Tamed by the Tailwheel

[[email protected]]

Yesterday I had an acro lesson scheduled, but since the ceilings were
too low we decided to do some pattern work instead since I'm also
working on the TW endorsement. The grass field at the airport had some
soft spots from the rain this weekend, so the plan was to fly over to
Queens City Airport, just outside of Allentown, PA. While I have
managed to make some good three point landings on the grass, the
majority of my eight or so hours in the Super Decathlon has been
devoted to acro, with pattern work making up only a small percentage of
my time up to this point.

Although I knew the winds were 310 with gusts between 20-24 kts, when
we departed from Rwy 25 I was still surprised at how quickly the wind
was pushing me off centerline. I corrected, but as we had been warned
by a glider pilot a few minutes earlier, the ten minute trip over was
extremely bumpy and likely made worse by the numerous ridges in the
area. After arriving I overflew the field to verify the most
appropriate runway, which was Rwy 33. My instructor informed me that
the pattern is particularly tight, with one reason being that there is
a ridge on the approach end of Rwy 33.

I flew out and made the 45 to the downwind while getting knocked around
the entire time. On the first pattern I found myself rushed and not
able to get properly set-up. I knew that I was too fast on final and
while I flared at about the right time, I allowed my attitude to fall
somewhere between that required for a wheel landing and a three point.
Combining those two factors caused me to bounce more times than I care
to remember, so I decided to go around. What became readily apparent to
me is that while one can get away with excess speed on the grass, the
margin for error on the hard top.

One the next trip around the pattern I think I was more relaxed and was
able to not only get my prop and throttle setting nailed, but I managed
to get my speed closer to where it should be. This approach was far
more stable with a good flare, but again my attitude was a hybrid
between a wheel and three point. I think part of the problem was that
I wasn't keeping the stick far enough back for a good three point
attitude. My instructor commented that if I had just given it a little
more forward pressure it would have been a good wheel landing, although
that's not what I was trying to do. We did one more trip around the
pattern before heading back and that was probably the worst of the
three.

Back at Van Sant we had about a 60 degree crosswind, but I managed to
keep the upwind wing down. Fortunately, the grass allows more mistakes
to be forgiven than on asphalt. I think my biggest problem happens to
be speed control. While I'm comfortable with no flap landings in a
172, I think the higher speed on downwind in the SD makes it harder to
bleed off speed for the approach. I'm 23 squared on downwind then once
abeam the numbers I bring the MP to 15" and prop full forward. At that
point my airspeed is about 120 mph. My instructor mentioned that he
often keeps cruise speed on downwind until abeam. I've done enough
spins and stalls in the SD to know that with throttle to idle it still
takes some work getting the airspeed down. Because I don't want to
make my pattern too wide I'm reluctant to spend too much time bleeding
off airspeed before completing the pattern.

But I think that if I can get my airspeed control nailed consistently I
can really get a handle on this. When my airspeed is on point my
landings are pretty good, but it's a matter of nailing the airspeed
more often. Doing this in a 172 is almost a no brainer. Perhaps I
should let the instructor demonstrate a few landings for me. It was
humbling experience and I felt like I was a new student pilot all over
again. I think my feet are still tired from all the dancing I had to
do.

Dave

[jsmith]

120 on downwind!!!
You're about 40 mph faster than you should be. It's no wonder you cannot
get slowed down! You should be no more than 85 MPH by the time you enter
the pattern. If you want to bleed speed, slip it and don't let the
airspeed increase when you kick it straight.
Forget about the prop until short final. If you are below 1600 RPM at
15" MP, you are probably below the minimum governor speed

[[email protected]]

Dave,

Your speed on downwind is fine, it allows you to mix with other
airplanes. Suggest you just pull the power back further when you make
the initial reduction and then quit looking at the m.p. gauge and use
the power as you need it to descend and hold your speed where you want
it. Speed control is utterly essential on tailwheel airplanes. It's
okay to be decelerating through the pattern and nail the speed on
final. If you're fast, close the throttle and slow down, using a
forward slip if necessary, although with a little planning you won't
need to slip the airplane. Wait until you are on final for the prop,
out of consideration for the folks around the airport. Make sure the
throttle is closed before you go into the flare and then strive to get
the stick all the way back to the stop before touchdown. It may mean
that the tailwheel touches first, but that's perfectly fine, it's
designed for it.

Have fun finishing the checkout.

All the best,
Rick

[Dudley Henriques]

Don't worry about keeping the airspeed high on downwind. It's perfectly
ok to do that. Unless you're a student learning to fly patterns, you
should be able to fly your pattern at any speed you choose within
available parameters for your airplane's configuration. In fact, it's
good to get used to doing this, as it's only a matter of time until some
controller will ask you to do it for traffic separation.
The Decathlon isn't all that slippery that you can't scrub off some
airspeed any time you wish. Trust me, I've done it hundreds of times.
Just play the approach and the airspeed accordingly, configuring the
airplane the way you want it as you turn base and onto final.
Just make sure, and this is especially important in tailwheels, that you
are configured correctly for airspeed, altitude, and attitude, as you
cross the threshold prior to flare transitioning.
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/CFI Retired
for private email; make necessary changes between ( )
dhenriques(at)(delete all this)earthlink(dot)net

> wrote in message
ups.com...
> Yesterday I had an acro lesson scheduled, but since the ceilings were
> too low we decided to do some pattern work instead since I'm also
> working on the TW endorsement. The grass field at the airport had
> some
> soft spots from the rain this weekend, so the plan was to fly over to
> Queens City Airport, just outside of Allentown, PA. While I have
> managed to make some good three point landings on the grass, the
> majority of my eight or so hours in the Super Decathlon has been
> devoted to acro, with pattern work making up only a small percentage
> of
> my time up to this point.
>
> Although I knew the winds were 310 with gusts between 20-24 kts, when
> we departed from Rwy 25 I was still surprised at how quickly the wind
> was pushing me off centerline. I corrected, but as we had been warned
> by a glider pilot a few minutes earlier, the ten minute trip over was
> extremely bumpy and likely made worse by the numerous ridges in the
> area. After arriving I overflew the field to verify the most
> appropriate runway, which was Rwy 33. My instructor informed me that
> the pattern is particularly tight, with one reason being that there is
> a ridge on the approach end of Rwy 33.
>
> I flew out and made the 45 to the downwind while getting knocked
> around
> the entire time. On the first pattern I found myself rushed and not
> able to get properly set-up. I knew that I was too fast on final and
> while I flared at about the right time, I allowed my attitude to fall
> somewhere between that required for a wheel landing and a three point.
> Combining those two factors caused me to bounce more times than I care
> to remember, so I decided to go around. What became readily apparent
> to
> me is that while one can get away with excess speed on the grass, the
> margin for error on the hard top.
>
> One the next trip around the pattern I think I was more relaxed and
> was
> able to not only get my prop and throttle setting nailed, but I
> managed
> to get my speed closer to where it should be. This approach was far
> more stable with a good flare, but again my attitude was a hybrid
> between a wheel and three point. I think part of the problem was that
> I wasn't keeping the stick far enough back for a good three point
> attitude. My instructor commented that if I had just given it a
> little
> more forward pressure it would have been a good wheel landing,
> although
> that's not what I was trying to do. We did one more trip around the
> pattern before heading back and that was probably the worst of the
> three.
>
> Back at Van Sant we had about a 60 degree crosswind, but I managed to
> keep the upwind wing down. Fortunately, the grass allows more
> mistakes
> to be forgiven than on asphalt. I think my biggest problem happens to
> be speed control. While I'm comfortable with no flap landings in a
> 172, I think the higher speed on downwind in the SD makes it harder to
> bleed off speed for the approach. I'm 23 squared on downwind then
> once
> abeam the numbers I bring the MP to 15" and prop full forward. At
> that
> point my airspeed is about 120 mph. My instructor mentioned that he
> often keeps cruise speed on downwind until abeam. I've done enough
> spins and stalls in the SD to know that with throttle to idle it still
> takes some work getting the airspeed down. Because I don't want to
> make my pattern too wide I'm reluctant to spend too much time bleeding
> off airspeed before completing the pattern.
>
> But I think that if I can get my airspeed control nailed consistently
> I
> can really get a handle on this. When my airspeed is on point my
> landings are pretty good, but it's a matter of nailing the airspeed
> more often. Doing this in a 172 is almost a no brainer. Perhaps I
> should let the instructor demonstrate a few landings for me. It was
> humbling experience and I felt like I was a new student pilot all over
> again. I think my feet are still tired from all the dancing I had to
> do.
>
> Dave
>

[Dudley Henriques]

"T o d d P a t t i s t" > wrote in message
...
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote:
>
>>Just play the approach and the airspeed accordingly, configuring the
>>airplane the way you want it as you turn base and onto final.
>>Just make sure, and this is especially important in tailwheels, that
>>you
>>are configured correctly for airspeed, altitude, and attitude, as you
>>cross the threshold prior to flare transitioning.
>
> I would add that for tailwheels, it's particularly important
> to have it well set in your mind, at least by final, whether
> you are making a 3-pt or a wheel landing, Getting caught
> halfway between the two will guarantee rabbit hopping down
> the runway.
>
> Selecting between the two types of landings is a decision
> that is not made when landing a tricycle gear. Stick motion
> during flare, aircraft attitude, the visual picture, etc.
> are all subtly different between the two types of landings.
> You're really building two different skill sets and you want
> to be firmly in one or the other.

I would agree with this.
DH

[[email protected]]

Thanks a lot everyone. I think this was exactly the mistake that I
made, flying some type of hybrid between the two. The only wheel
landing I've experienced to date was when I went up to do inverted
spins a few weeks ago. I asked the instructor to demonstrate one, but
haven't done one myself. Therefore I should have reverted to the three
point attitude that I'm used to seeing. I think that subconsciously I
was trying to see if I could do a wheel landing. Or maybe I was
reverting back to the sight picture for a 172, which is probably
somewhere between the two attitudes in the SD. The three point
attitude seems more natural on the grass strip, whereas the flatter
approach of a wheel landing seems more natural on a hard top runway.
Maybe I just need a lot more practice. :-)

Dave

[[email protected]]

wrote:
> The three point
> attitude seems more natural on the grass strip, whereas the flatter
> approach of a wheel landing seems more natural on a hard top runway.
> Maybe I just need a lot more practice. :-)

Dave,

We all could use more practice.

You've had a lot of good advice so far. Some of the other responses
above were from guys with a boatload of hours in the Super D. I've
only had a few hundred, so take this for what it's worth:

The Super D is pretty draggy; I agree that one can enter and fly the
pattern just as fast as blazes, no problem. Squeeze the power off all
the way to idle abeam the numbers, hold altitude (no climbing!), and
watch your airspeed drop like a stone. After the prop falls out of
governing range (about 95 mph), push it full forward and you'll get
another bit of extra drag. As the airspeed sinks to about 80, drop the
wing and start your base.

My first rating was in gliders (many happy hours at Van Sant... tell
Azhar I said, "Hi!"), so I prefer a steep, gliding approach. Slow to
70 on base (trim it!), and play the angles from there to reach your
desired touchdown point. I usually slip hard on final and aim for 70
heavy/65 light over the fence. It's just as easy to hold out a little
longer on downwind and forego the slip if you like that better.

The Super D is an easy, honest airplane, and it'll rescue you from many
mistakes on landing with a good shot of throttle and/or a go-around. I
*much* prefer 3-pointers, but I've learned to wheelie it at will, too.

The Super D will safely 3-point in any crosswind that I'd want to taxi
in (BIG rudder, powerful control surfaces), and I'd take the Super D
over a Cessna or Piper in a strong crosswind any day of the week.

Lastly, bad guys always wear black because black means evil, and
asphalt is black. Everyone knows that green means good, and grass is
green. :-)

Have fun!

-Dave Russell
8KCAB / N2S-3

[[email protected]]

Great advice Dave. I guess I'll listen to you even if you have only a
few hundred hours in the SD. ;-)

Dave

[Marty]

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
>> Selecting between the two types of landings is a decision
>> that is not made when landing a tricycle gear. Stick motion
>> during flare, aircraft attitude, the visual picture, etc.
>> are all subtly different between the two types of landings.
>> You're really building two different skill sets and you want
>> to be firmly in one or the other.
>
> I would agree with this.
> DH

Dudley, et al,

I have heard from all types, but I query you.
In the proccess of landing, what determines for you whether a full stall "3
point" or a wheel landing is warranted.

I have heard winds, particularly crosswinds are the main factor.

Then I rode with a Delta 727 Capt. (He later took command of a B777) in his
Super Cub, we landed with a nasty, gusty crosswind. I got it on final (me a
student), then he took it to a full stall landing and I paid attention to
the rudder pedal movement. The pedals made ever-so-slight corrections, the
nose hardly moved off centerline. Then the plane met earth ever-so-gently. I
noticed that he never quit "flying" till it was shut down in front of the
hangar. It was the most rewarding flight of my student year.
To this day, all I can think is, "Damn! This Guy is good!"
I applied the experience to my time in a Decathalon but I never got THAT
good at it.
I'll reserve his answer to this queston for later.
Blue Skies,
Marty

[dave]

Dave,
I did a lot of my private with Azher in a J3. When I got my Citabria,
7eca, Azher did my check out. I hadn't flown a taildragger in a few
years and my landing were consistantly too fast. He noticed that I was
spending too much time looking at my airspeed. He had me land without
looking at the airspeed. It's hard not to peek but once you cut the
throttle abeam the numbers, just fly the correct attitude. I'm not
sure if that would work with the SD but it really helped me. Although
I'm sure that you can fly a faster downwind, I found that it really
helped me to slow to 90MPH on downwind. Of course, in my airplane
slowing to 90 isn't too far off cruise speed:)

BTW, both times I was scheduled to fly with Azher in the SD it was down
for maintenance. The first time we ended up taking the Great Lakes.
The second time was for my BFR and we took the Stearman. One of these
days, I really like to fly an SD!! Maybe I shouldn't, it might make me
want to sell my 7ECA and upgade.

Dave
68 7ECA

wrote:
> Great advice Dave. I guess I'll listen to you even if you have only a
> few hundred hours in the SD. ;-)
>
> Dave
>

[Dudley Henriques]

"Marty" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
>>
>>> Selecting between the two types of landings is a decision
>>> that is not made when landing a tricycle gear. Stick motion
>>> during flare, aircraft attitude, the visual picture, etc.
>>> are all subtly different between the two types of landings.
>>> You're really building two different skill sets and you want
>>> to be firmly in one or the other.
>>
>> I would agree with this.
>> DH
>
> Dudley, et al,
>
> I have heard from all types, but I query you.
> In the proccess of landing, what determines for you whether a full
> stall "3 point" or a wheel landing is warranted.
>
> I have heard winds, particularly crosswinds are the main factor.
>
> Then I rode with a Delta 727 Capt. (He later took command of a B777)
> in his Super Cub, we landed with a nasty, gusty crosswind. I got it on
> final (me a student), then he took it to a full stall landing and I
> paid attention to the rudder pedal movement. The pedals made
> ever-so-slight corrections, the nose hardly moved off centerline. Then
> the plane met earth ever-so-gently. I noticed that he never quit
> "flying" till it was shut down in front of the hangar. It was the most
> rewarding flight of my student year.
> To this day, all I can think is, "Damn! This Guy is good!"
> I applied the experience to my time in a Decathalon but I never got
> THAT good at it.
> I'll reserve his answer to this queston for later.
> Blue Skies,
> Marty

After a thorough checkout in tailwheels, (actually even in trikes) one
of the things you'll come away with if you have had a good instructor is
that things in flying are never black and white. It's true that
instruction by some favors that approach, but I don't.
Flying an approach is a constantly changing dynamic with the existing
wind all the way through the approach.
You should pretty well have in your mind the type of landing you are
going to make in a tailwheel airplane from at least the base turn on in.
You can feel the airplane, feel the effect of the existing wind, and you
should have all that well planted in your brain as it applies to the
runway you're planning to land on by the base turn. You know the
crosswind limit for the airplane (I believe it's 17kts for the SD). By
the time you have made the base to final turn and established what
correction you need to maintain runway heading on final, you should
start planning the landing.
The Decathlon handles very well in a crosswind. I've never had a problem
with it. You do however want to consider the prop clearance on a grass
runway wheel landing. It used to be possible to compress the struts
going over a bump and catch the prop tips if you were holding in some
forward elevator. Haven't flown the new ones and they might be better
now in this respect...but be warned anyway :-)
The choice of landing is a personal one, based on existing conditions at
the time of each individual approach. The SD will do a very nice 3 point
landing...or even a tailwheel first landing, but I don't like these all
that much. I much prefer a tail low wheel landing with the tailwheel a
bit off the runway until after touchdown. As I said, NOTHING in flying
is written in stone. You are well advised to get rid of any firm "do
this when this happens" approach, and instead develop a hands on real
time fluid approach to flying airplanes in general, and tailwheels in
particular.
Bottom line, you observe the situation........you fly the airplane in
that situation....you choose early....then fly your choice. Just don't
change your mind in mid flare.
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/CFI Retired
for private email; make necessary changes between ( )
dhenriques(at)(delete all this)earthlink(dot)net

[Viperdoc]

I had around 400 hours in a Super Decathlon before moving to an Extra (which
by the way is a lot easier to land, even though the visibility is much
worse).

It seemed to me that for a while I was trying inputs and settings
mechanically, but then it just clicked and then it became mostly by
feel-just a glimpse at the airspeed on base or final, with the stick forces,
sound, and sink rate being good indicators of airspeed rather than focusing
on the panel.

Wheel landings were a bit easier, but used a lot of runway and wore the
tires faster. Also, even though it might be easier to touch down in
crosswinds, there will come a moment during the roll out where the speed
will be as slow as in a three point landing- during the transition moment
just before the tailwheel comes down.

All of my instructors wanted us to be proficient in both techniques under
all conditions. The Extra, which comes in over the fence at around 90 knots,
is much easier to land in cross winds, since the cross wind component
relative to the aircraft speed is quite low. Also, being a low wing plane
with a high wing loading makes cross winds much easier to deal with.

Regardless, flying a taildragger is definitely a humbling experience
compared to your average spam can.

[jsmith]

Viperdoc... you're in the Milwaukee area, right?
Have you ever flown with Billie?

Viperdoc wrote:
> I had around 400 hours in a Super Decathlon before moving to an Extra (which
> by the way is a lot easier to land, even though the visibility is much
> worse).

[Marty]

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> "Marty" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
>> ink.net...
>>>
>>>> Selecting between the two types of landings is a decision
>>>> that is not made when landing a tricycle gear. Stick motion
>>>> during flare, aircraft attitude, the visual picture, etc.
>>>> are all subtly different between the two types of landings.
>>>> You're really building two different skill sets and you want
>>>> to be firmly in one or the other.
>>>
>>> I would agree with this.
>>> DH
>>
>> Dudley, et al,
>>
>> I have heard from all types, but I query you.
>> In the proccess of landing, what determines for you whether a full stall
>> "3 point" or a wheel landing is warranted.
>>
>> I have heard winds, particularly crosswinds are the main factor.
>>
>> Then I rode with a Delta 727 Capt. (He later took command of a B777) in
>> his Super Cub, we landed with a nasty, gusty crosswind. I got it on final
>> (me a student), then he took it to a full stall landing and I paid
>> attention to the rudder pedal movement. The pedals made ever-so-slight
>> corrections, the nose hardly moved off centerline. Then the plane met
>> earth ever-so-gently. I noticed that he never quit "flying" till it was
>> shut down in front of the hangar. It was the most rewarding flight of my
>> student year.
>> To this day, all I can think is, "Damn! This Guy is good!"
>> I applied the experience to my time in a Decathalon but I never got THAT
>> good at it.
>> I'll reserve his answer to this queston for later.
>> Blue Skies,
>> Marty
>
> After a thorough checkout in tailwheels, (actually even in trikes) one of
> the things you'll come away with if you have had a good instructor is that
> things in flying are never black and white. It's true that instruction by
> some favors that approach, but I don't.
> Flying an approach is a constantly changing dynamic with the existing wind
> all the way through the approach.
> You should pretty well have in your mind the type of landing you are going
> to make in a tailwheel airplane from at least the base turn on in. You can
> feel the airplane, feel the effect of the existing wind, and you should
> have all that well planted in your brain as it applies to the runway
> you're planning to land on by the base turn. You know the crosswind limit
> for the airplane (I believe it's 17kts for the SD). By the time you have
> made the base to final turn and established what correction you need to
> maintain runway heading on final, you should start planning the landing.
> The Decathlon handles very well in a crosswind. I've never had a problem
> with it. You do however want to consider the prop clearance on a grass
> runway wheel landing. It used to be possible to compress the struts going
> over a bump and catch the prop tips if you were holding in some forward
> elevator. Haven't flown the new ones and they might be better now in this
> respect...but be warned anyway :-)
> The choice of landing is a personal one, based on existing conditions at
> the time of each individual approach. The SD will do a very nice 3 point
> landing...or even a tailwheel first landing, but I don't like these all
> that much. I much prefer a tail low wheel landing with the tailwheel a bit
> off the runway until after touchdown. As I said, NOTHING in flying is
> written in stone. You are well advised to get rid of any firm "do this
> when this happens" approach, and instead develop a hands on real time
> fluid approach to flying airplanes in general, and tailwheels in
> particular.
> Bottom line, you observe the situation........you fly the airplane in that
> situation....you choose early....then fly your choice. Just don't change
> your mind in mid flare.
> Dudley Henriques
> International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
> Commercial Pilot/CFI Retired
> for private email; make necessary changes between ( )
> dhenriques(at)(delete all this)earthlink(dot)net
>

Thanks Dudley,

Later during some acro training, I asked the now a 777 Capt.how he would
have handled a not-so-pretty landing I had just made in the SD (which he had
observed). His answer in short, "Hard to say, I wasn't flying it".
My personal preference is the tail low or full stall, the tail has to come
down sometime, doesn't it? ;-)
The only plane I routinely wheel landed was a slow but comfy '39 Fairchild
24. Ahhh, memories!

Marty

[Cub Driver]

I think you did well. Those windspeeds are not for learning!

It is definitely easier on grass ("the grass tarmac") than on asphalt.

I am always ready to convert a wheel landing into a three-pointer.
It's never happened that I intend a three-pointer and convert it to a
wheelie, but if it should happen that way, why not?


-- all the best, Dan Ford

email (put Cubdriver in subject line)

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

[Cub Driver]

On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 20:58:11 -0600, "Marty" >
wrote:

>what determines for you whether a full stall "3
>point" or a wheel landing is warranted.

I always prefer the wheelie. It's how you would land the plane if you
never landed a plane before; it's a fine and natural thing, even
though it actually takes more training. With practice you can stop the
plane in about the same stretch of runway. (That said, I'd use a
three-point for short-field landings.) It's safer in a crosswind. I'm
wary making wheel landings downwind, but nothing untoward has ever
happened or threatened to happen, and it's a good idea anyhow to get
the tailwheel on the ground as quickly as possible.

Most of my experience is in the J-3, but I've also flown a Husky,
PA-18, and Great Lakes. All the landings in the Lakes were
three-point, because that's what my instructor wanted me to do.

In the Husky, I made wheelies even on short fields (500 feet), again
because that's what my instructor wanted me to do.

You pretty much know, before the wheels touch, whether your tail is
high enough, and if it isn't you simply announce firmly: "This is now
three-point," and there's plenty of time to get the stick back. I find
it useful to make that announcement even if there is no one else in
the aircraft, which is usually the case.




-- all the best, Dan Ford

email (put Cubdriver in subject line)

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

[Viperdoc]

I have a lot of time with Bill, who did my initial tailwheel training and
helped me find my Decathlon as well. Simply put he is the best instructor
I've ever had the opportunity to fly with as well as a great guy.

Of course, I still give him a hard time about his red Decathlon, and the
fact that you can't even tell where he used a paint roller for the paint
job.

[jsmith]

No one flies a Super D better than Billie!
Ask him if he still has his chicken suit.

Viperdoc wrote:
> I have a lot of time with Bill, who did my initial tailwheel training and
> helped me find my Decathlon as well. Simply put he is the best instructor
> I've ever had the opportunity to fly with as well as a great guy.
> Of course, I still give him a hard time about his red Decathlon, and the
> fact that you can't even tell where he used a paint roller for the paint
> job.

[[email protected]]

>My personal preference is the tail low or full stall, the >tail has to
come
>down sometime, doesn't it? ;-)

Most of these taildraggers won't go full stall in three point
attitude. The deck angle is too low. So even in a three-point
touchdown the wing is still at work and in a crosswind things can get
nasty if the pilot thinks the airplane is done flying. In our 7ECA and
7GCBC we do wheel landings for stronger crosswinds; that allows us to
get the thing planted, then deal with the crosswind and other stuff.
One thing at a time. The older models with the oleo gear (instead of
the newer spring steel leaf) were worse, since that gear was soft and
the crosswind pushing on the fuselage would tip the airplane a bit, and
then the wind would get under the wing and cause trouble. They ran out
of aileron and rudder as the rollout slowed thru 20 kt or so, just as
the student thought he was safe.
And yes, the leaf gear will spread far enough on a bounce to allow a
prop strike.

Dan

[Brian]

Just a thought, If you having difficulty holding your approach speed, I
am guessing you may not be trimming it properly.

I admit I haven't flown the Decathlon but have many hours in Aeronca,
Citabria and Scouts. I suspect the Decathlon is simlar in that the trim
in very effective and sensitive and the pitch controls are fairly
heavy.

Trim it out for about 85 before you turn base. If you can't let go of
the stick after that and have the airplane continue doing about the
same in pitch and maintain about 85 you don't have it trimmed very
well.

Then control your approach altitude with Throttle, Turns or Slips, not
necessarily in that order.

Brian
CFIIG/ASEL

[Richard Russell]

On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 21:58:41 -0500, dave >
wrote:

>Dave,
>I did a lot of my private with Azher in a J3. When I got my Citabria,
>7eca, Azher did my check out. I hadn't flown a taildragger in a few
>years and my landing were consistantly too fast. He noticed that I was
>spending too much time looking at my airspeed. He had me land without
>looking at the airspeed. It's hard not to peek but once you cut the
>throttle abeam the numbers, just fly the correct attitude. I'm not
>sure if that would work with the SD but it really helped me. Although
>I'm sure that you can fly a faster downwind, I found that it really
>helped me to slow to 90MPH on downwind. Of course, in my airplane
>slowing to 90 isn't too far off cruise speed:)
>
>BTW, both times I was scheduled to fly with Azher in the SD it was down
>for maintenance. The first time we ended up taking the Great Lakes.
>The second time was for my BFR and we took the Stearman. One of these
>days, I really like to fly an SD!! Maybe I shouldn't, it might make me
>want to sell my 7ECA and upgade.
>
>Dave
>68 7ECA
>
wrote:
>> Great advice Dave. I guess I'll listen to you even if you have only a
>> few hundred hours in the SD. ;-)
>>
>> Dave
>>

Dave and Dave,

I am toying with the idea of working on a taildragger endorsement this
summer. I've been to VanSant a number of times but always on my
motorcycle, never flew there. I currenty rent at N10 and KLOM. Would
you guys recommend VanSant as a good choice for this training?
Rich Russell (no relation to one of the Daves)

[dave]

Absolutely! You can still train in a cub or a champ. Just make sure
you book well in advance. It's best if you can schedule time on
weekdays.
Dave
68 7ECA

Richard Russell wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 21:58:41 -0500, dave >
> wrote:
>
>
>>Dave,
>>I did a lot of my private with Azher in a J3. When I got my Citabria,
>>7eca, Azher did my check out. I hadn't flown a taildragger in a few
>>years and my landing were consistantly too fast. He noticed that I was
>>spending too much time looking at my airspeed. He had me land without
>>looking at the airspeed. It's hard not to peek but once you cut the
>>throttle abeam the numbers, just fly the correct attitude. I'm not
>>sure if that would work with the SD but it really helped me. Although
>>I'm sure that you can fly a faster downwind, I found that it really
>>helped me to slow to 90MPH on downwind. Of course, in my airplane
>>slowing to 90 isn't too far off cruise speed:)
>>
>>BTW, both times I was scheduled to fly with Azher in the SD it was down
>>for maintenance. The first time we ended up taking the Great Lakes.
>>The second time was for my BFR and we took the Stearman. One of these
>>days, I really like to fly an SD!! Maybe I shouldn't, it might make me
>>want to sell my 7ECA and upgade.
>>
>>Dave
>>68 7ECA
>>
wrote:
>>
>>>Great advice Dave. I guess I'll listen to you even if you have only a
>>>few hundred hours in the SD. ;-)
>>>
>>>Dave
>>>
>
>
> Dave and Dave,
>
> I am toying with the idea of working on a taildragger endorsement this
> summer. I've been to VanSant a number of times but always on my
> motorcycle, never flew there. I currenty rent at N10 and KLOM. Would
> you guys recommend VanSant as a good choice for this training?
> Rich Russell (no relation to one of the Daves)

[houstondan]

perfect thread for me since i just did my first tailwheel lesson
yesterday. citabria 7gcbc. runway 9 wind 180@15 or so. some gustiness
but mostly just a strong-steady blow. for a first lesson i sure got my
money's worth. by the end, she had me running on one wheel and holding
it right down the centerline. plan on getting the tw endorsment then
some aerobatics and lots of spin and unusual (like in how the hell did
i wind up upside down and backwards???)attitude training.


dan

[[email protected]]

wrote:
>
> somewhere between that required for a wheel landing and a three
point.

I've found the SuperD difficult to get to flair to the three point
position. I've had to almost pry back to get it there and then relax
backpressure a bit so it doesn't go too nose high. (I'm not
recommending
this technique, just mentioning that I've experienced difficulty
getting
the SuperD into a nice three point attitude.) I don't find the same
problem with the regular Decathlon, so I guessed it was the extra
weight
up front?

btw, I've flown with Azhar, mostly in the Stearman and Great Lakes, so
say "Hi from Rick Macklem up in Canada", when you see him.
Have fun and good luck with it, rick

[[email protected]]

rmack,

Trim the airplane more aggressively on short final if you are having
difficulty getting the nose up. Slide in some extra nose up trim when
on short final, it will help. If you run out of elevator, slide in
nose down trim to get more effective elevator area but be prepared to
pull like crazy to take advantage of it.

It's impossible to get it "too nose high" on landing. Believe it or
not, it's okay to roll the tailwheel first. You touch down even more
slowly and have better control and less risk of a loss of control
accident on rollout. The slower you touch down the less energy you
have to manage during rollout.

All the best,
Rick

[Cub Driver]

On 12 Jan 2005 08:25:57 -0800, wrote:

>And yes, the leaf gear will spread far enough on a bounce to allow a
>prop strike.

So will the bugees on a Cub. Don't ask me how I know!


-- all the best, Dan Ford

email (put Cubdriver in subject line)

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

[[email protected]]

With due respect to all who have replied with various techniques, it
seems everyone is working with way too much airspeed! Now I don't claim
to be the base ace or ass, whichever comes to mind, but I do have a lot
of time in aircraft with the wheel in the rear and god only knows how
many thousands of landings with them (perhaps 20-30,000+?). The
apparent discussions as to wheel or tail aka "3 point" is amusing since
the ultimate outcome is supposed to be a safe and uneventful landing to
a full stop...isn't it?
In thousands of hours in crop dusting in a variety of aircraft,
dirt/grass/asphalt/concrete for landing areas, I never knew if it was
going to be a 3 point or a wheel landing. Most of the time it was a
slow speed wheel landing with minimum roll and braking or reverse
thrust. We didn't have time to screw around with rollouts and holding
centerline or whatever. We needed to land, get reloaded and back into
the air. The time we spent not spraying was non-revenue. Many of the
strips were barely as wide as the landing gear and difficult to work
from/on.
The biggest flaw I have seen in modern pilots is speed control and
right behind that is not knowing how to use rudder/aileron coordination
for landings. It continually amazes me at the lack of skill or even
knowledge of CFI's when it comes to slips with any degree of accuracy.
It all seems to be very pedantic with little or no pilot skills
involved. I am continually reminded of that when I fly with pilots who
have gotten their certificates in the past 15 years or so.
There is no magic in flying tail draggers any more than flying trikes
vs tailwheel, turboprops vs radial engine vs piston. Its a matter of
good technique and from what I read across the boards, it is a dying
art. No wonder I am called an old gray haired hardnosed as$hole.
Anybody can fly at cruise speeds. Who can fly on the lowest reaches of
the envelope with complete control and understanding of what they are
doing? There is the challenge.
Ol Shy & Not So Bashful (this time)

[Dudley Henriques]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> With due respect to all who have replied with various techniques, it
> seems everyone is working with way too much airspeed! Now I don't
> claim
> to be the base ace or ass, whichever comes to mind, but I do have a
> lot
> of time in aircraft with the wheel in the rear and god only knows how
> many thousands of landings with them (perhaps 20-30,000+?). The
> apparent discussions as to wheel or tail aka "3 point" is amusing
> since
> the ultimate outcome is supposed to be a safe and uneventful landing
> to
> a full stop...isn't it?
> In thousands of hours in crop dusting in a variety of aircraft,
> dirt/grass/asphalt/concrete for landing areas, I never knew if it was
> going to be a 3 point or a wheel landing. Most of the time it was a
> slow speed wheel landing with minimum roll and braking or reverse
> thrust. We didn't have time to screw around with rollouts and holding
> centerline or whatever. We needed to land, get reloaded and back into
> the air. The time we spent not spraying was non-revenue. Many of the
> strips were barely as wide as the landing gear and difficult to work
> from/on.
> The biggest flaw I have seen in modern pilots is speed control and
> right behind that is not knowing how to use rudder/aileron
> coordination
> for landings. It continually amazes me at the lack of skill or even
> knowledge of CFI's when it comes to slips with any degree of accuracy.
> It all seems to be very pedantic with little or no pilot skills
> involved. I am continually reminded of that when I fly with pilots who
> have gotten their certificates in the past 15 years or so.
> There is no magic in flying tail draggers any more than flying trikes
> vs tailwheel, turboprops vs radial engine vs piston. Its a matter of
> good technique and from what I read across the boards, it is a dying
> art. No wonder I am called an old gray haired hardnosed as$hole.
> Anybody can fly at cruise speeds. Who can fly on the lowest reaches of
> the envelope with complete control and understanding of what they are
> doing? There is the challenge.
> Ol Shy & Not So Bashful (this time)

Are you telling me I work my airplanes at too high an airspeed, and am
advising others to do the same?

Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/CFI Retired
for private email; make necessary changes between ( )
dhenriques(at)(delete all this)earthlink(dot)net

[[email protected]]

Todd
So, if the tailwheel touches first, does that make it a tailwheel
landing? Or, if the mains touch first followed a millisecond later by
the tail, does that make it a 3 point? Are we talking split hairs here
or what? OK, what is the difference in the attitude of the aircraft for
a 3 point vs a wheel landing? If the mains touch first and the
tailwheel is 2" off the ground, does that make it a wheel landing, or
is it simply a lazy 3 point? Could it possibly have anything to do with
the aircraft, how the pilot is seated, his/her visibility forward, the
weight of the aircraft/loading, or any myriad of factors that affect
the touchdown? Hell every landing is a unique animal and event
regardless of the aircraft flown or the conditions.
And, as a pompous note, the 20-30,000 landings in tail wheel aircraft
do not take into account the thousands of other landings included in
22,000 hours of flying. I'm delighted to see my reply has generated so
much comment. It's almost as if I insulted the abilities of everyone on
the board who is flying or has ever flown an airplane with a tail
wheel. When I began flying, the trikes were still new in general
aviation back in the 50's. Hell I don't have all the answers but I've
probably made more mistakes than any 100 pilots here put together and
somehow managed to survive them. That seems to indicate I may have
learned something from it all?
Grinning Best Regards
Ol Shy & Bashful

[[email protected]]

Dudley
Of course not. Your points are well taken. Why not take a hard look at
my point of view as well? I still think too many pilots simply are
afraid of working in the low airspeed region where most accidents are
developed and happen. Forget the high performance aircraft that you are
fond of and think of the low speed stuff that most of the pilots here
fly.
Why are there stall/spin accidents? Because the pilots didn't know how
to fly in the low speed region and got crossed up. Was it because of
cruise speed? Nope. It was in the pattern and misuse of speed or at
least lower speeds. How about running out of runway? A blown approach
due to excess speed and unable to make the first 1/3 of the runway
(assuming it is shorter than 5000').
I'll still maintain, most modern pilots don't know how to fly at the
lowest range of their aircraft envelope and that is a major contributor
to accidents.
Best Professional Regards
Rocky

[zatatime]

On 13 Jan 2005 08:23:19 -0800, wrote:

>I'll still maintain, most modern pilots don't know how to fly at the
>lowest range of their aircraft envelope and that is a major contributor
>to accidents.


Not to get into the middle of a potential squabble, but I learned from
an "old salt" and 90% of the BFRs I do focus on slow flight, pilotage,
and power off approaches. For a while I was always amazed at how much
time it took to get people relaxed at the controls while doing each.
Now I just accept the fact that most people have issues with this and
plan accordingly.

Not sure what happened as I came around when trikes were the norm, but
something did.

z

[houstondan]

wrote:
Hell every landing is a unique animal and event

> Grinning Best Regards
> Ol Shy & Bashful

ol s&b ('least i think it was an "&" in the middle there...)

as a raw beginning tailwheeler, i'm a little confused about this stuff.
as i sit here thinking about it; what i'm doing is trying to put my
feet down at the numbers in the middle of the runway configured
straight enough to keep it rolling down the middle. seems to me that
what kind of landing is probably more up to the wind than to me.

on another note, i learned to hate tricycles when i was about 4 years
old. i usually land the little 152/172 planes i rent very nose high and
in fact like to work on t&g without letting the nose wheel touch at
all. should i be leaving that nose down a bit more on draggers???
thanx y'all


dan

[Dudley Henriques]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> Dudley
> Of course not. Your points are well taken. Why not take a hard look at
> my point of view as well?

I just did; in the personal email you sent to me telling me to "bite
you".

The problem here isn't that you're affronting me personally, or anyone
else for that matter, as is all that nonsense about numbers of landings.

It's that you are posting to a thread where the initial poster asked if
he was carrying too much airspeed on DOWNWIND!!!!!
He was answered by me anyway...on THAT issue.
Your entire post deals with an area outside the initial poster's
question, and presumes to lecture those who have answered with comment
not related to the issue they have addressed.
That's all there is to it; plain and simple. If you are saying that
carrying extra airspeed on downwind is improper procedure, I'm afraid I
have to disagree with you on that.
As for your personal email to me; if "bite me" is your idea of the
professional approach, I'll fly with someone else thank you. :-)
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/CFI Retired
for private email; make necessary changes between ( )
dhenriques(at)(delete all this)earthlink(dot)net

[Dudley Henriques]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> Dudley
> Of course not. Your points are well taken. Why not take a hard look at
> my point of view as well? I still think too many pilots simply are
> afraid of working in the low airspeed region where most accidents are
> developed and happen. Forget the high performance aircraft that you
> are
> fond of and think of the low speed stuff that most of the pilots here
> fly.

What has this got to do with holding extra airspeed on DOWNWIND!?

> Why are there stall/spin accidents?

What has this got to do with holding extra airspeed on DOWNWIND?


Because the pilots didn't know how
> to fly in the low speed region and got crossed up.

What has this got to do with holding extra airspeed on DOWNWIND?


Was it because of
> cruise speed? Nope. It was in the pattern and misuse of speed or at
> least lower speeds.

What has this got to do with holding extra airspeed on DOWNWIND?



How about running out of runway? A blown approach
> due to excess speed and unable to make the first 1/3 of the runway
> (assuming it is shorter than 5000').

What has this got to do with holding extra airspeed on DOWNWIND? Nobody
even came close to hinting that extra airspeed should be held through
TOUCHDOWN!!!
What is it about the word DOWNWIND you don't understand?

> I'll still maintain, most modern pilots don't know how to fly at the
> lowest range of their aircraft envelope and that is a major
> contributor
> to accidents.

Although aircraft control in the left side of the envelope is critical
to flight safety, airspeed control in the left side of the envelope has
nothing to do with carrying extra airspeed on DOWNWIND!!!


Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/CFI Retired
for private email; make necessary changes between ( )
dhenriques(at)(delete all this)earthlink(dot)net

[[email protected]]

Dudley
Extra speed DOWNWIND is fine if you want to blow the pattern out of
shape for everyone else! Not every one has your immense experience and
wisdom.

[Dudley Henriques]

> wrote in message
ups.com...
> And, as a pompous note, the 20-30,000 landings in tail wheel aircraft
> do not take into account the thousands of other landings included in
> 22,000 hours of flying.

I'm not specifically doubting you on this old boy, but I do have a few
words on it if I may without seeming TOO disrespectful!! :-)))

I'd say that estimating between 20 and 30 thousand landings (just in
tailwheels :-) gives a pilot an odd ten thousand landings or so that
he's "just not quite sure he has or hasn't" made :-)
Are you telling us you have 10 grand in landings (just in tailwheels
mind you :-) playing around in the old log books that you're not quite
sure you made?
I've been fairly active in tailwheels myself since the fifties old boy,
and I can tell you you have ME beat by a country mile here.....why I'm
duly impressed!!! Of couse, this IS Usenet!! :-)))))))))))))

Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/CFI Retired
for private email; make necessary changes between ( )
dhenriques(at)(delete all this)earthlink(dot)net

[Dudley Henriques]

> wrote in message
ups.com...
> Dudley
> Extra speed DOWNWIND is fine if you want to blow the pattern out of
> shape for everyone else! Not every one has your immense experience and
> wisdom.

I don't think you need any special wisdom or even my experience to know
that you can carry extra airspeed on downwind WITHOUT blowing the
pattern for everyone else. I would assume that every fairly good pilot
knows this.
Naturally, if traffic dictates, you would fly whatever airspeed that
traffic calls for. Your assumption that I, or anyone else wouldn't know
enough to do this, or fly a higher airspeed that conflicts with traffic
is a bad stretch old boy!
Now calm yourself on down, and if you want to discuss extra airspeed on
downwind, come on back in nicely and we'll discuss it like good little
boys. If not, go play elsewhere.
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/CFI Retired
for private email; make necessary changes between ( )
dhenriques(at)(delete all this)earthlink(dot)net

[[email protected]]

Dan
You'd be surprised at how many pilots can't seem to hold the nose off
on landing with trikes and just let it bang down like they were all
done flying for the moment.
If you continue to use your skills as you describe, you'll end up with
good technique regardless of what you are flying I think.
As for taildraggers, each different type will take a little different
approach in how to land or takeoff. I think most of that is related to
forward visibility in addition to individual skills and experience. For
example, in some very limited visibility aircraft at flare or
touchdown, a wheel landing is easier for both seeing the runway, and to
flare on touchdown. Others can take a much more flat attitude for a
three point landing. Stick a big nose or engine out in front of you and
you'll be using your peripheral vision a lot more during operations
either on the ground or in the air. Biplanes for example are not the
best for visibility either to the front or to the sides with visibility
being restricted by a. engine and cowling, b. overhead and lower wings,
c. flying wires and/or struts.
I'm rather used to looking out both sides for visual clues and forget
the view ahead. Perhaps its just from a lot of experience? That isn't
to say I completely ignore ahead of me...I'm talking about on takeoff
and landings.
Ol S&B (some say just plain ol SOB)

[[email protected]]

Dudley
As for the general posting, I think I referred to the general line of
thought by more than just you. You always seem to be so overly
sensitive on issues these days.
As for professional attitudes, I kind fo thought our personal or
private emails were just that. Thanks for letting me know.
As for my posting any numbers, its a way of qualifying my posts just as
you post your various memberships.
Why do we keep butting heads? Its obvious it ain't gonna go away
anytime soon. And when I said "bite Me" I also did it with a grin. If
you don't like it you can bite me again and I'll refrain from
discussing anything with you again.
Hows that?!

[Dudley Henriques]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> Dudley
> As for the general posting, I think I referred to the general line of
> thought by more than just you. You always seem to be so overly
> sensitive on issues these days.
> As for professional attitudes, I kind fo thought our personal or
> private emails were just that. Thanks for letting me know.
> As for my posting any numbers, its a way of qualifying my posts just
> as
> you post your various memberships.
> Why do we keep butting heads? Its obvious it ain't gonna go away
> anytime soon. And when I said "bite Me" I also did it with a grin. If
> you don't like it you can bite me again and I'll refrain from
> discussing anything with you again.
> Hows that?!

Suit yourself. I have no issue with it either way. This is Usenet, not
the pilots friendship society. And I don't post my "memberships" to
qualify my posts either. I post them in case there are those out there
who would wish to contact us about something pertaining to us. I don't
need memberships to qualify things I say as a pilot. My posts deal with
that directly, as should yours without all the crap about 22 thousand
hours and 20 to 30 thousand landings (just in tail wheels mind you :-)
As I said, you have ME beat :-)))
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/CFI Retired
for private email; make necessary changes between ( )
dhenriques(at)(delete all this)earthlink(dot)net

[Richard Russell]

On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 17:05:40 -0500, dave >
wrote:

>Absolutely! You can still train in a cub or a champ. Just make sure
>you book well in advance. It's best if you can schedule time on
>weekdays.
>Dave
>68 7ECA
>
Thanks. I'll keep that in mind. I used vacation days in 1/2 day
increments to schedule my primary on weekdays. That made scheduling
much easier and also allowed for a more relaxed training environment.
Rich Russell

[gregg]

wrote:

> Dudley
> As for the general posting, I think I referred to the general line of
> thought by more than just you. You always seem to be so overly
> sensitive on issues these days.

Ol' Dudley is a very sensitive sort. any hint he may not know what he's
talking about pure riles him....which, in and of itself, is an interesting
indicator....

> As for professional attitudes, I kind fo thought our personal or
> private emails were just that. Thanks for letting me know.

OH NO! With Dudley absolutely NOT. Be warned:

Any email you send him can easily be posted to a newsgroup - in part or in
full, without his asking you first.

He posted a few of mine in the rec.aviation.students newsgroup without
asking permission at any time.

So beware of what you send him - he has no honor in this respect, and cannot
be trusted.



--
Saville

Replicas of 15th-19th century nautical navigational instruments:

http://home.comcast.net/~saville/backstaffhome.html

Restoration of my 82 year old Herreshoff S-Boat sailboat:

http://home.comcast.net/~saville/SBOATrestore.htm

Steambending FAQ with photos:

http://home.comcast.net/~saville/Steambend.htm

[private]

snip
>
> Dudley, et al,
>
> I have heard from all types, but I query you.
> In the proccess of landing, what determines for you whether a full stall
"3
> point" or a wheel landing is warranted.
>
> I have heard winds, particularly crosswinds are the main factor.
>
> Then I rode with a Delta 727 Capt. (He later took command of a B777) in
his
> Super Cub, we landed with a nasty, gusty crosswind. I got it on final (me
a
> student), then he took it to a full stall landing and I paid attention to
> the rudder pedal movement. The pedals made ever-so-slight corrections, the
> nose hardly moved off centerline. Then the plane met earth ever-so-gently.
I
> noticed that he never quit "flying" till it was shut down in front of the
> hangar. It was the most rewarding flight of my student year.
> To this day, all I can think is, "Damn! This Guy is good!"
> I applied the experience to my time in a Decathalon but I never got THAT
> good at it.
> I'll reserve his answer to this queston for later.
> Blue Skies,
> Marty
>
>
The consesus of opinion at my taildrager school was that the tail has to
come down sometime and that your biggest friend on the ground was a firmly
planted tail wheel. We were taught that tailwheel first was just fine, and
demonstrated good control.

The only time I have ever talked with aligators was on my third solo landing
(ever) in a super cub. I got caught almost......!!!! Almost three point,
almost on the ground, and almost flying and ran out of rudder authority. I
now know that I was probably too fast, let the aircraft land too early, and
probably didn't have the stick hard enough back in my gut and that the full
flaps were probably shadowing the rudder. In my case a blast of throttle
seemed to give me enough authority to keep directional control but I did end
up on the grass but luckily didn't hit any lights and was able to fly the
aircraft later that day. (After a little clean up.) I now know more about p
factor and slipstream and would be wary of attempting the blast of air
technique especially if in a swerve to the left.

My glider instructor was big on describing the flare as the "hold off"
before landing which is not a wording that is common in the power schools.

My power instructors maintained that the only time a wheel landing should be
used is in a heavier aircraft like the DC3, when the tailwheel would not
take the load of landing three point. I have tried lots of them but am no
expert.

Dudley and Todd had a great thread recently (landing and stall) I am
quoting it here because I think it is one of the best descriptions of the
landing process and because I would like to tempt them to comment on the
situations where a wheely would be required or indicated. I know there are
other good opinions I would like to hear.

Blue skies to all


>>On a landing, lift is gradually reduced to transfer the weight to the
>>wheels.
>>This can be done by reducing airspeed (with excess drag), or by
>>lowering the AOA.


Hi Todd;
on Andrew's comment above, let me throw in a little different slant if I
may please. As usual, I'm not in disagreement with what you have said,
but I find I have a single issue with Andrew's using the phrase
"lowering the AOA" as that relates to touchdown.
Let me expand a bit if I can and make this a bit more clear. If you have
anything additional, please feel free to comment.
The issues involving the aerodynamic factors involved in landing
flare,( or the lack of same as the case may be :-), are critical in the
handling of high performance airplanes where touch down is made on the
front side of critical angle of attack; thus not full stall landings at
all, but rather a steady decrease in the sink rate by the judicious use
of INCREASING AOA to increase lift to counter aircraft weight as
airspeed and energy bleed just before touchdown. You use the same
procedure when you land the Champ tail low but not quite stalled.
About the term "lowering AOA";
I have a severe problem with lowering aoa to acheive touchdown in ANY
airplane. I much prefer to teach this transition as an INCREASE in aoa,
and here's why.
Most landings are not full stall landings at all, but rather a touchdown
accomplished by acheiving an extremely delicate balance between the
aerodynamic factors in play as the airplane reaches the flare point and
is held there in landing attitude.
Here's how we always taught our students to envision the flare.
As you reach flare position at your flare airspeed, you assume a landing
attitude. At that exact instant in time, the process of landing the
airplane begins. As the airspeed decreases, the weight of the airplane
wants to lower it to the runway because lift is also decreasing as speed
decreases. Assuming you are at the correct height in the flare as this
is happening and if you did nothing at this point, the airplane would
simply touchdown. But you're still too fast, and the airplane still has
lift available.
You need to get rid of some more speed. The only thing you have to
counter the weight of the airplane pulling it down toward the runway is
the lift still available to you. You use that lift, which is on the
FRONT SIDE of critical angle of attack, to counter the sink. This
requires an INCREASE in AOA, not a decrease! It also causes higher
induced drag which aids the weight factor causing even more INCREASE in
AOA.
If you're playing this game properly, you can juggle all this until you
are just in front of CLmax for the airplane. If your timing was perfect,
you have reached that point right before CLmax with the airplane inches
above the runway. It's right here where pilots go wrong envisioning the
"full stall" landing.
What actually happens is that you have simply reached the point where
the lift will decrease if any further addition in AOA is attemped. It's
not a sudden loss of lift, but rather just the crossover point where no
more positive lift can be obtained. Your induced drag is maximized as
well. In short, you've used up all the tools available lift wise and the
airplane must now land. If you did it all the right way, you are inches
above the runway when this cross over takes place and you get a
squeeker.
The kicker in all this is that you can "allow" the airplane to land at
any point between your beginning flare airspeed and accompanying AOA and
your CLmax point during this tradeoff between lift, drag, and gravity,
by simply allowing the drag and gravity to become dominant, by not
increasing AOA to counter these factors. If you do this, you simply land
"hot" if you're inches over the runway.
I used to land hot prop fighters with plenty of lift left by using this
technique. I simply let them settle in tail low, fast, and under
complete control.....hardly a full stall landing :-)
The bottom line on all this is that you can put it down several ways,
but I like to envision landing through a constantly INCREASING AOA
instead of decreasing the AOA at any point during the landing.
The way I've described it here is the way we always taught it to our
pilots in training and is not meant to fault Andrew in any
way.....simply another point of view.
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
for email; take out the trash




Todd Pattist" > wrote in message
...
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote:
>
>>> entirely agree with you, lowering the AOA would be a highly
>>> unusual way to land.
>>
>>Great way to increase nosewheel sales though :-))
>
> Indeed!
>
> I suppose the closest thing to this would be a wheel landing
> in a tailwheel airplane where you bring the stick forward
> *after* landing to reduce AOA and keep it planted. Of
> course, a wheel landing would never be considered a full
> stall landing, which is what we were discussing.
> Todd Pattist

Naturally in checking out pilots in hot prop warbirds, I was dealing
with wheel landings quite a lot. It's a good idea to put a T6, or a P51
down on the mains tail low and a bit fast which is the way we approached
this situation. The 51 tracks straight, but the T6 can become a real
handful if you put in down near the AOA limit line with the tail well
down near stall under certain wind conditions.
The correct way to do wheel landings, even in the Champ :-) is to simply
take it on down to the flare point at the right airspeed, flare it off
there and hold it letting the speed bleed off. The trick with wheel
landings is timing!
In effect, you're doing the same thing you would be doing in a regular
landing, but the timing is different. Instead of using that steadily
increasing aoa to hold it in the flare, you use just a bit less aoa and
subsequently just a bit less lift than is actually needed to hold the
airplane in the flare. The result is a gradual and slower sink rate to
the mains. It should be STRONGLY noted that at NO time during the
landing process, whether it be a "stall" landing or a wheel landing,
should the aoa be reduced......NEVER!!! Contact in all landings should
be made during an increasing aoa. What confuses pilots about wheel
landings and aoa is that immediately at touchdown, the stick is
"rotated" gently forward to PIN the mains. This is the timing I was
talking about, and one can say with some degree of accuracy that the aoa
is reduced at this point.
I can't stress enough, in view of some of the posts I've been reading
here, that aoa during a normal landing, stall or wheel, should NEVER be
reduced if technique is correct, while the wheels are off the ground!!
This will produce a bounce for the best case scenario, and could
conceivably cause a prop strike. It's ALWAYS a controlled increasing aoa
into the touchdown!
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
for email; take out the trash




>Andrew Sarangan wrote
>> it is much more reasonable to increase AOA and reduce lift at the same
>> time due to the decreasing airspeed.
>
>Except when it's not. You're making an assumption here - that the
>increase in the coefficient of lift will be offset by the decrease in
>the square term of velocity. Depending on the lift and drag curves in
>play, that may or may not be true.


The way you wrote this was correct, and you phrased it
better than Andrew did. In landing, you don't want to
"reduce lift," as that would cause you to "fall" towards the
runway due to the uncompensated force of gravity. Instead,
you want to increase AOA ( CL) and simultaneously slow down
so that lift is roughly constant (equal to weight of
airplane) At any given airspeed, the increased AOA will
tend to produce more lift (proportional to speed squared
times the coefficient of lift), so the pilot must "offset"
this tendency for increased lift by slowing down to reduce
the squared speed term.

However, you are wrong to imply that this process depends on
the "lift and drag curves in play" It simply requires the
pilot to control the rate of increasing angle of attack
according to the rate at which the plane bleeds off energy.
Learning to land is all about that control. Pull back too
fast and you balloon, pull back too slow and you hit hard.

As the plane slows the power required to fly changes. That
power comes from three available sources. It can come from
1) the engine, 2) the stored reservoir of kinetic energy
(speed), or 3) the stored reservoir of potential energy
(altitude). During approach to landing, the engine is
throttled back and is producing less power than needed to
fly at the chosen airspeed. That's why you descend - the
plane is getting the power needed to fly from source 3.

As you flare and fly parallel to the runway, you lose power
source 3 (altitude/potential energy). Power source 1
(engine) is also off. You get the power needed to keep
flying from the sole remaining store of energy - kinetic
energy (speed) and you begin to slow. You can touch down
at any time, and if you do this fast, it's a wheel landing.
If you do it as slow as you can, it's a three pointer.
(assuming conventional gear)

>If you are in a portion of the flight envelope where it's not true,
>you're going to balloon or bounce if you increase the angle of attack,
>as will inevitably happen with a wheel landing if you do not reduce
>the angle of attack.

You will always balloon if you pull back too fast. No
matter where you are in the flight envelope. It's easier to
balloon at the higher speed, but you can do it at slow speed
too, right up to stall.

>If you are in a portion of the flight envelope where it is true, you
>are already very close to a full stall landing.

No.

>> In the latter case, the decreasing
>> airspeed more than makes up for the increasing AOA, probably due to the
>> square relationship of airspeed with lift.
>
>Except when it doesn't.

You're both off. Andrew is thinking you need to reduce lift
- you don't - you need to keep lift constant and offset the
AOA/CL increase with slowing speed. You're thinking this
process depends on the characteristics of the plane - it
doesn't - it depends on the pilot's skill :-)

>> So, let me correct my earlier
>> statement that lowering AOA during a landing is probably not a correct
>> description.
>
>Except when it is.

I hate to say you could never increase AOA during a landing,
but I probably should say that. To decrease AOA while in
level flight, which is what you want in a non-crash type of
landing, you would need to increase speed to hold lift
constant. Unlike the opposite "normal" landing, where
decreasing speed is a natural result of the flare,
increasing speed with decreasing AOA would require some
fancy throttle work. It's possible, but not desirable in
any landing situation.I can think of.

Of course, if you want a high descent rate crash landing, a
bent nosewheel or a conventional gear bounce-to-the-sky,
feel free to put the stick forward.

Todd Pattist
(Remove DONTSPAMME from address to email reply.)
___
Make a commitment to learn something from every flight.
Share what you learn.




Roger > wrote:

>If the plane drops, or increases the rate of sink for the last few
>inches I'd certainly call that an increase.

It is an increase, but it's not enough to get a stall.

>When the wing quits flying
>and the wheels are not yet on the ground I'd call that a stall.

So would I, but the wing doesn't quit flying.

>But you can stall a nose dragger on.

Not easily, and not any more easily than a taildragger.

>The stall warning horn goes off

Which I'm pretty sure you know happens well before you reach
the stall AOA.

>and as the plane slows more the quickly settles the last few inches
>(ok,, sometimes feet <:-)) )

Yes it settles, but not because it's truly stalled, at least
not in a normal landing in a normal aircraft. The settling
occurs because of the rapid increase in induced drag at high
AOAs, which produces a rapid slowing with the engine
throttled down. Since lift is proportional to speed
squared, the slowing causes a rapid loss of lift and you get
the settling feeling. It's the precursor to the stall, but
you will seldom actually get to it.

Todd Pattist
(Remove DONTSPAMME from address to email reply.)
___
Make a commitment to learn something from every flight.
Share what you learn.

[private]

"private" > wrote in message
news:PzDFd.69114$6l.60209@pd7tw2no...
>
> >
> The consesus of opinion at my taildrager school was that the tail has to
> come down sometime and that your biggest friend on the ground was a firmly
> planted tail wheel. We were taught that tailwheel first was just fine,
and
> demonstrated good control.
>

Let me make that a steerable tail wheel.

[[email protected]]

When you are busy crop dusting and making takeoffs and landings near
the field you don't always stop to count. So, if you make 3 per hour
which is not uncommon, and multiply that by 8000 you get what? And if
you toss in the thousands of landings while teaching in tailwheel, it
adds up to a few more so it ends up between 20-30,000. So who bothers
to count every one of them? I forgot to add the twin engine tail
draggers too........I just can't for the life of me figure why you want
to argue the point anyway "Ol Boy". Thanks for your nasty gram email. I
thought it rather tasteless and certainly not the professional you are
sometimes. Didn't you tell me you hadn't flown in 10 years or so?

[Dudley Henriques]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> When you are busy crop dusting and making takeoffs and landings near
> the field you don't always stop to count. So, if you make 3 per hour
> which is not uncommon, and multiply that by 8000 you get what? And if
> you toss in the thousands of landings while teaching in tailwheel, it
> adds up to a few more so it ends up between 20-30,000. So who bothers
> to count every one of them? I forgot to add the twin engine tail
> draggers too........I just can't for the life of me figure why you
> want
> to argue the point anyway "Ol Boy". Thanks for your nasty gram email.
> I
> thought it rather tasteless and certainly not the professional you are
> sometimes. Didn't you tell me you hadn't flown in 10 years or so?

No secrets here....ten years is about right for me.

....and I'm not arguing the point. I just find it hard to believe and
have said so publicly :-)
I'm not asking you to prove anything. I don't care how many hours you
have, or how many landings you have made, and as I said, you shouldn't
either. That's your business. What I'm telling you is that on Usenet,
you can be a trained monkey with a keyboard, and the figures you are
throwing out here are extremely high,even with an ag letter of
competence, which I have as well.
And I think I've made it quite plain to you that what I objected to
about your initial post was primarily the fact that you were addressing
the general issue of tailwheel landings, and NOT the question the rest
of us were dealing with from the initial poster by telling all of us,
myself AND others, that we, and I quote you here,

" With due respect to all who have replied with various techniques, it
seems everyone is working with way too much airspeed!"

In my "nasty" email to you, I pointed out that this is the same thing as
saying "Although I have the greatest respect for everyone and what they
are saying, they really don't know what they are talking about" :-)
It's no big deal Kemp, but if you are going to correct people trying to
help other people with advice, you might try at least addressing what
everyone was dealing with, and that was carrying extra airspeed on
downwind.
Now, apparently since you're now ****ed a bit, you have gone one step
further and told me in a post that carrying extra airspeed on downwind
will screw up everyone else's pattern. I have addressed that in another
post, and don't feel the need to be redundant here.
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/CFI Retired
for private email; make necessary changes between ( )
dhenriques(at)(delete all this)earthlink(dot)net

[[email protected]]

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

[Dudley Henriques]

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

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

[vincent p. norris]

> Believe it or not, it's okay to roll the tailwheel first.

There was no better way to get a pat on the back from our Navy
instructors at Pensacola than hitting the tailwheel first. That was
back in the days when airplanes had tailwheels, of course.

vince norris

[zatatime]

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

>
> wrote in message
oups.com...
>> So give it a rest already! You've said your piece, I've said mine. We
>> don't agree again.
>> BTW, I just dumped your last email unread....not worth my time.
>
>I understand completely. Same here. Consider it done.
>All the best to you.
>H
>


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

In all sincerity - Thank You.

z

[Cub Driver]

Dudley:

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

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

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



-- all the best, Dan Ford

email (put Cubdriver in subject line)

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

[Cub Driver]

Again quoting Dudley:

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

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

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


-- all the best, Dan Ford

email (put Cubdriver in subject line)

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

[Cub Driver]

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

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

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

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

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


-- all the best, Dan Ford

email (put Cubdriver in subject line)

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

[Cub Driver]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



-- all the best, Dan Ford

email (put Cubdriver in subject line)

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

[jsmith]

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

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

[Richard Russell]

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

> On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 02:58:16 GMT, "Dudley Henriques"
> wrote:
>
>>
> wrote in message
oups.com...
>>> So give it a rest already! You've said your piece, I've said mine. We
>>> don't agree again.
>>> BTW, I just dumped your last email unread....not worth my time.
>>
>>I understand completely. Same here. Consider it done.
>>All the best to you.
>>H
>>
>
>
>For what its worth, I give you both credit for dropping your squabble
>before it became one of the 100 back and forth posts I've seen in
>these forums. Obviously both of you are/were good pilots and have
>alot to offer. Usenet (like a classroom) is not the best place to
>have detailed discussions about flying, and disagreements will occur.
>I'm glad you both can agree to disagree and move on so we all don't
>need to read about your differences.
>
>In all sincerity - Thank You.
>
>z
I agree. It's painful for us low-time mortals to listen to two guys
that each have a lot to offer arguing like old ladies. It's kinda
like a kid listneing to his parents having a fight. Look forward to
many more constructive posts from both of you.
Rich Russell

[Dudley Henriques]

"Cub Driver" > wrote in message
...
> Dudley:
>
>>I used to land hot prop fighters with plenty of lift left by using
>>this
>>technique. I simply let them settle in tail low, fast, and under
>>complete control.....hardly a full stall landing :-)
>
> Sounds like a wheelie with all three wheels on the ground!
>
> Dudley, may I post the material quoted here on the Piper Cub Forum?

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

[Dudley Henriques]

"zatatime" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 02:58:16 GMT, "Dudley Henriques"
> > wrote:
>
>>
> wrote in message
oups.com...
>>> So give it a rest already! You've said your piece, I've said mine.
>>> We
>>> don't agree again.
>>> BTW, I just dumped your last email unread....not worth my time.
>>
>>I understand completely. Same here. Consider it done.
>>All the best to you.
>>H
>>
>
>
> For what its worth, I give you both credit for dropping your squabble
> before it became one of the 100 back and forth posts I've seen in
> these forums. Obviously both of you are/were good pilots and have
> alot to offer. Usenet (like a classroom) is not the best place to
> have detailed discussions about flying, and disagreements will occur.
> I'm glad you both can agree to disagree and move on so we all don't
> need to read about your differences.
>
> In all sincerity - Thank You.

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

[Dudley Henriques]

"Richard Russell" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 05:52:35 GMT, zatatime > wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 02:58:16 GMT, "Dudley Henriques"
> wrote:
>>
>>>
> wrote in message
oups.com...
>>>> So give it a rest already! You've said your piece, I've said mine.
>>>> We
>>>> don't agree again.
>>>> BTW, I just dumped your last email unread....not worth my time.
>>>
>>>I understand completely. Same here. Consider it done.
>>>All the best to you.
>>>H
>>>
>>
>>
>>For what its worth, I give you both credit for dropping your squabble
>>before it became one of the 100 back and forth posts I've seen in
>>these forums. Obviously both of you are/were good pilots and have
>>alot to offer. Usenet (like a classroom) is not the best place to
>>have detailed discussions about flying, and disagreements will occur.
>>I'm glad you both can agree to disagree and move on so we all don't
>>need to read about your differences.
>>
>>In all sincerity - Thank You.
>>
>>z
> I agree. It's painful for us low-time mortals to listen to two guys
> that each have a lot to offer arguing like old ladies. It's kinda
> like a kid listneing to his parents having a fight. Look forward to
> many more constructive posts from both of you.
> Rich Russell

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

[Richard Russell]

snipped...
>>>For what its worth, I give you both credit for dropping your squabble
>>>before it became one of the 100 back and forth posts I've seen in
>>>these forums. Obviously both of you are/were good pilots and have
>>>alot to offer. Usenet (like a classroom) is not the best place to
>>>have detailed discussions about flying, and disagreements will occur.
>>>I'm glad you both can agree to disagree and move on so we all don't
>>>need to read about your differences.
>>>
>>>In all sincerity - Thank You.
>>>
>>>z
>> I agree. It's painful for us low-time mortals to listen to two guys
>> that each have a lot to offer arguing like old ladies. It's kinda
>> like a kid listneing to his parents having a fight. Look forward to
>> many more constructive posts from both of you.
>> Rich Russell
>
>Ditto for you on my answer to zatatime, only for you, it wasn't even an
>original thought. You're even less productive than he is.You can't even
>write your own material.
>Sorry, but for me, people like you two who make these "jump on
>corrective posts after the fact simply don't cut it.
>Dudley Henriques
>International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
>Commercial Pilot/CFI Retired
>for private email; make necessary changes between ( )
>dhenriques(at)(delete all this)earthlink(dot)net
>
>
>
I'm sorry that you took it that way. As far as productivity levels, I
have been flying for two years and you have been flying for two
lifetimes. I would certainly hope that you have more to offer. That
is the natural order of things in this world. You have also exhibited
a high level of patience and tolerance with those that are less
knowledgeble, often taking the time to post long and very helpful
explanations for complex concepts. The words mentor and role-model
come to mind. That is why I made my comment. It is not typical to
see you get decend from that well earned status into a non-technical
usenet ****ing match. I will still seek out your posts and hope to
learn from them. I'll thank you in advance because, much to your
relief, you will not hear from me again. (By the way, you may have
already been too fired up to realize it, but my post was intended as
more of a compliment than anything else. No ill will was intended.)
Rich Russell

[Dudley Henriques]

"Richard Russell" > wrote in message
...
> snipped...
>>>>For what its worth, I give you both credit for dropping your
>>>>squabble
>>>>before it became one of the 100 back and forth posts I've seen in
>>>>these forums. Obviously both of you are/were good pilots and have
>>>>alot to offer. Usenet (like a classroom) is not the best place to
>>>>have detailed discussions about flying, and disagreements will
>>>>occur.
>>>>I'm glad you both can agree to disagree and move on so we all don't
>>>>need to read about your differences.
>>>>
>>>>In all sincerity - Thank You.
>>>>
>>>>z
>>> I agree. It's painful for us low-time mortals to listen to two guys
>>> that each have a lot to offer arguing like old ladies. It's kinda
>>> like a kid listneing to his parents having a fight. Look forward to
>>> many more constructive posts from both of you.
>>> Rich Russell
>>
>>Ditto for you on my answer to zatatime, only for you, it wasn't even
>>an
>>original thought. You're even less productive than he is.You can't
>>even
>>write your own material.
>>Sorry, but for me, people like you two who make these "jump on
>>corrective posts after the fact simply don't cut it.
>>Dudley Henriques
>>International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
>>Commercial Pilot/CFI Retired
>>for private email; make necessary changes between ( )
>>dhenriques(at)(delete all this)earthlink(dot)net
>>
>>
>>
> I'm sorry that you took it that way. As far as productivity levels, I
> have been flying for two years and you have been flying for two
> lifetimes. I would certainly hope that you have more to offer. That
> is the natural order of things in this world. You have also exhibited
> a high level of patience and tolerance with those that are less
> knowledgeble, often taking the time to post long and very helpful
> explanations for complex concepts. The words mentor and role-model
> come to mind. That is why I made my comment. It is not typical to
> see you get decend from that well earned status into a non-technical
> usenet ****ing match. I will still seek out your posts and hope to
> learn from them. I'll thank you in advance because, much to your
> relief, you will not hear from me again. (By the way, you may have
> already been too fired up to realize it, but my post was intended as
> more of a compliment than anything else. No ill will was intended.)
> Rich Russell

You're right, I am relieved. Just not the least bit interested. Lurk as
you please, or don't lurk as you please. That's completely up to you.
This is Usenet, not the Pilots Buddy Association.
Usenet by definition is a hostile environment. The sooner you learn
this, the quicker you will stop making idiotic posts like you just did
and wise up. This time you just lost communication with me. perhaps next
time you might lose something you actually value!
Just that fact that we're having this "little talk" is positive proof
that your post was a bad move.....a complete negative result!
What have you gained? What have you learned? I'm sure in your self
righteousness you feel you have learned that I'm "not what you thought I
was" and that "you're disappointed in me".
Who cares? I sure don't!!! Just forget me as someone who will be
friendly to you in the future and move on to someone else.
Life on Usenet goes on! :-)
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/CFI Retired
for private email; make necessary changes between ( )
dhenriques(at)(delete all this)earthlink(dot)net

[Maule Driver]

There seem to be 2 schools of thought on this wheelie vs 3 pointer
thing. Ones says thatyou plan it out well in advance (at least short
final) and do either a wheelie or 3 pointer. The other seems to say it
can go either way. I've read someone who said that picking 1 or the
other just before touchdown is a good training exercise.

This has got to be immensely confusing for many but I feel like I get
the sense in both!

First, different conditions faced by different a/c clearly suggest one
method over the other. In my Maule, it's almost always a 3 pointer with
flaps and airspeed determined by the conditions. So, I plan what it's
going to be well in advance. For example, 20 knot xwind means a 0 flap
3 pointer at 65 mph. (per Dudley and others)

Second, real time conditions can mean a the mains touch first or all 3
or even the tail first. Based on that, I finish the landing
accordinging. If the mains touch first, I push slightly to keep them
on, that is, I do a wheelie. If all 3 touch, then a pull to keep it all
planted on, that is, I do 3 pointer. If the tail touches first, I just
hold on or pull a bit, all 3 are going to be in contact very quickly and
they are going to stay there, no choice. (per Selway - is that what you
meant?)

I was trained to do the first but I've learned to do the 2nd.
Recognizing and achieving the right attitude comes with time... but
responding properly and instantly seems to me to be a mark of proficiency


T o d d P a t t i s t wrote:
> wrote:
>
>
>>I do have a lot
>>of time in aircraft with the wheel in the rear and god only knows how
>>many thousands of landings with them (perhaps 20-30,000+?).
>
> ...
>
>>I never knew if it was going to be a 3 point or a wheel landing.
>
>
> I don't see how you can make 20-30,000+ landings and not get
> a good feel for the attitude of the aircraft. Heck, the
> ground's right there, so you've got a great attitude
> reference. If it's tail low, the tail hits first. A bit
> higher it's 3-pt. Higher still, it's a wheel landing.
>
>
> "It is possible to fly without motors, but not without knowledge and skill."
> Wilbur Wright

[zatatime]

>
>I'll tell you what it's worth.
>These "after the fact, you have intruded on my space but I forgive you"
>sentiments are really a royal pain the butt and serve no positive
>purpose.
Boy did you miss the point. I didn't forgive you for anything. I was
thanking you for setting a good example.

>In fact, the opposite is true.
>Usenet is bad enough with those of us who don't like each other and
>don't get along without adding your "holier then thou" comment AFTER two
>people have settled something that didn't involve you.
My approach was not one of a Holier than thou attitude, just one guy
saying thanks to another for doing something right. And by the way it
did involve me, and countless others who read entire threads so they
can learn something, and get frustrated when wars overcome what was a
constructive thread.

<snip>

>BTW, any further continuance of ANY kind with my answer to your post is
>nothing more then added proof that all you have done here is to produce
>a negative result.
Not entirely. Hopefully you will see that my intentions were not of
ill intent, and that courteous behavior is a positive trait, not a
negative one. If you don't see this though, and need to respond in
like fashion to these comments, you will have proven your point from
the context of your post, not mine.

>Hey now....wasn't THIS little venture worth doing ?????? :-))))
Yes, I had at least a 50% success rate from my post. In Usenet that's
pretty damned good.

z

[[email protected]]

Todd
The transition time between 2 vs 3 point is a relatively short one on
takeoff or landing! To combine the techniques you describe are fine if
they work for you. Here is "MY" take on it for what its worth.
When I am working, I don't make any money unless the spray handle is ON
and any time on the ground cuts into my income. So, I try to minimize
that time by making the shortest possible takeoff, and the shortest
possible landing that puts me very close to the load ramp. Very common
practice in ag aviation. Most of the time we work in low wind
conditions to avoid any chemical drift, and often the DA is high with
temps. So, the vast majority of my landings are wheel landings at
minimum speed and the tail drops immediately when I cut the power -
regardless if piston or turbine. I'll keep forward pressure on the
controls until the tail comes down and then apply full aft stick to
keep it there as well as assist in steering. Nearly all of the modern
spray planes have a locking tailwheel that is unlocked by a full
forward movement of the stick which pulls the locking pin out of detent
by means of a cable attached to the elevator controls. It requires an
immediate turn to keep the pin from dropping back into detent and
locking the tailwheel again. That is something that takes a little
getting used to. Sometimes when it won't unlock, you add power and
forward stick to get the tail up off the ground while you do a delicate
balancing act turn using differential braking. I learned that technique
in the mid 60's when we were loading on a levee and didn't have room to
turn and keep the tail on the levee. That too took some getting used to
but after a little practice it was Ho-Hum.
Per your technique of 0 flap and 65 mph, what is happening while you
dissipate the additional speed? Is it not possible to land slower using
judicious power to touch down well under control, and with little
flying speed to get rid of once you are firmly planted with all 3?
And, a technique I have used many times on a variety of strips, is to
make the final approach at an angle into the wind and touch down on the
downwind side of the runway crosswind. That makes my landing roll more
into the wind and takes out some of the XW component. There have been
times when I had no choice but to use that technique in both single and
twins.How severe an angle you can make of course depends on the width
of the runway, wind velocity, etc. After touchdown you let the wind
push you back towards the centerline and you end up parallel to the
runway. That is the simplistic description but has worked for me.
Forgive me if I have taken the discussion in a different direction but
felt a more complete answer was called for.
Cheers
Rocky

[[email protected]]

JS
You make me smile with that one! So many of the strips I have worked
from are about 1200' and require reduced loads which is why I hate
them. One I worked on in Egypt -300 meters - had corn growing at each
end. As the corn grew it caused my wheels to drag through the tops.
I've got some pics where you can see the strips where my gear trimmed
the corn through the season! the landings never bothered me since you
seldom need more than 500' for rollout.
Regards
Selway Kid (from the Selway Bitterroot Wilderness)

[dave]

Someone else pointed out here or maybe on the citabria group about the
advantage of hitting the tailwheel first. That is, if the tailwheel
hits first, when the mains drop the angle of attack lessens reducing
lift. Is this significant? I suppose that if the landing speed is as
slow as it should be, it really doesn't matter. Personally I like
landing as slow as reasonably possible. Less wear and tear on the tires
and it's more fun.

Dave
68 7ECA
vincent p. norris wrote:
>> Believe it or not, it's okay to roll the tailwheel first.
>
>
> There was no better way to get a pat on the back from our Navy
> instructors at Pensacola than hitting the tailwheel first. That was
> back in the days when airplanes had tailwheels, of course.
>
> vince norris

[Dudley Henriques]

"zatatime" > wrote in message
...
>
>>
>>I'll tell you what it's worth.
>>These "after the fact, you have intruded on my space but I forgive
>>you"
>>sentiments are really a royal pain the butt and serve no positive
>>purpose.
> Boy did you miss the point. I didn't forgive you for anything. I was
> thanking you for setting a good example.
>
>>In fact, the opposite is true.
>>Usenet is bad enough with those of us who don't like each other and
>>don't get along without adding your "holier then thou" comment AFTER
>>two
>>people have settled something that didn't involve you.
> My approach was not one of a Holier than thou attitude, just one guy
> saying thanks to another for doing something right. And by the way it
> did involve me, and countless others who read entire threads so they
> can learn something, and get frustrated when wars overcome what was a
> constructive thread.
>
> <snip>
>
>>BTW, any further continuance of ANY kind with my answer to your post
>>is
>>nothing more then added proof that all you have done here is to
>>produce
>>a negative result.

> Not entirely. Hopefully you will see that my intentions were not of
> ill intent, and that courteous behavior is a positive trait, not a
> negative one. If you don't see this though, and need to respond in
> like fashion to these comments, you will have proven your point from
> the context of your post, not mine.

Sorry, no sale. I have no doubt that YOU believe sincerely that your
post held no ill intent. That's the trouble with people who post these
little after "zingers". You don't actually realize, or even care what
you are doing. All you see is your need to express yourself...to let the
"usurpers" know the real meaning of life and how they should act in your
presense. :-)
Your post was exactly as I read it, a condescending, idiotic attempt at
a demonstration of superiority through the use of veiled compliment. The
oldest gag in the book, and it works with some of the dip****s. I just
don't happen to be one of them.
Your insulting my intelligence, and I don't suffer fools gladly.
You clowns always make the same sophoroic mistake. You give it all away
with the comma. You just can't stop without the adder can you?

" and that courtious behavior is a positive trait".

There it is, the kicker!!! What could possibly be more condescending
than THIS statement to an adult. One thing I've learned about people
like you is that you LOVE these compound sentences. The REAL intent of
the post can always be found after the comma!! :-)
Nope....you're a Usenet " I'm duty bound to keep everyone in line" type
all right. I just don't need you.

>>Hey now....wasn't THIS little venture worth doing ?????? :-))))

> Yes, I had at least a 50% success rate from my post. In Usenet that's
> pretty damned good.

Actually your odds are as off as your post was. When you post something
like this to me, you have a 0 chance of success, which now you have
learned.

No great loss I'm sure for either one of us. It's Usenet!!!
I can practically guarantee you that the two people you posted about
with your little "aftershock zinger" will probably be talking again LONG
before you and I are eye to eye again on this or any other forum. If
not, that's Usenet as well!!
Take care, so long, and may the good Lord take a liking to ya!! :-)
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/CFI Retired
for private email; make necessary changes between ( )
dhenriques(at)(delete all this)earthlink(dot)net

[Cub Driver]

On 14 Jan 2005 14:01:16 -0800, wrote:

>Selway Kid (from the Selway Bitterroot Wilderness)

Do you know Roland Turney at Bear Creek Lodge? Flies a Centurion.


-- all the best, Dan Ford

email (put Cubdriver in subject line)

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

[[email protected]]

Sorry...No I don't. I haven't flown in the backcountry there in a
number of years. My last guide work was NE of there in the Bob Marshall
wilderness in Montana and we didn't have any fly-ins.
Ol S&B

[Maule Driver]

Sounds like you mostly did minimum speed wheelies. That is touching on
2, holding forward pressure until the wheel drops, then aft stick for
control. Classic wheelie I think. That's what I observed the Pawnee
tow pilots do at sailplane meets. Like you, they get a lot of practice
and minimum turnaround is what makes money. The deal there was 50 water
ballasted sailplanes, towed to 2,000 feet in less than an hour. A
minimum number of towplanes would typically be employed. The most tows
were done by the fastest climbing, fasted descending, quickest landing
tow pilots. Birdogs would do the same. Super cubs and the occasional
Maule tended to 3 point. Seems to depend on a/c.

My tailwheel experience is limited to the Maule so by definition, I
don't really know what I'm talking about. But the Maule really likes to
be 3 pointed in practically all conditions according to those that know
it best. Maybe the fact that it is a bit squirrelly even on takeoff
when on the mains maby be the reason but I don't know. What do I mean
by squirrelly? On grass, it hops when rolling on the mains. It's
practically impossible to avoid the hops on a non-smooth surface. You
just pick hop 1,2, or 3 to takeoff on.

The 0 flap, 65mph is close to a minimum energy exercise (and by the
book). Stall speed at full gross and 0flap is 61mph. My last look
at the ASI would be at 65 with some power. I would generally chop
before touch down so I'm sure I'm close to stall even at less than
gross. I'm still flying at TD but there is no extra energy.

Anyway, the angled TO and Landing in xwinds is good stuff that I also
advocate. The centerline is nice but into the wind is better.

A thought on the low speed work. I agree with you on the need to train
more there. But like off field emergency landing work which we talked
about before, some people naturally get more training and practice than
others. As an Ag pilot, you spend a lot of time low, slow, and turning.
YOu would naturally be very proficient at low speed work and off field
landings. Perhaps more so than the transportation type that spends a
lot of time high, fast, and on autopilot. When I was glider flying and
doing a lot of cc work, I did off field landings that should probably
never be attempted by most (even me). But I was very proficient at low,
slow, and off field landingsat that time. My point is that while a
certain level of low speed proficiency is needed by all, doing xwind
landings on short sections of single track levees is never recommended
for most of us.


wrote:
> Todd
> The transition time between 2 vs 3 point is a relatively short one on
> takeoff or landing! To combine the techniques you describe are fine if
> they work for you. Here is "MY" take on it for what its worth.
> When I am working, I don't make any money unless the spray handle is ON
> and any time on the ground cuts into my income. So, I try to minimize
> that time by making the shortest possible takeoff, and the shortest
> possible landing that puts me very close to the load ramp. Very common
> practice in ag aviation. Most of the time we work in low wind
> conditions to avoid any chemical drift, and often the DA is high with
> temps. So, the vast majority of my landings are wheel landings at
> minimum speed and the tail drops immediately when I cut the power -
> regardless if piston or turbine. I'll keep forward pressure on the
> controls until the tail comes down and then apply full aft stick to
> keep it there as well as assist in steering. Nearly all of the modern
> spray planes have a locking tailwheel that is unlocked by a full
> forward movement of the stick which pulls the locking pin out of detent
> by means of a cable attached to the elevator controls. It requires an
> immediate turn to keep the pin from dropping back into detent and
> locking the tailwheel again. That is something that takes a little
> getting used to. Sometimes when it won't unlock, you add power and
> forward stick to get the tail up off the ground while you do a delicate
> balancing act turn using differential braking. I learned that technique
> in the mid 60's when we were loading on a levee and didn't have room to
> turn and keep the tail on the levee. That too took some getting used to
> but after a little practice it was Ho-Hum.
> Per your technique of 0 flap and 65 mph, what is happening while you
> dissipate the additional speed? Is it not possible to land slower using
> judicious power to touch down well under control, and with little
> flying speed to get rid of once you are firmly planted with all 3?
> And, a technique I have used many times on a variety of strips, is to
> make the final approach at an angle into the wind and touch down on the
> downwind side of the runway crosswind. That makes my landing roll more
> into the wind and takes out some of the XW component. There have been
> times when I had no choice but to use that technique in both single and
> twins.How severe an angle you can make of course depends on the width
> of the runway, wind velocity, etc. After touchdown you let the wind
> push you back towards the centerline and you end up parallel to the
> runway. That is the simplistic description but has worked for me.
> Forgive me if I have taken the discussion in a different direction but
> felt a more complete answer was called for.
> Cheers
> Rocky
>

[Maule Driver]

In the Maule, the tailwheel first thing eliminates bounce completely, at
least if you airspeed is close to right. But it's always seems sloppy
to me. If you can tailwheel first, you can 3 point it. If you TW first
on purpose all the time, when you miss, you are going slam it on a few
times. Why do that?

dave wrote:
> Someone else pointed out here or maybe on the citabria group about the
> advantage of hitting the tailwheel first. That is, if the tailwheel
> hits first, when the mains drop the angle of attack lessens reducing
> lift. Is this significant? I suppose that if the landing speed is as
> slow as it should be, it really doesn't matter. Personally I like
> landing as slow as reasonably possible. Less wear and tear on the tires
> and it's more fun.
>
> Dave
> 68 7ECA
> vincent p. norris wrote:
>
>>> Believe it or not, it's okay to roll the tailwheel first.
>>
>>
>>
>> There was no better way to get a pat on the back from our Navy
>> instructors at Pensacola than hitting the tailwheel first. That was
>> back in the days when airplanes had tailwheels, of course.
>>
>> vince norris

[G.R. Patterson III]

wrote:
>
> Per your technique of 0 flap and 65 mph, what is happening while you
> dissipate the additional speed?

I do the same in my Maule. The 65 mph is the approximate speed at touchdown, but
it may be as low as 60. The "three-point" is actually the upwind main and the
tailwheel. The speed is dissipated during rollout. Usually the downwind main
stays off the ground for a few seconds. I don't touch the brakes until it's
down. My usual airports have 2,000 to 3,000' runways, so there's no panic if I
use half of it.

> Is it not possible to land slower using
> judicious power to touch down well under control, and with little
> flying speed to get rid of once you are firmly planted with all 3?

When you get right down to it, touching down at 60 to 65 mph with no flaps in a
Maule *is* touching down with little flying speed to get rid of. Stall speed
with 0 degrees of flaps is about 55 mph indicated (a bit more with higher
weight), so 65 is a pretty good target speed IMO.

Maules are not fond of wheel landings, especially during crosswind conditions. I
have landed mine with 40 degrees of flaps in a 15 knot direct crosswind. I tried
it once in a 20 knot crosswind at Luray Caverns and was unable to do it with
flaps. John Price and I tried to get down in 28 knots once, and couldn't do it
with no flaps.

George Patterson
The desire for safety stands against every great and noble enterprise.

[dave]

Mauledriver, I don't know why you would do that but I don't see how you
could land with the nose so high that the mains slammed down. Have you
done that? At any rate, I do my best to three point it. Sometimes the
tailwheel hits a fraction of a second before the mains, sometimes it's
mains first and sometimes it's all three at the same time. Lately, it's
been one main and the tailwheel. Seems like I've been landing with a
crosswind a lot lately.

Dave
68 7ECA

Maule Driver wrote:
> In the Maule, the tailwheel first thing eliminates bounce completely, at
> least if you airspeed is close to right. But it's always seems sloppy
> to me. If you can tailwheel first, you can 3 point it. If you TW first
> on purpose all the time, when you miss, you are going slam it on a few
> times. Why do that?
>
> dave wrote:
>
>> Someone else pointed out here or maybe on the citabria group about the
>> advantage of hitting the tailwheel first. That is, if the tailwheel
>> hits first, when the mains drop the angle of attack lessens reducing
>> lift. Is this significant? I suppose that if the landing speed is as
>> slow as it should be, it really doesn't matter. Personally I like
>> landing as slow as reasonably possible. Less wear and tear on the
>> tires and it's more fun.
>>
>> Dave
>> 68 7ECA
>> vincent p. norris wrote:
>>
>>>> Believe it or not, it's okay to roll the tailwheel first.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> There was no better way to get a pat on the back from our Navy
>>> instructors at Pensacola than hitting the tailwheel first. That was
>>> back in the days when airplanes had tailwheels, of course.
>>>
>>> vince norris

[G.R. Patterson III]

dave wrote:
>
> Someone else pointed out here or maybe on the citabria group about the
> advantage of hitting the tailwheel first. That is, if the tailwheel
> hits first, when the mains drop the angle of attack lessens reducing
> lift. Is this significant?

With full flaps in a Maule, you can drag it in tail-low with power. When that
little wheel hits, the mains will drop, bounce once, and you're glued to the
ground. You'll be doing something like 40 to 45 mph when you touch down. If your
engine hiccups once the speed gets real low, you're going to hit hard; the plane
will stall almost immediately.

You can also do an approach at a bit higher speed and bring the tail down to
touch when the mains are still several inches in the air. Again, the ground roll
will be impressively short. The problem with this to me is that you will be
pretty much at power-off stall attitude. If you are six inches higher than you
think you are when you bring the tail down that last little bit, it'll be
uncomfortable.

George Patterson
The desire for safety stands against every great and noble enterprise.

[Cub Driver]

On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 21:02:18 GMT, Maule Driver
> wrote:

>What do I mean
>by squirrelly? On grass, it hops when rolling on the mains.

Gosh, the Cub does that! Every once in a while, in fact, a bit of
gasoline will splash on the windscreen. I minimize it by keeping the
tail low.

When I flew the Husky at Andover NJ, Damian Delgaizo insisted that I
fly it off the ground three-point, but I hate to do that with the Cub.
The engine is 65 hp, and I can't see over the nose!

Are three-point takeoffs recommended for many taildraggers?



-- all the best, Dan Ford

email (put Cubdriver in subject line)

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

[Cub Driver]

On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 21:02:18 GMT, Maule Driver
> wrote:

>Anyway, the angled TO and Landing in xwinds is good stuff that I also
>advocate. The centerline is nice but into the wind is better.

I've often thought of doing this, since the airstrip must be 200 feet
wide. Alas, so many centerline pilots have used it over the years that
it's rough in the middle, so I land to either side.

(Indeed, it also has a hill two-thirds of the way down 02, on the east
side, so if one lands long or fast it's best to keep the the west. So
the 200 foot-wide runway in practice comes down to 60 feet :)


-- all the best, Dan Ford

email (put Cubdriver in subject line)

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

[G.R. Patterson III]

Cub Driver wrote:
>
> Are three-point takeoffs recommended for many taildraggers?

The CFI who checked me out in the Maule recommended this when taking off with a
strong crosswind. I don't have the visibility problem you do in a Cub, but I
found that the Maule will usually drift sideways immediately after the wheels
leave the ground if I try a 3-point takeoff. This is uncomfortable if the mains
actually come off first or if the plane lifts and then touches down again.
Sometimes the plane will start to drift before leaving the ground when the
pressure on the wheels gets light. Because of this sort of thing, I no longer
make this sort of takeoff.

George Patterson
The desire for safety stands against every great and noble enterprise.

[[email protected]]

G.R. Patterson III wrote:
> Cub Driver wrote:
> >
> > Are three-point takeoffs recommended for many taildraggers?
>
> The CFI who checked me out in the Maule recommended this when taking
off with a
> strong crosswind. I don't have the visibility problem you do in a
Cub, but I
> found that the Maule will usually drift sideways immediately after
the wheels
> leave the ground if I try a 3-point takeoff. This is uncomfortable if
the mains
> actually come off first or if the plane lifts and then touches down
again.
> Sometimes the plane will start to drift before leaving the ground
when the
> pressure on the wheels gets light. Because of this sort of thing, I
no longer
> make this sort of takeoff.

A three-point takeoff can rip the life out of the tailwheel
tire. It's too small for that sort of speed. We usually teach newbies
the tail-low takeoff, where the wheel is allowed to rise as speed
increases, and then elevator is fed in to keep it just off the
pavement. The airplane (Citabria) will lift off when it's ready and
it'll already be in the climb attitude.
Tail-up for crosswind to to keep it on the ground until there's
enough speed to pull it positively clear.

Dan

[[email protected]]

You need to get out that POH and do the weight and balance
figuring for that airplane, especially if solo. It's easy to be out the
front of the envelope in these airplanes.
We use 40 lbs of ballast in some cases to get the CG legal and safe.
Dan

[Maule Driver]

I'm sure you have a typo or 2 here - just want to be clear... You are
saying that the Maule likes to handle xwinds with less or no flaps - right?

My xwind high point was Key West. 30G35 directly across. I cranked in
full forward slip controls turning final. Turns out to be beyond the
ability of the rudder to maintain a proper forward slip. But even with
the relatively clear boundaries of Key West airport, the wind gradient
reduced the xwind velocity just enough to allow me to get it straight
during the flare. (By backup plan was a return to my departure point
where I had an into the wind runway). Did a 270 to exit the runway.

I was pretty proud of the landing. Tower was impressed too. Then they
told me that a Malibu groundlooped earlier that day and damaged the
gear. I'm sorry that I smiled.

G.R. Patterson III wrote:
>
speed IMO.
>
> Maules are not fond of wheel landings, especially during crosswind conditions. I
> have landed mine with 40 degrees of flaps in a 15 knot direct crosswind. I tried
> it once in a 20 knot crosswind at Luray Caverns and was unable to do it with
> flaps. John Price and I tried to get down in 28 knots once, and couldn't do it
> with no flaps.
>
> George Patterson
> The desire for safety stands against every great and noble enterprise.

[Maule Driver]

The Maule doesn't like it from what I can see. My technique in all
conditions, especially on a rough surface, is to hold the TW on until it
can be lifted. Then lift it positively to 'level', then rotate when
flying speed is reached or wait until it hops, then lift off on the 2nd hop.

I see the Cub guys just pick the TW up a little bit and lift off from
there. The Maule will start hopping and bucking if you try that on a
rough surface. If I remember correctly, it will even bounce between the
TW and mains.

Cub Driver wrote:
> On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 21:02:18 GMT, Maule Driver
> > wrote:
>
>
>>What do I mean
>>by squirrelly? On grass, it hops when rolling on the mains.
>
>
> Gosh, the Cub does that! Every once in a while, in fact, a bit of
> gasoline will splash on the windscreen. I minimize it by keeping the
> tail low.
>
> When I flew the Husky at Andover NJ, Damian Delgaizo insisted that I
> fly it off the ground three-point, but I hate to do that with the Cub.
> The engine is 65 hp, and I can't see over the nose!
>
> Are three-point takeoffs recommended for many taildraggers?
>
>
>
> -- all the best, Dan Ford
>
> email (put Cubdriver in subject line)
>
> Warbird's Forum: www.warbirdforum.com
> Piper Cub Forum: www.pipercubforum.com
> the blog: www.danford.net

[Morgans]

"Maule Driver" > wrote

> I was pretty proud of the landing. Tower was impressed too. Then they
> told me that a Malibu groundlooped earlier that day and damaged the
> gear. I'm sorry that I smiled.

No you weren't! <g>
--
Jim in NC

[G.R. Patterson III]

Maule Driver wrote:
>
> I'm sure you have a typo or 2 here - just want to be clear... You are
> saying that the Maule likes to handle xwinds with less or no flaps - right?

Yes. What I meant was that the limits of my ability with 40 degrees of flaps is
about 15 knots. These days, I use 24 degrees or less with anything over about 10
knots. I also tend to do that if I have passengers who are not regular aviators.

> My xwind high point was Key West. 30G35 directly across. I cranked in
> full forward slip controls turning final. Turns out to be beyond the
> ability of the rudder to maintain a proper forward slip.

That's what I found. We were attempting landing at 47N (Manville, NJ). Trenton
ATIS reported 28 knots when we went by. John checked the sock when we made our
first attempt - "straight across and straight out."

> But even with
> the relatively clear boundaries of Key West airport, the wind gradient
> reduced the xwind velocity just enough to allow me to get it straight
> during the flare.

I didn't get that far. I guess I was still 100' up when I aborted the second
attempt.

> (By backup plan was a return to my departure point
> where I had an into the wind runway).

We ended up at Trenton.

George Patterson
The desire for safety stands against every great and noble enterprise.

[Maule Driver]

Well, yes and no - I kind of did a lot of what Patterson describes when
I was first training. My 'picture' of a 3 point attitude and my
altitude above the runway weren't fully formed yet. So I would get down
to where I thought I should be and if I didn't touch, I would just keep
flaring and would make more tail first landing than not. Problem was
that if I had the airspeed low enough, I would stall on, then I learned
to feed it some power, then I would hang and keep pulling back, etc. So
I never slammed the mains as you described but I did stall it on and do
some other sloppy looking stuff.

In the Maule, if you get the short final apporach speed right, you don't
have enough elevator to land tail first unless you keep some power.

I recently did a night landing where I really focused on getting a
smooth landing. Kept a little power on, flattened the approach, nailed
the speed, etc. We kissed the ground so nicely that there was no bump,
no squeal, just the tailwheel spinning up for a few secs then a bump as
mains came down. My wife and I looked at each other and smiled. She
said, you did it! except it was the TW.

dave wrote:
> Mauledriver, I don't know why you would do that but I don't see how you
> could land with the nose so high that the mains slammed down. Have you
> done that? At any rate, I do my best to three point it. Sometimes the
> tailwheel hits a fraction of a second before the mains, sometimes it's
> mains first and sometimes it's all three at the same time. Lately, it's
> been one main and the tailwheel. Seems like I've been landing with a
> crosswind a lot lately.
>
> Dave
> 68 7ECA
>
> Maule Driver wrote:
>
>> In the Maule, the tailwheel first thing eliminates bounce completely,
>> at least if you airspeed is close to right. But it's always seems
>> sloppy to me. If you can tailwheel first, you can 3 point it. If you
>> TW first on purpose all the time, when you miss, you are going slam it
>> on a few times. Why do that?
>>
>> dave wrote:
>>
>>> Someone else pointed out here or maybe on the citabria group about
>>> the advantage of hitting the tailwheel first. That is, if the
>>> tailwheel hits first, when the mains drop the angle of attack lessens
>>> reducing lift. Is this significant? I suppose that if the landing
>>> speed is as slow as it should be, it really doesn't matter.
>>> Personally I like landing as slow as reasonably possible. Less wear
>>> and tear on the tires and it's more fun.
>>>
>>> Dave
>>> 68 7ECA
>>> vincent p. norris wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Believe it or not, it's okay to roll the tailwheel first.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> There was no better way to get a pat on the back from our Navy
>>>> instructors at Pensacola than hitting the tailwheel first. That was
>>>> back in the days when airplanes had tailwheels, of course.
>>>>
>>>> vince norris

[Maule Driver]

Even if you are legal and hanging on the front end of the envelope, it
helps to throw a few things in the back. In practically any a/c, the
controls will be a bit more sensitive, especially in terms of elevator
control in the flare. A case of Champagne does it perfectly for us.

wrote:
> You need to get out that POH and do the weight and balance
> figuring for that airplane, especially if solo. It's easy to be out the
> front of the envelope in these airplanes.
> We use 40 lbs of ballast in some cases to get the CG legal and safe.
> Dan
>