
>> during landing, but at 4,000' AGL, we wern't anywhere near landing.
>
>
>Depends on which year 172it is. I was looking at Info Manuals a while
>back concerning the slips with flaps stuff and found 2 years (66 and 67
>I think it was) that do Prohibit slips with flaps. The year prior and
>the years after do not prohibit slips -- which is odd since there are no
>big changes to the airframe (the extended dorsal came along in '73).

I don't know squat about 172s (sorry, I'm a 170B guy), but are you
certain the 66 and 67 manuals say "prohibited"? I seem to recall (in
passing) that flaps 40 slips were suggested to be "avoided" (way
different animal than prohibited!).

I belong to the camp that says flaps 40 slips is no big deal, *if*
you're familiar with the airplane, it's limitations and your
limitations. In my opinion, the early 100 series Cessnas (with 40
degree flaps) speak volumes to you if you're willing to listen. The
pitch-over they speak of is very manageable (and easily
avoided) in the right hands. The airframe/controls lets you
know with plenty of warning when it is about to get unhappy, and when
that happens, all you have to do is back off in the slightest amount,
and you're back in business. I get the feeling the "avoided"
mention in the books was put in there to weed out the nerds
(and to aid in any lawsuits filed by same).

That being said, if you need to slip a 100 series Cessna
with flaps 40 hanging out, you didn't plan your approach
right, and you were too high / too fast anyway.... <grins>

Bela P. Havasreti

Dale

May 21st 04, 08:10 AM

In article >,
Bela P. Havasreti > wrote:

> I don't know squat about 172s (sorry, I'm a 170B guy), but are you
> certain the 66 and 67 manuals say "prohibited"? I seem to recall (in
> passing) that flaps 40 slips were suggested to be "avoided" (way
> different animal than prohibited!).

Yes, prohibited. Someone posted on rec.aviation saying it was
prohibited, I said BS....went to Pilot shop the next day and looked at
the Info Manuals...crow doesn't taste too bad if you use lots of salt
and pepper. <G>

I've slipped all the single engine Cessna's I've flown with flaps and
haven't run into any problems doing so. I agree that if you have to
slip with 40 flaps your planning might not have been the best...but it's
a nice tool to have in the bag if you have to put the airplane
somewhere...like after the engine quits. Engine out landing is why I
practice it....and I've had to use it.

--
Dale L. Falk

There is nothing - absolutely nothing - half so much worth doing
as simply messing around with airplanes.

http://home.gci.net/~sncdfalk/flying.html

Cub Driver

May 21st 04, 10:39 AM

On Thu, 20 May 2004 12:37:43 GMT, "Henry and Debbie McFarland"
> wrote:

>Having
>a tailwheel endorsement opens up your horizons. I know it did mine.

Thank you for the post.

Since I am one-eyed, 72 years old, have only 300 hours, and am a bit
of a klutz, I am probably not a great stick. I fly the Cub because it
is fun. I love the posture of the airplane and the way the cylinders
stick out at the sides like cat's whiskers. I like to fly low with the
door open and look down at the New Hampshire countryside. (Getting to
Maine or Massachusetts is a huge adventure, and I have yet to cross
the river into Vermont.)

I even love to say "The Cub is turning final..." And I absolutely dote
on making wheel landings, especially when they don't commence with a
bounce.

Though I rent Zero Six Hotel "wet", I also appreciate the fact that
yesterday I flew 1.7 hours and burned only 6.9 gallons of gas.

Whether learning in a taildragger made me a better pilot or not, it
did make me a happy pilot. I started taking lessons at 68 for a hoot.
I doubt very much that I would still be flying had I not soloed in the
Cub.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
The Piper Cub Forum www.pipercubforum.com
Viva Bush! blog www.vivabush.org

Henry and Debbie McFarland

May 21st 04, 12:36 PM

> wrote in message: The only time I'm not
putting pressure
> on the rudder pedals for some sort of flight direction correction, is
> during cruise in calm winds. Coincidentally, you don't need to apply
> rudder in taildraggers at that point either.

Wrong. I have to keep my feet on the rudders all the time. Just the nature
of my correctly-rigged airplane. As a side note: I don't think in terms of
left or right rudder as one does in a C-172. It's just "rudder", a
combination of both. Our birds are very sensitive on the controls, but as a
result, they become a part of the pilot. I think it and Lester does it.

Deb

--
1946 Luscombe 8A (His)
1948 Luscombe 8E (Hers)
1954 Cessna 195B, restoring (Ours)
Jasper, Ga. (JZP)
...
> On 20 May 2004 07:17:17 -0700, (Dan
> Thomas) wrote:
>
> > I made up a term for the disease that afflicts tricycle pilots:
> >Somnopedosis. It means "sleepy feet." No trike pilot realizes how lazy
> >his feet are until he gets into a taildragger. I have a friend who
> >flies bizjets all over the world for a living. One of his colleagues,
> >a 6000-hour jet jock, would laugh at the taildragger training stuff.
> >My friend, who also has many hours in a 185, took this fella for some
> >dual in the 185. After an hour the guy had his "tail between his
> >legs," as my friend put it, and made no more noises about the value of
> >tailwheel training.
>
> I understand, I really do. But I actually do use the rudder pedals in
> the 172. I have to use them during crosswind takeoff's and during
> normal takeoffs, to hold the nose straight while climbing, to hold the
> nose straight while descending and also to get the airplane straight
> when reaching for the runway. >
> I understand that in addition to that, taildragger pilots need to be
> sharply aware of wind while taxiing. "Ya got ta fly it till it's tied
> down", is something I've heard for 30 years. On the other hand, I was
> trained to pay attention to the wind while taxiing the 172 too. I
> also understand that because the weight of the airplane is behind the
> main wheels, taildraggers would very much like to swap ends during
> rollout, should the pilot be so kind as to let it.
>
> I have a friend who owns a taildragger and he really HATES landing it
> on paved runways because it's just much more sensitive to input on
> those kinds of surfaces. Give him a grass field which is much more
> forgiving, and he's happy.
>
> Corky Scott
>
>

Henry and Debbie McFarland

May 21st 04, 12:39 PM

There is no AD on my 1962 172C. I slipped with full flaps all the time. No
big deal.

Deb

--
1946 Luscombe 8A (His)
1948 Luscombe 8E (Hers)
1954 Cessna 195B, restoring (Ours)
Jasper, Ga. (JZP)
"JFLEISC" > wrote in message
...
> >No where in the airplane is there
> >a placard that states "prohibited" about anything. Doesn't say anything
> >about "unauthorized" either. I don't have the POH here in front of me
> >at the time, but as I recall it does say something about slips and flaps
> >during landing, but at 4,000' AGL, we wern't anywhere near landing.
> >
> >
>
> I have our '61 C-172 POH in front of me and it lists 'authorized'
operations.
> I guess if it's not on the list "my" interpretation would be
"unauthorized". It
> also goes on to state 'No acrobatic manuvers are approved except those
listed
> below'. Loops wasn't one of them. I guess it was "my" interpretation that
if it
> wasn't 'approved' it was "prohibited". As for the prohibited 40 slip
placard,
> it was an AD, I believe, and my A&P put it (the label, placard, whatever
you
> want to call it) on the flap handle. I argued about it and he showed me
the AD
> number (please don't make me dig that one up) and instructions.

Bill Denton

May 21st 04, 02:32 PM

I don't know if this is relevant, but given the broad range of model years
being discussed, it may be useful...

I recently read an article about the evolution of the POH since the 1970's.
The article touched on the changes to the format and the information
included, but it also discussed the changing legal implications of the data
in the POH.

Is it possible that Cessna's changing attitude toward slips has been due
less to changes in the aircraft and more to changes in the legal climate?

"Bela P. Havasreti" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 20 May 2004 19:22:52 -0800, Dale > wrote:
>
> >In article >,
> > Bob Moo re > wrote:
> >
> >
> >> Come down off your high horse sonny. No where in the airplane is there
> >> a placard that states "prohibited" about anything. Doesn't say
anything
> >> about "unauthorized" either. I don't have the POH here in front of me
> >> at the time, but as I recall it does say something about slips and
flaps
> >> during landing, but at 4,000' AGL, we wern't anywhere near landing.
> >
> >
> >Depends on which year 172it is. I was looking at Info Manuals a while
> >back concerning the slips with flaps stuff and found 2 years (66 and 67
> >I think it was) that do Prohibit slips with flaps. The year prior and
> >the years after do not prohibit slips -- which is odd since there are no
> >big changes to the airframe (the extended dorsal came along in '73).
>
> I don't know squat about 172s (sorry, I'm a 170B guy), but are you
> certain the 66 and 67 manuals say "prohibited"? I seem to recall (in
> passing) that flaps 40 slips were suggested to be "avoided" (way
> different animal than prohibited!).
>
> I belong to the camp that says flaps 40 slips is no big deal, *if*
> you're familiar with the airplane, it's limitations and your
> limitations. In my opinion, the early 100 series Cessnas (with 40
> degree flaps) speak volumes to you if you're willing to listen. The
> pitch-over they speak of is very manageable (and easily
> avoided) in the right hands. The airframe/controls lets you
> know with plenty of warning when it is about to get unhappy, and when
> that happens, all you have to do is back off in the slightest amount,
> and you're back in business. I get the feeling the "avoided"
> mention in the books was put in there to weed out the nerds
> (and to aid in any lawsuits filed by same).
>
> That being said, if you need to slip a 100 series Cessna
> with flaps 40 hanging out, you didn't plan your approach
> right, and you were too high / too fast anyway.... <grins>
>
> Bela P. Havasreti

[email protected]

May 21st 04, 02:37 PM

On Fri, 21 May 2004 11:36:55 GMT, "Henry and Debbie McFarland"
> wrote:

> wrote in message: The only time I'm not
>putting pressure
>> on the rudder pedals for some sort of flight direction correction, is
>> during cruise in calm winds. Coincidentally, you don't need to apply
>> rudder in taildraggers at that point either.
>
>Wrong. I have to keep my feet on the rudders all the time. Just the nature
>of my correctly-rigged airplane. As a side note: I don't think in terms of
>left or right rudder as one does in a C-172. It's just "rudder", a
>combination of both. Our birds are very sensitive on the controls, but as a
>result, they become a part of the pilot. I think it and Lester does it.

Deb, ease up for pete's sake. I didn't mean that the feet weren't on
the rudder pedals, I meant you don't (or shouldn't much) need to use
them at cruise because the airplane (C172) is rigged to fly neutral at
in that regime. All airplanes are rigged that way, or should be,
because the majority of the time in flight is spent at cruise.

Even the Messerschmitt Bf 109, one of the least directionally stable
fighters of WWII to fly, was rigged to be neutral in cruise. Did this
mean the pilots flew it without their feet on the rudder bar when
cruising? Of course not, but at least they did not have to apply
constant pressure on one or the other pedals to make it fly straight.
They did have to constantly correct heading though as the airplane was
designed with a certain amount of directional instability so that it
responded to the controls quickly.

If your airplane requires constant rudder pressure to center the ball
during normal cruise, something is wrong. What I mean is, it should
not fly in a constant yaw to one side. If it constantly hunts back
and fourth, you have my sympathies.

Corky Scott

C J Campbell

May 21st 04, 03:49 PM

"JFLEISC" > wrote in message
...
>
> Right on! I guess the required placard that prohibits full flap slips

Noooooooo!!!!! Spare us!

The infamous "slips with flaps" flame war is legendary around here. Do a
Google search on it and you will see what I mean.

Bela P. Havasreti

May 21st 04, 04:35 PM

On Thu, 20 May 2004 23:10:18 -0800, Dale > wrote:

Well, at least crow gets more palatable with each serving.... 8^)

I'm with the other guy who posted that perhaps Cessna lawyers
got the word "avoided" changed to "prohibited" in the manuals.

Then later, more Cessna lawyers talked the engineers into
limiting the flaps to 30 degrees (to weed out even more
nerds!).

Bela P. Havasreti

>In article >,
> Bela P. Havasreti > wrote:
>
>
>> I don't know squat about 172s (sorry, I'm a 170B guy), but are you
>> certain the 66 and 67 manuals say "prohibited"? I seem to recall (in
>> passing) that flaps 40 slips were suggested to be "avoided" (way
>> different animal than prohibited!).
>
>Yes, prohibited. Someone posted on rec.aviation saying it was
>prohibited, I said BS....went to Pilot shop the next day and looked at
>the Info Manuals...crow doesn't taste too bad if you use lots of salt
>and pepper. <G>
>
>I've slipped all the single engine Cessna's I've flown with flaps and
>haven't run into any problems doing so. I agree that if you have to
>slip with 40 flaps your planning might not have been the best...but it's
>a nice tool to have in the bag if you have to put the airplane
>somewhere...like after the engine quits. Engine out landing is why I
>practice it....and I've had to use it.

Greg Esres

May 21st 04, 04:39 PM

<< found 2 years (66 and 67 I think it was) that do Prohibit slips
with flaps. >>

Was it actually in the "Operating Limitations" section, or just
mentioned somewhere in the text of the POH? I'm just wondering if the
pilot who wrote the procedures of the book exceeded his authority in
using the word "prohibited". I couldn't find a "prohibited" placard
on my CD of type certificates for any 172 model.

Dylan Smith

May 21st 04, 07:31 PM

In article >, C J Campbell wrote:
>> If that isn't one of the worst statements ever posted to this newsgroup I
>> don't know what is.
>
> Yeah, well, we replace half a dozen tiedown rings a year, thanks to the
> idiotic advice of people like you. I ought to send you the bill.

Then they must be being taught to suddenly pull the yoke to the stops
then.

The C172N I learned to fly in was flown enough to reach engine TBO every
2 years. For the 7 years I was in that club, the tiedown ring was never
replaced. The plane was tied down outside and therefore lots of people
looked at the ring. Landings were taught to be yoke-all-the-way back by
all the instructors I flew with.

I've perhaps got 500 landings in C172N models, and I've never dragged
the tiedown ring on the ground.

--
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

May 21st 04, 07:44 PM

In article >, C J Campbell wrote:
>> Personally, if there was one additional requirement that I think new
>> CFIs should meet before teaching is a long solo cross country of a good
>> 1000NM. That way they are likely to have had to have made real world
>> weather decisions, have probably had to fly in mountainous terrain and
>> so forth. And my requirement would be to do it by mag compass, chart and
>> clock so they internalize the fundamentals of navigation too.
>
> How do you fly 1000 miles on the Isle of Mann? :-)

Generally by doing that super scary over water thingy!

--
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"

Bob Moore

May 21st 04, 08:55 PM

Greg Esres > wrote

> << found 2 years (66 and 67 I think it was) that do Prohibit slips
> with flaps. >>
>
> Was it actually in the "Operating Limitations" section, or just
> mentioned somewhere in the text of the POH? I'm just wondering if the
> pilot who wrote the procedures of the book exceeded his authority in
> using the word "prohibited". I couldn't find a "prohibited" placard
> on my CD of type certificates for any 172 model.

I think that Greg has hit the nail on the head! I have just returned
from the airport where I retreived the "Owner's Manual" for the 1959
Cessna 172A that I regularly fly. While at the airport, I inspected
the cockpit for a placard pertaining to flaps and slips and found none.
Reviewing Section IV of the "Owner's Manual" titled "Operating
Limitations", which is the only *regulatory* section, I find no reference
to flaps other than the speeds for the flap operating range.
In Section III, "Operating Details", the following appears in a paragraph
titled "LANDING":
"Normal landings are made power off with any flap setting. Slips are
prohibited in full flap approaches because of a downward pitch encountered
under certain combinations of airspeed and sideslip angle."

Section III is not regulatory and I feel, just as Greg, that the
author probably came under the influence of Rick Durden or one of his
predecessors. :-)

I still believe William Thompson's writings on the subject are as close to
the truth as we will discover. Posted below once again.

With the advent of the large slotted flaps in the C-170, C-180, and C-172
we encountered a nose down pitch in forward slips with the wing flaps
deflected. In some cases it was severe enough to lift the pilot against his
seat belt if he was slow in checking the motion. For this reason a caution
note was placed in most of the owner's manuals under "Landings" reading
"Slips should be avoided with flap settings greater than 30° due to a
downward pitch encountered under certain combinations of airspeed, side-
slip angle, and center of gravity loadings". Since wing-low drift
correction in cross-wind landings is normally performed with a minimum flap
setting (for better rudder control) this limitation did not apply to that
maneuver. The cause of the pitching motion is the transition of a strong
wing downwash over the tail in straight flight to a lessened downwash angle
over part of the horizontal tail caused by the influence of a relative
"upwash increment" from the upturned aileron in slipping flight. Although
not stated in the owner's manuals, we privately encouraged flight
instructors to explore these effects at high altitude, and to pass on the
information to their students. This phenomenon was elusive and sometimes
hard to duplicate, but it was thought that a pilot should be aware of its
existence and know how to counter-act it if it occurs close to the ground.
When the larger dorsal fin was adopted in the 1972 C-172L, this side-slip
pitch phenomenon was eliminated, but the cautionary placard was retained.
In the higher-powered C-172P and C-R172 the placard was applicable to a
mild pitch "pumping" motion resulting from flap outboard-end vortex
impingement on the horizontal tail at some combinations of side-slip angle,
power, and airspeed.

Bob Moore

Dave Russell

May 21st 04, 09:36 PM

(JFLEISC) wrote in message >...

>
> Right on! I guess the required placard that prohibits full flap slips doesn't
> mean anything. Just what we need; Someone teaching students that it's "OK" to
> do prohibited or unauthorized maneuvers. Dosen't matter if "he" can get away
> with it. Reminds me of the guy who posted some time back about the instructor
> who looped his Cessna during a lesson. If anyone ever did that while giving a
> lesson to my wife I'd rat him out to the FAA at the least and wouldn't want to
> consider the worst.

Jim,

Did C. J. Campbell teach you how to drive an airplane, on chance? ;-)

And C. J., you never did answer my earlier question.... how many
taildragger hours do *you* have?

-Dave Russell
8KCAB

Greg Esres

May 22nd 04, 04:20 AM

<<Section III is not regulatory >>

Ah, thank you. Perhaps that solves the mystery.

C J Campbell

May 22nd 04, 04:26 AM

"Dave Russell" > wrote in message
om...
> (JFLEISC) wrote in message
>...
>
> >
> > Right on! I guess the required placard that prohibits full flap slips
doesn't
> > mean anything. Just what we need; Someone teaching students that it's
"OK" to
> > do prohibited or unauthorized maneuvers. Dosen't matter if "he" can get
away
> > with it. Reminds me of the guy who posted some time back about the
instructor
> > who looped his Cessna during a lesson. If anyone ever did that while
giving a
> > lesson to my wife I'd rat him out to the FAA at the least and wouldn't
want to
> > consider the worst.
>
> Jim,
>
> Did C. J. Campbell teach you how to drive an airplane, on chance? ;-)

No. My students do slips with flaps. Actually, my students do slips very
well. I do not, however, teach prohibited or unauthorized maneuvers.

>
> And C. J., you never did answer my earlier question.... how many
> taildragger hours do *you* have?

Only about two, unfortunately, mostly in a Hyperbipe. You offering a ride?

Now, what would be really fun would be to get that Fairchild PT-28 that we
have for sale, although Mike says it is not a really good airplane for
spins -- it stretches the fabric on the fuselage and causes wrinkles.

Henry and Debbie McFarland

May 22nd 04, 01:06 PM

> wrote in message > Deb, ease up for
pete's sake. I didn't mean that the feet weren't on the rudder pedals, ....
If your airplane requires constant rudder pressure to center the ball
> during normal cruise, something is wrong.

Didn't mean to sound heavy ;-). Actually, nothing is wrong with my airplane.
It flies as it should, but I have wing tanks that are operated on right or
left, never both. As my fuel burns, I have to compensate with my control
inputs. I try to compensate this by using the tank that has the most weight
on that side (typically my passenger side, if occupied) As I posted earlier,
the controls in a Luscombe are so sensitive that the pilot hardly notices
the correction.

The 8A with a fuselage tank doesn't have this problem, but a stock version
is so light that it has to be dead calm to remove your feet from the rudders
for any length of time. I have trouble with my feet cramping or falling
asleep on really long crosscountries.

Deb

--
1946 Luscombe 8A (His)
1948 Luscombe 8E (Hers)
1954 Cessna 195B, restoring (Ours)
Jasper, Ga. (JZP)