Which taildragger

[xxx]

So here I am in sunny (OK, heavy marine layer overcast) southern
California. Always looking for interesting/stupid/expensive
things to do, I see that there are a lot of outfits here offering
taildragger instruction, some aerobatic, some spin training,
some just tailwheel endorsements.

They use a variety of aircraft: Cubs, Aeroncas, Decathalon and
more.

Is there a significant difference between these different airplanes
when it comes to the initial learning about handling a taildragger?

[Dudley Henriques]

"xxx" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> So here I am in sunny (OK, heavy marine layer overcast) southern
> California. Always looking for interesting/stupid/expensive
> things to do, I see that there are a lot of outfits here offering
> taildragger instruction, some aerobatic, some spin training,
> some just tailwheel endorsements.
>
> They use a variety of aircraft: Cubs, Aeroncas, Decathalon and
> more.
>
> Is there a significant difference between these different airplanes
> when it comes to the initial learning about handling a taildragger?

My suggestion would be to go directly with the Decathlon. It's easy to fly,
and a very good tailwheel transition airplane. You get the ease of the
transition, and the aerobatics if you want to do them.
Dudley Henriques

[private]

"Dudley Henriques" <dhenriques@noware .net> wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "xxx" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> > So here I am in sunny (OK, heavy marine layer overcast) southern
> > California. Always looking for interesting/stupid/expensive
> > things to do, I see that there are a lot of outfits here offering
> > taildragger instruction, some aerobatic, some spin training,
> > some just tailwheel endorsements.
> >
> > They use a variety of aircraft: Cubs, Aeroncas, Decathalon and
> > more.
> >
> > Is there a significant difference between these different airplanes
> > when it comes to the initial learning about handling a taildragger?
>
> My suggestion would be to go directly with the Decathlon. It's easy to
fly,
> and a very good tailwheel transition airplane. You get the ease of the
> transition, and the aerobatics if you want to do them.
> Dudley Henriques
>

I agree with Dudley's choice of the Decathlon.

My second choice would be the Citabria 7eca which shares the same fuselage
and nice TALL rudder but has less power and will likely be less costly. I
think that these are both very honest, good flying aircraft. They have a
higher wing loading than the Piper Cubs, this requires a longer TO ground
roll, which allows more ground run practice. IMHO the Cubs are off the
ground too soon to give you much practice keeping straight. The tall rudder
has good positive control for landing. I found them a little nicer to three
point (than the Cubs) but YMMV. Many prefer the Cubs for wheel landings.
The Citabrias/Decathlons spin very nicely and are predictable and
consistant. Solo from the front seat. The Decathlon is a superior
aerobatic trainer but the Citabria is also great fun.

Happy landings.

[Jack]

Dudley Henriques wrote:

>>Is there a significant difference between these different airplanes
>>when it comes to the initial learning about handling a taildragger?
>
>
> My suggestion would be to go directly with the Decathlon. It's easy to fly,
> and a very good tailwheel transition airplane. You get the ease of the
> transition, and the aerobatics if you want to do them.

I second DH's advice. The Decathlon is a very pleasant, no-surprises
taildragger for your needs, and no asinine heel-brakes. Who was the
ergonomically-clueless idiot who came up with those things, anyway? ;>


Jack

[Deborah McFarland]

"...and no asinine heel-brakes.Who was the ergonomically-clueless idiot who
came up with those things, anyway? ;>
> Jack


I like my heel brakes. I guess it takes a real woman to handle them ;-).

Deb
--
1946 Luscombe 8A (his)
1948 Luscombe 8E (hers)
1954 Cessna 195B, restoring (ours)

[Dudley Henriques]

"Deborah McFarland" > wrote in message
...
> "...and no asinine heel-brakes.Who was the ergonomically-clueless idiot
> who came up with those things, anyway? ;>
>> Jack
>
>
> I like my heel brakes. I guess it takes a real woman to handle them ;-).
>
> Deb
> --
> 1946 Luscombe 8A (his)
> 1948 Luscombe 8E (hers)
> 1954 Cessna 195B, restoring (ours)

Hi Deb;

I checked out a guy in an Aeronca Chief once. It was a long time ago, but if
I remember right, it didn't have any brakes at all on my side of the
airplane.
You would have LOVED that!!! :-)
I vaguely remember thinking I should be making more money as an instructor
around takeoff time :-))))
Dudley

[Rob McDonald]

"Dudley Henriques" <dhenriques@noware .net> wrote in
nk.net:

> ...
> I vaguely remember thinking I should be making more money as an
> instructor around takeoff time :-))))
> Dudley

The instructors I know think that all the time :-)

Rob

[Deborah McFarland]

> I vaguely remember thinking I should be making more money as an instructor
> around takeoff time :-))))
> Dudley
>

Mine only has brakes on the left side. There is a 337 to install brakes on
the right, but frankly if you need brakes in a Luscombe, things have already
gone too far. I just use mine to show off how I can turn around on a dime on
the tarmac ;-).

Deb
--
1946 Luscombe 8A (his)
1948 Luscombe 8E (hers)
1954 Cessna 195B, restoring (ours)

[W P Dixon]

I don't have near the time as any of you, but in a taildragger I love the
heel brakes. I think it makes breaking a tailwheel loose easier than if you
had to do it pointing your toes out!:) And with all the footwork I kind of
like the idea the brakes are by themselves and not on the same thing as the
rudder pedals, especially in those high stress moments! ;)
I chose a Champ for my tailwheel training because I did not think I
would like flying from the back seat in a Cub for one. And number 2 was the
visiblity from the Champ from being in the front seat. I figured while you
are learning, seeing may actually be a pretty important thing! ;) And since
I am a sport pilot trainee I chose a plane to fit the category, but I hope
before it's all over with to fly a Stearman and a Decathlon. I agree with
Dudley, the Decath. would be the way to go if your in the PPL situation.
I was thinking about putting the brakes on the right side in my"future"
Luscombe, just so the CFI I have checking me out in doesn't get the "pucker"
factor to much! ;) From my understanding of the 337 it's not to hard of a
project to undertake, still looking for the JATO 337 on it though! ;)

Patrick
student SPL
aircraft structural mech

"Deborah McFarland" > wrote in message
...
>> I vaguely remember thinking I should be making more money as an
>> instructor around takeoff time :-))))
>> Dudley
>>
>
> Mine only has brakes on the left side. There is a 337 to install brakes on
> the right, but frankly if you need brakes in a Luscombe, things have
> already gone too far. I just use mine to show off how I can turn around on
> a dime on the tarmac ;-).
>
> Deb
> --
> 1946 Luscombe 8A (his)
> 1948 Luscombe 8E (hers)
> 1954 Cessna 195B, restoring (ours)
>

[[email protected]]

They each handle a little diferently on the ground and during that very
short critical time of not quite enough speed to fly but plenty to
ground loop!
I'd opt for the Decathalon for openers, and get time in all of them to
find out for yourself which you prefer. Certainly get the spin
training, invaluable experience no matter what you end up flying.
aerobatics ditto.
Have fun!! where are you flying in SoCal? If anywhere near Santa Paula
I HIGHLY recommend Rich Stowell for primary aerobatics.
Fly safe
Rocky

[Dudley Henriques]

> wrote in message
ups.com...
> I HIGHLY recommend Rich Stowell for primary aerobatics.
> Fly safe
> Rocky

So do I!
DH

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Deborah McFarland" > wrote in message
...
>> I vaguely remember thinking I should be making more money as an
>> instructor around takeoff time :-))))
>> Dudley
>>
>
> Mine only has brakes on the left side.

Doesn't that make you go in circles?

[xxx]

wrote:

> Have fun!! where are you flying in SoCal? If anywhere near Santa Paula
> I HIGHLY recommend Rich Stowell for primary aerobatics.
> Fly safe
> Rocky

I'm in the San Fernando Valley and have not made a flight since
arriving. That's only been a few days. There are several
airports closer than Santa Paula but I'll stop by when I get a chance.

[Dylan Smith]

On 2005-08-16, Deborah McFarland > wrote:
> I like my heel brakes. I guess it takes a real woman to handle them ;-).

You know it's not really heel brakes that I find a problem. I otherwise
love flying the Auster we use for towing gliders. However, it has a free
castoring tailwheel. Our runway is hard surfaced. In a quartering
tailwheel, you must use the brakes for directional control since the
rudder is totally ineffective, and the tailwheel is free castoring.

However, it's not just that they are heel brakes (which makes depressing
the rudder pedal fully and applying braking more difficult) but the fact
they are connected to cable operated drum brakes whose effectiveness
varies from minute to minute. On a hard sufaced runway or taxiway, when
taxiing (and because the brakes are so ineffective and being a
taildragger, forward visibility isn't so hot, you must taxi slowly and
with low enough power there is insufficient prop wash over the rudder)
you have to inevitably accept you will need to do one or two 360 degree
turns if you make too big an S-turn when trying to see forward.

On grass it's less of a problem. The drag of the grass means you need a
touch more power (more prop wash over the tail) and makes the aircraft
track more straight anyhow. It's probably the only way anyone found that
terrible braking system adequate!

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

[[email protected]]

xxx wrote:
> So here I am in sunny (OK, heavy marine layer overcast) southern
> California. Always looking for interesting/stupid/expensive
> things to do, I see that there are a lot of outfits here offering
> taildragger instruction, some aerobatic, some spin training,
> some just tailwheel endorsements.
>
> They use a variety of aircraft: Cubs, Aeroncas, Decathalon and
> more.
>
> Is there a significant difference between these different airplanes
> when it comes to the initial learning about handling a taildragger?

Others have discussed the aircraft. I'll put in a plug for Sunrise
Aviation down at John Wayne. They have four Decathlons, a Citabria,
2 holer Pitts and an Extra 300. More importantly, I thought the
instruction I got there last year during an aerobatic refresher was
first rate. (Nice web site, too.)

Have fun with whatever you choose, rick

[gregg]

W P Dixon wrote:


> I chose a Champ for my tailwheel training because I did not think I
> would like flying from the back seat in a Cub for one. And number 2 was
> the visiblity from the Champ from being in the front seat. I figured while
> you are learning, seeing may actually be a pretty important thing! ;)

Depends, somewhat, on the ultimate objective. I preferred getting my TD
endorsement in the Cub BECAUSE you flew from the back and visibility is
limited. But this is because I intend to work my way up to other Warbirds,
like the Mustang (FUDH) and others, where the visibilty up front isn't so
hot.

But if Big Schnozz flying isn't the objective, then maybe it doesn't
matter.

--
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

[Michael]

> Is there a significant difference between these different airplanes
> when it comes to the initial learning about handling a taildragger?

There are differences. What you would consider significant is another
matter. Let's just say that in my opinion that wouldn't be the most
important factor.

If at all possible, pick the one that allows you to solo. If you have
a choice, choose the one that allows solo with the most reasonable
minimums.

Those operations that can get insurance for solo rentals with
reasonable minima have a proven track record for teaching pilots the
things they need to know to operate a tailwheel airplane without
wrecking it. Insurance companies are far from perfect, but they have a
way better idea of what qualified instructor means than the FAA does,
and having no other information, you're way better off going with their
judgment than not. Way more important than the difference between the
various little taildraggers.

Michael

[Robert M. Gary]

Depends what you want. I've had a Decathlon, Cub, and Aeroca Chief.
At this point if I were in the market for another tailwheel, I'd
probably go for the Aeronca. Why? It was just a fun plane. The
Decathlon was too modern. Full electrical system electrical starter,
radios, etc just takes a bit of the tailwheel fun out of it for me. The
Cub looked good on the ground but honestly, it flys like an old Ford
pickup truck sucking up any little bit of turb it can find. There isn't
much hands off flying in the J-3. The PA-18 I flew was much nicer
though.

-Robert

[George Patterson]

W P Dixon wrote:
> I don't have near the time as any of you, but in a taildragger I love
> the heel brakes. I think it makes breaking a tailwheel loose easier than
> if you had to do it pointing your toes out!:)

I did some of my tailwheel conversion training in a PA-18. Just one occasion of
needing to use the brakes while holding full rudder against a strong crosswind
made me very appreciative of toe brakes. I was very glad my Maule had them.

George Patterson
Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to
use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks.

[Morgans]

"gregg" > wrote

> But this is because I intend to work my way up to other Warbirds,
> like the Mustang (FUDH) and others, where the visibilty up front isn't so
> hot.

Wow, that is ambitious! Do you have connections, or a plan to get the
connections to fly a Mustang, or are you rich? <g>
--
Jim in NC

[Deborah McFarland]

> I was thinking about putting the brakes on the right side in my"future"
> Luscombe, just so the CFI I have checking me out in doesn't get the
> "pucker" factor to much! ;) From my understanding of the 337 it's not to
> hard of a project to undertake, still looking for the JATO 337 on it
> though! ;)

Patrick,

If I ever give one word of sound advice about flying Luscombes, it's this.
Never, ever as long as you live use those brakes during the landing roll.
Luscombe brakes are for ground maneuvering only. If a CFI tells you
different, open the door and ask him to get out. The last person I told this
to flipped his Luscombe on the landing roll. He let it get away from him,
then added brake to correct himself. The airplane immediately flipped. He
was injured, and the beautifully restored bird was totaled. (see
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20041115X01817&key=1)

I've landed in 25 knot crosswinds without touching the brakes. Luscombes are
wonderful airplanes to fly. They react exactly as they are directed. Land
straight with the direction of travel and you'll not have any problem. If
that means landing on one wheel, do so. (I've stayed on one wheel nearly to
the tiedown ;-)) But don't think that braking will help. Go around or add a
blast of power. If all else fails, in a Luscombe, it's better to ground loop
if things have progressed too far than to flip.

BTW, there is a jet Luscombe. It's called the Speedbird. See
http://ronkilber.tripod.com/luscombe/luscombe.htm and all 337s can be found
at http://www.luscombeassoc.org/.

Deb
--
1946 Luscombe 8A (his)
1948 Luscombe 8E (hers)
1954 Cessna 195B, restoring (ours)

[Deborah McFarland]

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wr.giacona@coxDOTnet> wrote in message
news:8asMe.1814$7f5.1310@okepread01...
> Doesn't that make you go in circles?

Yes, and there's nothing more annoying than chasing my own tail! :-).

Deb

--
1946 Luscombe 8A (his)
1948 Luscombe 8E (hers)
1954 Cessna 195B, restoring (ours)

[Deborah McFarland]

"Dylan Smith" > wrote

However, it has a free
> castoring tailwheel.

Dylan,

I don't have any trouble with mine, but my tail is heavier than many fabric
airplanes and my rudder is effective on the ground.

> However, it's not just that they are heel brakes (which makes depressing
> the rudder pedal fully and applying braking more difficult) but the fact
> they are connected to cable operated drum brakes whose effectiveness
> varies from minute to minute.

My Cleveland wheels and brakes are every effective and consistent. With the
pedal set-up in my airplane, I find depressing the brake and rudder easy,
but I have smaller feet that most male pilots and that could be key.
However, I don't like to fly bare footed and never in sandals or flops.

Deb

--
1946 Luscombe 8A (his)
1948 Luscombe 8E (hers)
1954 Cessna 195B, restoring (ours)

[W P Dixon]

Great Advice,
And definitely what I am being told by my CFI's, I only use the brakes
to break the tailwheel lose. The Champs I have been flying you could almost
stop using the Flintstones breaking method if you had to! ;) I'm doing good
in them and hope to solo soon, and I really can not wait to try a Luscombe.
Finding they are harder to get ahold to than a Champ for training! That's
saying something since I drive 5 hours to fly the Champ! I think the
taildragger flying is alot more fun..or should we say the landings and
takeoffs ;) It's a hoot! Going back to Ohio on the 27th I'll let ya know how
I did.
Was the plane you were talking about the one that was for sale in GA for
awhile, white with blue trim if I remember correct. Think he wanted 8 grand
for it, don't know what he actually got for it. The vertical had a "nice"
crush going on. OUCH!

Patrick

"Deborah McFarland" > wrote in message
...
>> I was thinking about putting the brakes on the right side in
>> my"future" Luscombe, just so the CFI I have checking me out in doesn't
>> get the "pucker" factor to much! ;) From my understanding of the 337 it's
>> not to hard of a project to undertake, still looking for the JATO 337 on
>> it though! ;)
>
> Patrick,
>
> If I ever give one word of sound advice about flying Luscombes, it's this.
> Never, ever as long as you live use those brakes during the landing roll.
> Luscombe brakes are for ground maneuvering only. If a CFI tells you
> different, open the door and ask him to get out. The last person I told
> this to flipped his Luscombe on the landing roll. He let it get away from
> him, then added brake to correct himself. The airplane immediately
> flipped. He was injured, and the beautifully restored bird was totaled.
> (see http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20041115X01817&key=1)
>
> I've landed in 25 knot crosswinds without touching the brakes. Luscombes
> are wonderful airplanes to fly. They react exactly as they are directed.
> Land straight with the direction of travel and you'll not have any
> problem. If that means landing on one wheel, do so. (I've stayed on one
> wheel nearly to the tiedown ;-)) But don't think that braking will help.
> Go around or add a blast of power. If all else fails, in a Luscombe, it's
> better to ground loop if things have progressed too far than to flip.
>
> BTW, there is a jet Luscombe. It's called the Speedbird. See
> http://ronkilber.tripod.com/luscombe/luscombe.htm and all 337s can be
> found at http://www.luscombeassoc.org/.
>
> Deb
> --
> 1946 Luscombe 8A (his)
> 1948 Luscombe 8E (hers)
> 1954 Cessna 195B, restoring (ours)
>

[Dudley Henriques]

"Deborah McFarland" > wrote in message
...

> If I ever give one word of sound advice about flying Luscombes, it's this.
> Never, ever as long as you live use those brakes during the landing roll.
> Luscombe brakes are for ground maneuvering only. If a CFI tells you
> different, open the door and ask him to get out.

The proper use of aircraft brakes is a much misunderstood issue
unfortunately and could easily use it's own thread.
I agree completely with your statement concerning the Luscombe. The rudder
on this airplane is responsive enough to handle landings without touching
the brakes.......and this holds true for many other aircraft also. Proper
planning even while taxiing should keep brake application to a minimum and
indeed, taxiing without braking, or at least minimum braking should be the
goal of every pilot.
But it's not a completely black and white issue, and pilots are well advised
to learn how and when to use their brakes PROPERLY.
I used to kid my trainees by telling them the brakes were on the airplane
for holding it during the runup and little else. For some airplanes this is
true.
From the gitgo, I'd have my pilots planning ground operations to reflect as
little brake use as possible. Many pilots are surprised to learn how well
you can thread a needle with an airplane between two parked airplanes if you
just PLAN a little ahead!
But there's another side to the brake issue, and you find it in higher
performance airplanes, especially in higher performance; bigger, and heavier
tailwheel aircraft. You will also find it in close coupled light aircraft
like a Pitts for example.
The problem can arise in the late stages of the landing roll as dynamic
energy decreases on the rudder and you get angular drift on the runway.
There will be times in these airplanes when a touch of brake might very well
be necessary, although most of the time, you can handle even these aircraft
using no brakes and that is the recommended procedure.
The thing with brakes on an airplane is to learn right off the bat where and
when to use them properly, and then HOW to use them properly. All good
pilots, especially tail wheel pilots, should be capable of extremely
careful, delicate rudder and brake application, and know through proper
training when to use brake and how much can be used without losing the
airplane.
As a CFI, I like the goal of using as little brake as possible, especially
on landings, but I also want to stress that not all airplanes are alike, and
keeping that in mind, a thorough indoctrination into the proper use of
aircraft brakes, and especially the brakes on a specific airplane should be
part and parcel of every CFI's tool kit!
Dudley Henriques

[xxx]

Michael wrote:

>
> If at all possible, pick the one that allows you to solo. If you have
> a choice, choose the one that allows solo with the most reasonable
> minimums.
> Michael

Good point. I will see if any of them allows solo rental. It could turn
out that they will all be like the sea plane operations: get the rating
and that's the end, not the beginning.

I'm surprised at how heavy and persistent the marine layer has been
since
I've arrived here. It seems the first thing will be learning to
actually
use my instrument ticket to get in and out of the valley.

[Deborah McFarland]

> Was the plane you were talking about the one that was for sale in GA
> for awhile, white with blue trim if I remember correct. Think he wanted 8
> grand for it, don't know what he actually got for it. The vertical had a
> "nice" crush going on. OUCH!
>
> Patrick

Yep. He put it on ebay and some fool bought it for $9000! We offered him
$1200. There were some structural issues. A good metalsmith will be able to
bring it back.

Deb
--
1946 Luscombe 8A (his)
1948 Luscombe 8E (hers)
1954 Cessna 195B, restoring (ours)

[W P Dixon]

Hee Hee,
I made him an offer as well, because I knew I could fix it. But for
someone having to pay for it to be done they would have to have a lot of
cash in the old wallet! Ya know I never could get him to give me a stright
answer about a prop strike. And you are very correct, only a fool would have
given that much money for a badly damaged plane. You can find nice project
planes that need a whole lot less in the 3-6 G range. If I could find one
the owner would carry a note on I'd be in high cotton!

Patrick

"Deborah McFarland" > wrote in message
...
>> Was the plane you were talking about the one that was for sale in GA
>> for awhile, white with blue trim if I remember correct. Think he wanted 8
>> grand for it, don't know what he actually got for it. The vertical had a
>> "nice" crush going on. OUCH!
>>
>> Patrick
>
> Yep. He put it on ebay and some fool bought it for $9000! We offered him
> $1200. There were some structural issues. A good metalsmith will be able
> to bring it back.
>
> Deb
> --
> 1946 Luscombe 8A (his)
> 1948 Luscombe 8E (hers)
> 1954 Cessna 195B, restoring (ours)
>

[john smith]

Patrick, do I remove only the word "spam" from your email to send you a
message?

[W P Dixon]

Take out the 1's and spam .

Patrick

"john smith" > wrote in message
. ..
> Patrick, do I remove only the word "spam" from your email to send you a
> message?

[gregg]

Morgans wrote:

>
> "gregg" > wrote
>
>> But this is because I intend to work my way up to other Warbirds,
>> like the Mustang (FUDH) and others, where the visibilty up front isn't so
>> hot.
>
> Wow, that is ambitious! Do you have connections, or a plan to get the
> connections to fly a Mustang, or are you rich? <g>

HAHAHA I have no connections and I'm not "rich" - tho my kid is grown, I
have a good paying job and - most importantly - not married ;^)

So I have money to spend and that's how I'm spending it.

But mostly I have dogged determination, a goal, and a plan.



--
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

[W P Dixon]

Nah Nah Saville,mostly you don't have a wife!!!! HAHAHA Mine is so tight her
shoes squeak when she walks;) Of course she has to be that way, or I'd have
even more tools and airplane parts!!!!!;)

Oh and for anyone looking for a Luscombe and instructor, a new EAA list of
CFI's for sport pilots is online and there are 3 listed that have
Luscombe's. So just for everyones info I'll list them here and you won't
have to try to look them up.

Brian Kissinger
O'Fallon , IL
618-628-0041

Andrew Mueller
St Louis Sport Aviation, LLC
St Louis, MO
314-779-7197

Monte Jestes
Stillwater, OK
405-372-8015

They have email addys but I didn't want them spammed to death from here so
go to the EAA website to get those;)

Patrick
student SPL
aircraft structural mech

>
>>
>> "gregg" > wrote
>>
>>> But this is because I intend to work my way up to other Warbirds,
>>> like the Mustang (FUDH) and others, where the visibilty up front isn't
>>> so
>>> hot.
>>
>
> HAHAHA I have no connections and I'm not "rich" - tho my kid is grown, I
> have a good paying job and - most importantly - not married ;^)
>
> So I have money to spend and that's how I'm spending it.
>
> But mostly I have dogged determination, a goal, and a plan.
>
>
>
> --
> 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
>

[Dudley Henriques]

"T o d d P a t t i s t" > wrote in message
...
> "Dudley Henriques" <dhenriques@noware .net> wrote:
>
>>The thing with brakes on an airplane is to learn right off the bat where
>>and
>>when to use them properly, and then HOW to use them properly. All good
>>pilots, especially tail wheel pilots, should be capable of extremely
>>careful, delicate rudder and brake application, and know through proper
>>training when to use brake and how much can be used without losing the
>>airplane.
>
> I agree 100% with this. The best pilots know how much brake
> they can use if they need it, and use their skill to not
> ever need it :-) Of course the only way to get that skill
> is to practice.
>
> Teaching in a taildragger, one of the maneuvers I like is to
> run down the runway, lift the tail, then throttle back and
> taxi/fly on the mains all the way down the runway,
> throttling back and finishing the exercise by carefully
> lowering the tail to the runway. It simulates the first
> part of a takeoff (good in XWind training) and the last part
> of a wheel landing, without requiring quite the finesse of
> the touchdown portion of the wheel landing. Five or six
> times back and forth on the runway this way and crosswind
> aileron use, elevator use, etc. become much more automatic.
>
> It can and should be done with no brake, but when a student
> gets it wrong and heads for the weeds, the brakes are nice
> to have :-)
>
> Another time I use them is when practicing the absolute
> shortest landing possible. Knowing how much brake can be
> safely used at each speed is really a valuable skill.

I liked the "run on the mains" on the runway as well, and used it often
myself. Another thing I liked and used was a set of two wooden stands we
made, each with a vertical post and horizontal arm. Attached to the end of
each arm was a white string that hung down vertically. I'd place the two
stands to give exactly a one foot horizontal clearance on either side of the
wingtips on a tailwheel airplane I was checking someone out in. Then I'd
have the pilot plan a taxi approach requiring a 90 degree turn designed to
put the airplane between the hanging strings without touching either
one......WITHOUT THE USE OF BRAKES!
This required some planning, but was a wonderful way to get my pilots
thinking ahead of the airplane while taxiing.
It also saved me having to replace a hell of a lot of brakes!! :-))
Dudley

[Morgans]

"Deborah McFarland" > wrote

> BTW, there is a jet Luscombe. It's called the Speedbird. See
> http://ronkilber.tripod.com/luscombe/luscombe.htm

Way cool! I want one!

Anyone out there want to buy me one for my birthday? <g>
--
Jim in NC

[Deborah McFarland]

""W P Dixon" <Ya know I never could get him to give me a stright
> answer about a prop strike."

The prop dug out a trench in the pavement. That engine was toast!

Deb

--
1946 Luscombe 8A (his)
1948 Luscombe 8E (hers)
1954 Cessna 195B, restoring (ours)