More likely to ground loop?

[[email protected]]

Would a taildragger with clipped wings be more likely to ground loop
than if it had it's full span wings?

Kevin T

[Doug Carter]

wrote:
> Would a taildragger with clipped wings be more likely to ground loop
> than if it had it's full span wings?
>
> Kevin T
>

only depend on how many angels would fit on the top of the tail wheel

[George Patterson]

wrote:
>
> Would a taildragger with clipped wings be more likely to ground loop
> than if it had it's full span wings?

IMO, no.

George Patterson
He who would distinguish what is true from what is false must have an
adequate understanding of truth and falsehood.

[[email protected]]

The clipped wing may be very slightly more likely to ground loop,
because its shorter wings give it a smaller moment of inertia, so it
will take less torque to make it rotate.

[ShawnD2112]

Ground loop? Can't say for sure but I think it would be more likely to lift
a wing in a gust as there's more wing area, therefore more lift for a given
airspeed. A lot depends on the airplane's design and the airfoil section,
though. Based on personal experience, the Cub is more likely to lift a wing
than a Taylorcraft because of the airfoil characteristics (I believe).

Why the question, by the way? I wouldn't let perceived groundloop threats
be a deciding factor in which airplanes to fly or buy.

Shawn
> wrote in message
ups.com...
> The clipped wing may be very slightly more likely to ground loop,
> because its shorter wings give it a smaller moment of inertia, so it
> will take less torque to make it rotate.
>

[Dudley Henriques]

> wrote in message
ups.com...
> Would a taildragger with clipped wings be more likely to ground loop
> than if it had it's full span wings?
>
> Kevin T

Depending on the airplane, it could be a problem. The real physics in
the groundloop equation has to be considered as a whole picture, not
just the length of the wing, although changing the mass ratio between
the wing and fuselage can indeed effect this situation.
The main gear and the tailwheel form a triangle that can be stable or
unstable in specific conditions depending on how the sides of this
triangle balance together. Then you have to add the aerodynamics
involved in the wing itself and how that influences the triangle in
different situations.
It's a complicated thing really. The main point of it is that what
effects ground loop is usually not a single factor data point. As is the
case in most of aircraft design issues, it's a combination of factors
and how these factors interplay with each other.
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]]

Any taildragger, driven by someone who has an inflated opinion
of his skills and an underestimation of the skills required, is more
likely to groundloop. It's not particularly difficult if the proper
training is given.
The biggest single physical characteristic of an airplane that
has bad groundlooping tendencies would be the main wheels too far
forward of the CG. A close second would be a short tail. Third might be
a narrow main track.

Dan

[Stealth Pilot]

On 16 Feb 2005 18:11:24 -0800, wrote:

>Would a taildragger with clipped wings be more likely to ground loop
>than if it had it's full span wings?
>
>Kevin T

I'm pretty sure it wouldnt.
the geometry of the main wheels is unchanged. the empennage length is
unchanged. the rudder/tailwheel setup is unchanged. the weight and cg
position is pretty well unchanged. engine and thrustline is unchanged
and tyre pressures would be unchanged.

the only real difference you'd notice is that the approach speed will
need to be slightly faster and the roundout slightly faster.
you probably wouldnt be that aware of a slightly increased ground run
on takeoff.

the drag curve would be shifted to the right and you would get into
the "back of the power curve" more noticeably if you flew the old
approach speeds.

in the air the inherent stability should be less and the aileron roll
a little crisper. stick sensitivity may make you fly with the arm on
the thigh to prevent overcontrol.

Stealth (wittman tailwind) Pilot

[[email protected]]

The shorter wings would decrease slightly the moment of
inertia about the vertical axis, making the airplane a bit quicker in
yaw. A groundloop might be easier to start, but would also be easier to
stop.

>Stealth (wittman tailwind) Pilot

What's the Tailwind like for ground handling? I've always liked
that airplane and hope to own one someday, perhaps as a restoration
project. Steve Wittman designed some fantastic airplanes for his time,
and they're still excellent performers for their power.

Dan

[Kyle Boatright]

> wrote in message
ups.com...
> The shorter wings would decrease slightly the moment of
> inertia about the vertical axis, making the airplane a bit quicker in
> yaw. A groundloop might be easier to start, but would also be easier to
> stop.
>
>>Stealth (wittman tailwind) Pilot
>
> What's the Tailwind like for ground handling? I've always liked
> that airplane and hope to own one someday, perhaps as a restoration
> project. Steve Wittman designed some fantastic airplanes for his time,
> and they're still excellent performers for their power.
>
> Dan

An aquaitence who owned one said it was a "mean little airplane". He didn't
use the word in a nice sense. He didn't have any complaints about the
Tailwind's in-flight performance, but really didn't like the approach speeds
and ground handling.

He kept it a few months, sold it, then bought an RV-3 which he liked (then
sold), and finally bought a Sonex, which he likes.

The thing I notice about the Tailwinds is the relatively poor visibility.

[Dudley Henriques]

> wrote in message
ups.com...
> The shorter wings would decrease slightly the moment of
> inertia about the vertical axis, making the airplane a bit quicker in
> yaw. A groundloop might be easier to start, but would also be easier
> to
> stop.
>
>>Stealth (wittman tailwind) Pilot
>
> What's the Tailwind like for ground handling? I've always liked
> that airplane and hope to own one someday, perhaps as a restoration
> project. Steve Wittman designed some fantastic airplanes for his time,
> and they're still excellent performers for their power.
>
> Dan
Never flew the Tailwind, but have flown formula 1 prototypes and the
Cassutt formula racing planes among others. Never found any of them to
be a ground loop problem if handled correctly. The AT6 can get a bit
squirrelly on the roll out, as can the S1 Pitts and the Stearman. The Mk
16 Spitfire surprisingly enough with the narrow gear spread tracks as
straight as an arrow on roll out. The P51 is even straighter if landed
tail low on the mains.
I can't honestly say that any single airplane I flew during my tenure in
aviation was a ground loop candidate. Duane Cole flew a clipped wing
Taylorcraft for many years. I've watched him put it down numerous times
with no noticeable excess rudder use on the roll out. I believe the
original wingspan on his airplane was 36 feet. He had clipped a full 7
feet off of it.
It was fuselage loaded, but didn't seem to bother him at all on landing.
Of course, nothing REALLY bothered Duane when it came to flying an
airplane!! :-))

[Roger]

On Fri, 18 Feb 2005 18:41:16 -0500, "Kyle Boatright"
> wrote:

>
> wrote in message
ups.com...
>> The shorter wings would decrease slightly the moment of
>> inertia about the vertical axis, making the airplane a bit quicker in
>> yaw. A groundloop might be easier to start, but would also be easier to
>> stop.
>>
>>>Stealth (wittman tailwind) Pilot
>>
>> What's the Tailwind like for ground handling? I've always liked
>> that airplane and hope to own one someday, perhaps as a restoration
>> project. Steve Wittman designed some fantastic airplanes for his time,
>> and they're still excellent performers for their power.
>>
>> Dan
>
>An aquaitence who owned one said it was a "mean little airplane". He didn't
>use the word in a nice sense. He didn't have any complaints about the
>Tailwind's in-flight performance, but really didn't like the approach speeds
>and ground handling.

I have to ask...What's wrong with approach speeds? Whether you fly
final at 40, 75, or 120 should make little difference as long as you
have enough runway and know the airplane? True, it does take a bit of
getting used to, but usually doesn't take long.

Yesterday I was coming down a steep final at 76 MPH and using very
little runway. I fly an ILS at 120 in the same airplane. The
transition from 120 to touch down gets a little busy with retrimming
unless you are a weight lifter, or don't like to feel the controls.
Still, I start slowing and going full flaps as soon as the runway is
made. It takes about twice the distance of a normal VFR landing and
about 4 to 6 times that of a short field landing.

I've just never noticed much difference, but I don't rely much on
outside visual clues for speed either.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com
>
>He kept it a few months, sold it, then bought an RV-3 which he liked (then
>sold), and finally bought a Sonex, which he likes.
>
>The thing I notice about the Tailwinds is the relatively poor visibility.
>
>

[Cub Driver]

On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 02:53:32 -0500, Roger
> wrote:

>I have to ask...What's wrong with approach speeds? Whether you fly
>final at 40, 75, or 120 should make little difference as long as you
>have enough runway and know the airplane? True, it does take a bit of
>getting used to, but usually doesn't take long.

If you landed a Cub at 120 knots, you wouldn't have it long.


-- 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

[Dale]

In article >,
Cub Driver > wrote:


>
> If you landed a Cub at 120 knots, you wouldn't have it long.

I'm just wondering how you're going to get the Cub up to 120 knots. <G>

--
Dale L. Falk

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

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

[Stealth Pilot]

On Fri, 18 Feb 2005 18:41:16 -0500, "Kyle Boatright"
> wrote:

>
> wrote in message
ups.com...
>> The shorter wings would decrease slightly the moment of
>> inertia about the vertical axis, making the airplane a bit quicker in
>> yaw. A groundloop might be easier to start, but would also be easier to
>> stop.
>>
>>>Stealth (wittman tailwind) Pilot
>>
>> What's the Tailwind like for ground handling? I've always liked
>> that airplane and hope to own one someday, perhaps as a restoration
>> project. Steve Wittman designed some fantastic airplanes for his time,
>> and they're still excellent performers for their power.
>>
>> Dan
>
>An aquaitence who owned one said it was a "mean little airplane". He didn't
>use the word in a nice sense. He didn't have any complaints about the
>Tailwind's in-flight performance, but really didn't like the approach speeds
>and ground handling.
>
>He kept it a few months, sold it, then bought an RV-3 which he liked (then
>sold), and finally bought a Sonex, which he likes.
>
>The thing I notice about the Tailwinds is the relatively poor visibility.
>
sorry to have missed the original question.

I have no problems with visibility.

my little web site is a bit of a pox at present because I've been
using it to move files across the country. it has been badly hacked up
to free up file space.
http://members.iinet.net.au/~tailwind has a photo of the machine.
there is a page with all the mods drawings as well.

I had flown cessna 150's. did my taildragger in an Auster J1B which I
found a quantum leap more difficult to land. The tailwind is a further
quantum more difficult ...initially.

It took me 30 hours to fly without an elevated heart rate.
30 more hours to relax with it and a further 30 hours to get on top of
it fully. now the little bugger is like an extension of my hand.
I found overcontrolling it the main difficulty.

a Tailwind is easy to land IF you have it exactly aligned in the
direction of flight, no sideslip or drift and you get almost zero
vertical speed at touchdown.

takeoff safety speed is 56 knots. approach on finals is best at 70
knots and two stages of flap. I flare over the threshold at 65 knots,
check the sideslip instrument then focus out at the far end of the
strip and NEVER look back in the cockpit. I have absolutely no idea
what the touchdown speed actually is. it cant be much over the stall
of 42knots though.
two stages of flap and the aircraft three points beautifully (mind you
this is with 300 hours flying it now) three stages of flap and the
aircraft wants to wheel it on. wheelers btw are not really a problem.

my aircraft is a pussycat for groundhandling. I have a tapered rod
tailspring (it is on the original plans) and steve's tailwheel. steve
made one mistake on the plans IMHO. the distance out from centre that
the link arm driving the tailwheel meets the rudder bellcrank arm
needs to be half what he shows on the plan. as steve has it the
tailwheel is severely overgeared. half the distance and it is perfect.

I have had a number of tailwheels on the aircraft and the outstanding
best tailwheel is the one sold by Aircraft Spruce as the 4"
homebuilders tailwheel.

mine has an O-200 and cruises at 114 knots, 20 litres per hour fuel
burn. I know of one built bog standard with an unmodified O-200 but
with a 2 position motor glider prop that would cruise at 135knots at
2500rpm and 20 litre per hour fuel burn on a crisp cold morning in
coarse pitch.
It is a target that still niggles at me. :-)

mine has a large 120 litre tank that gives 5hours 45mins range to dry
tanks. I find it perfect for across australia flying. I can set off on
a 350 nautical mile leg into a 15 knot headwind and get there with
fuel to spare.

the aircraft is supposed to be a pilot maker. dunno. it is all that I
fly. it is neutrally stable. it has no inertia to speak of and will go
exactly where your hand has commanded it to go.
flying with your arm across your thigh tames out all the PIO
tendencies. mine is slightly different in that it has a Y control
yolk. (your hand is in exactly the same position as steves T handle
and the attach to the control rods is exactly the same, it is a Y
instead of a T basically) I have cessna style central engine controls.

would I suggest buying one? yep but get some dual time in one first so
that you have a feel of the sensitivity.
one of the NASA astronaut doctors died in one and all I'd swear all
she did wrong was press the wrong rudder correcting a landing.

In 350 hours (I think) flying mine I have never ever found it boring.
Having done the hard yards I love flying it. the design is a sensitive
dead honest aeroplane.
....I only wish it wasnt broken at the moment :-) (carby airbox wore
out after 19 years)

oh your excellent performers comment. ... a grumman AA5B tiger is 10 -
15 knots faster but with TWICE the fuel burn.
my tailwind cruises at 24.8 statute miles per imperial gallon. they're
OK.
Raspet's aeronautical evaluation done in 1956 is still available from
the EAA photocopying service.(october 1956 Experimenter) it makes
interesting reading. Wittman got the control sizes correct IMHO,
especially the rudder.

yeah buy one!
Stealth Pilot

[John Galban]

Dale wrote:
> In article >,
> Cub Driver > wrote:
>
>
> >
> > If you landed a Cub at 120 knots, you wouldn't have it long.
>
> I'm just wondering how you're going to get the Cub up to 120 knots.
<G>
>

Point the nose straight at the ground.

Light the JATO bottle.


John Galban=====N4BQ (PA28-180)

[[email protected]]

Interesting stuff on the Tailwind, Stealth. Thanks!

Dan