Some tailwheel questions/comments

[Little Endian]

This weekend I began my tailwheel endorsement endeavor and had a
lesson in a shiny 160 hp Citabria. It was great fun but the stick and
rudder forces seemed pretty heavy compared to the C-150 I am used to.
The trim was in an unfamiliar position and I didn't get used to using
it enough on the first flight perhaps. However are there tailwheels
that are lighter to handle than the citabria?
The other issue I was wondering about: does the position of the CG
shift when the tail is raised? So is the tailwheel more stable while
taxing at a higher speed on the two front wheels? In other words, I am
wondering if a tailwheel taxing with the tail raised has a similar CG
position to a tricycle gear airplane.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Little Endian wrote:
> This weekend I began my tailwheel endorsement endeavor and had a
> lesson in a shiny 160 hp Citabria. It was great fun but the stick and
> rudder forces seemed pretty heavy compared to the C-150 I am used to.
> The trim was in an unfamiliar position and I didn't get used to using
> it enough on the first flight perhaps. However are there tailwheels
> that are lighter to handle than the citabria?
> The other issue I was wondering about: does the position of the CG
> shift when the tail is raised? So is the tailwheel more stable while
> taxing at a higher speed on the two front wheels? In other words, I am
> wondering if a tailwheel taxing with the tail raised has a similar CG
> position to a tricycle gear airplane.

Did you ask your instructor these questions?

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Little Endian > wrote in news:1190700037.145345.27050
@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com:

> This weekend I began my tailwheel endorsement endeavor and had a
> lesson in a shiny 160 hp Citabria. It was great fun but the stick and
> rudder forces seemed pretty heavy compared to the C-150 I am used to.
> The trim was in an unfamiliar position and I didn't get used to using
> it enough on the first flight perhaps. However are there tailwheels
> that are lighter to handle than the citabria?
> The other issue I was wondering about: does the position of the CG
> shift when the tail is raised? So is the tailwheel more stable while
> taxing at a higher speed on the two front wheels? In other words, I am
> wondering if a tailwheel taxing with the tail raised has a similar CG
> position to a tricycle gear airplane.
>
>



Not really, and I'd be surprised if you could taxi a Citabria with the
tailwheel raised anyway. Easy in a cub, though.

The problem with the Citabria is it's a bit too easy for tailwheel
conversion. You'll get the basics, but if you try a cub afterwards you'll
find it significantly more difficult, wheras the other way around would be
a piece of cake. Citabria is a good airplane, but it's not the best
tailwheel trainer for that reason. However, it will certainly do in a
pinch!
The CG doesn't change significantly when the tail is raised, though, to
answer your question, and fast taxiing is something best left to someone
with a LOT of tailwhel time. Taxiing on the mains is something best left to
airshow pilots or guys that can afford to replace props as easily as they
would buy a cup of coffee.
Now ask me how I know this.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

john smith > wrote in news:46f8f93b$0$17147
:

> In article om>,
> Little Endian > wrote:
>
>> This weekend I began my tailwheel endorsement endeavor and had a
>> lesson in a shiny 160 hp Citabria. It was great fun but the stick and
>> rudder forces seemed pretty heavy compared to the C-150 I am used to.
>> The trim was in an unfamiliar position and I didn't get used to using
>> it enough on the first flight perhaps. However are there tailwheels
>> that are lighter to handle than the citabria?
>> The other issue I was wondering about: does the position of the CG
>> shift when the tail is raised? So is the tailwheel more stable while
>> taxing at a higher speed on the two front wheels? In other words, I am
>> wondering if a tailwheel taxing with the tail raised has a similar CG
>> position to a tricycle gear airplane.
>
> One has to wonder if this is a troll.

Might be, but students often get ideas like this in their heads. might be
because they have vivid imaginations, but it's more likely they've been
listening to the guy who's been hanging around the airport, talking about
the day he's going to get that Pitts (just waiting for the right one to
come along, there;s so much junk around) Almost never flies and causes a
ruction in the pattern every time he does and tells tales of his derring do
that he's ripped off from "I learned about flying from that" in the
collection of 1950s Flying magazines he bought at a yard sale.


You know the guy I mean! There's one at every airport and he'd be most
useful as a chock if he had enough brains to lie still.


Bertie

[BDS[_2_]]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote
>
> Not really, and I'd be surprised if you could taxi a Citabria with the
> tailwheel raised anyway. Easy in a cub, though.
>
> The problem with the Citabria is it's a bit too easy for tailwheel
> conversion. You'll get the basics, but if you try a cub afterwards you'll
> find it significantly more difficult, wheras the other way around would be
> a piece of cake. Citabria is a good airplane, but it's not the best
> tailwheel trainer for that reason. However, it will certainly do in a
> pinch!

That's an interesting comment - I just got my tailwheel endorsement in a Cub
and have flown it another 4 hrs and dozens of landings since.

I plan to transition to a Husky (180 HP CS prop), any comments about what to
expect, relative difficulty, etc?

BDS

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"BDS" > wrote in
:

> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote
>>
>> Not really, and I'd be surprised if you could taxi a Citabria with
>> the tailwheel raised anyway. Easy in a cub, though.
>>
>> The problem with the Citabria is it's a bit too easy for tailwheel
>> conversion. You'll get the basics, but if you try a cub afterwards
>> you'll find it significantly more difficult, wheras the other way
>> around would be a piece of cake. Citabria is a good airplane, but
>> it's not the best tailwheel trainer for that reason. However, it will
>> certainly do in a pinch!
>
> That's an interesting comment - I just got my tailwheel endorsement in
> a Cub and have flown it another 4 hrs and dozens of landings since.
>
> I plan to transition to a Husky (180 HP CS prop), any comments about
> what to expect, relative difficulty, etc?

Never flown a Husky, but what you learned in the cub will get you into
anyting else with relative ease if you've absorbed what the cub taught
you.
You've learned to get the stick back to the stop during rollout ,
hopefully.(actualy, in a cub you have to have it there as you touch down
or you end up porpoising down the runway, eh? ) If you weren't attentive
to the rudder you ended up going backwards. What else do you need to
know? It teaches you what your feet are for and makes you look like an
idiot if you don't!

Whatever else you get into, you'll have to adapt to, obviously, but it
should be relatively simple now.
If you went from a Cub to a Citabria, for instance, you'd find the full
aft stick touchdown you'd used in the cub would land you tailwheel first
followed by the mains, so you land a little flatter in the Citabria, but
just a little. You'd be amazed at how easily the Citabria was tracking
for you down the runway with little or no need to pedal the rudder
around like you had in the cub, aside from that, the rest of the
checkout would be mostly about the aicraft systems.. Some of the faster
homebuilt bipes also touch down like this. Starduster, for instance.
If you got into a T-Craft after acub you'd have an even easier time, the
biggest difference being the float (take these with a pinch of salt as
the last time I flew a T-Craft was in the 70s) the Luscombe, no problem
either. Again, it;'s clean so it won't just come to a halt in mid-air
like th ecub will when you pull the power off, but once you get used to
that, you're in. The main things about the Luscombe are that it spins
relatively easily compared to a lot of airplanes, but it's not a problem
if you're paying attention to it and the fact that though it's no harder
on the ground than a cub, it will happily roll itsefl into a small wad
of aluminum if you **** up and groundloop it, wheras the cub will only
provide the peanut gallery at the airport with a few laughs.
Even a Pitts isn't such a big step up if you have mastered a cub (as
opposed to having jus survived a few hours in a Cub)

I still haven't flown a better training airplane.


Bertie

[BDS[_2_]]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote

> Never flown a Husky, but what you learned in the cub will get you into
> anyting else with relative ease if you've absorbed what the cub taught
> you.

It's still teaching me as I continue to work on perfecting my technique.
After a couple thousand hours in tricycle gear airplanes, I'm finding that
just going around the pattern chasing that painted-on 3-pointer is more fun
than I could have imagined. Who would have thought that this little 1940's
vintage 85HP airplane with no electrical system could be so challenging and
so much fun?!

> You've learned to get the stick back to the stop during rollout ,
> hopefully.(actualy, in a cub you have to have it there as you touch down
> or you end up porpoising down the runway, eh? ) If you weren't attentive
> to the rudder you ended up going backwards. What else do you need to
> know? It teaches you what your feet are for and makes you look like an
> idiot if you don't!

I have to smile reading this. I'm flying from a grass strip that's less
than smooth in spots and I was getting lazy holding the stick all the way
back on the stop during the rollout. Finally, my instructor turns around
and laughingly says to me "You're gonna lose it one of these times if you
keep letting the stick bounce like that." That cured me of that little bad
habit right then and there.

> Even a Pitts isn't such a big step up if you have mastered a cub (as
> opposed to having jus survived a few hours in a Cub)

I'm no longer just surviving but I also know I haven't quite mastered it
yet.

> I still haven't flown a better training airplane.

The best part is that my wife absolutely loves flying in the thing,
especially with the door and window open. What a blast!

BDS

[[email protected]]

>
> Not really, and I'd be surprised if you could taxi a Citabria with the
> tailwheel raised anyway. Easy in a cub, though.
>

Firstly this isnt a troll and if somebody feels it is, they simply
need to ignore it, thats how usenet works. Anyways, the question was
based more on what I saw on the takeoff run where we raise the tail as
airspeed increases. It just felt more stable and more like a
conventional gear takeoff run in that phase, so I was just wondering.
The intent of the question wasn't about how to taxi at a high speed.

> The problem with the Citabria is it's a bit too easy for tailwheel
> conversion. You'll get the basics, but if you try a cub afterwards you'll
> find it significantly more difficult, wheras the other way around would be
> a piece of cake. Citabria is a good airplane, but it's not the best
> tailwheel trainer for that reason. However, it will certainly do in a
> pinch!

Thanks for the tip, I have been looking to find a place to learn in a
cub but the closest one is about 70 miles away, so that may have to
wait.

> The CG doesn't change significantly when the tail is raised, though, to
> answer your question, and fast taxiing is something best left to someone
> with a LOT of tailwhel time. Taxiing on the mains is something best left to
> airshow pilots or guys that can afford to replace props as easily as they
> would buy a cup of coffee.

What my instructor seemed to imply (and things didn't really sink in
till about a day after the flying) was that the takeoff roll is more
stable when the tail is up. So I was wondering if the CG shifts
forward when the tail is raised because this is a more stable
configuration than when the CG is behind the main wheels.

[Jim Stewart]

Little Endian wrote:
> This weekend I began my tailwheel endorsement endeavor and had a
> lesson in a shiny 160 hp Citabria. It was great fun but the stick and
> rudder forces seemed pretty heavy compared to the C-150 I am used to.
> The trim was in an unfamiliar position and I didn't get used to using
> it enough on the first flight perhaps. However are there tailwheels
> that are lighter to handle than the citabria?
> The other issue I was wondering about: does the position of the CG
> shift when the tail is raised? So is the tailwheel more stable while
> taxing at a higher speed on the two front wheels? In other words, I am
> wondering if a tailwheel taxing with the tail raised has a similar CG
> position to a tricycle gear airplane.

So you've found out what those pedals
on the floor are for. (:

Seriously, after flying ultralight and
light sport planes, I was really surprised
that a 150 will fly fine with your feet
on the floor.

Both the light sport planes I've flown
required aggressive rudder control, with
one of them needing substantial "top rudder"
at times.

Neither are taildraggers.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"BDS" > wrote in
:

> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote
>
>> Never flown a Husky, but what you learned in the cub will get you
>> into anyting else with relative ease if you've absorbed what the cub
>> taught you.
>
> It's still teaching me as I continue to work on perfecting my
> technique. After a couple thousand hours in tricycle gear airplanes,
> I'm finding that just going around the pattern chasing that painted-on
> 3-pointer is more fun than I could have imagined. Who would have
> thought that this little 1940's vintage 85HP airplane with no
> electrical system could be so challenging and so much fun?!


Yep. Best thing is it never really grows old. It's still one of the most
satisfying things to do in an airplane as far as I'm concerned.
Heaven is slipping over the fence in a biplane and settling onto freshly
cut grass...


>
>> You've learned to get the stick back to the stop during rollout ,
>> hopefully.(actualy, in a cub you have to have it there as you touch
>> down or you end up porpoising down the runway, eh? ) If you weren't
>> attentive to the rudder you ended up going backwards. What else do
>> you need to know? It teaches you what your feet are for and makes
>> you look like an idiot if you don't!
>
> I have to smile reading this. I'm flying from a grass strip that's
> less than smooth in spots and I was getting lazy holding the stick all
> the way back on the stop during the rollout. Finally, my instructor
> turns around and laughingly says to me "You're gonna lose it one of
> these times if you keep letting the stick bounce like that." That
> cured me of that little bad habit right then and there.

Yeah, you have to do that it petty much al talidraggers after they're
down.
>
>> Even a Pitts isn't such a big step up if you have mastered a cub (as
>> opposed to having jus survived a few hours in a Cub)
>
> I'm no longer just surviving but I also know I haven't quite mastered
> it yet.

Well, it takes time is all. Once you're off and sort of wobbling along
on your own the real learning begins, eh?
>
>> I still haven't flown a better training airplane.
>
> The best part is that my wife absolutely loves flying in the thing,
> especially with the door and window open. What a blast!
>


Excellent. Enjoy yourself.

One piece of advice I can give that's useful to new talidragger pilots,
or at least I've found it so, is to get religious about aving the
controls in the right position when taxiing in wind. Any wind at all.
Even three knots. For one thing, having the ailerons in particualr,
plcaed correctly, you increase your control of the airplane
dramatically. Being in the habit of doing this wil give you the edge you
need it during crosswind landings. It's habits that come to the
forefront when your brain degenerates to it's primevel state when things
start happening quickly.
BTW, when taxiing with a tailwind you need to reverse, as yo know. Don't
forget to consider the taxi speed of your airplane in relation to the
wind. Elevators are tricky in this situation. If you got a roaring
tailwind, you need to have them forward (Careful with the power here or
you could have an instant headwind as far as your elevators are
concerned) It can be hard to tell if you need the elevators up or down
when you're taxing downwind, but th erule I use is if you can feel the
stick "click" as the wind passes ovr the elavotrs as you move them up
and down you should have them down. Make sense?

Bertie
>
>
>

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

wrote in
ups.com:

>
>>
>> Not really, and I'd be surprised if you could taxi a Citabria with
>> the tailwheel raised anyway. Easy in a cub, though.
>>
>
> Firstly this isnt a troll and if somebody feels it is, they simply
> need to ignore it, thats how usenet works. Anyways, the question was
> based more on what I saw on the takeoff run where we raise the tail as
> airspeed increases. It just felt more stable and more like a
> conventional gear takeoff run in that phase, so I was just wondering.
> The intent of the question wasn't about how to taxi at a high speed.

Ah, OK. Wel, the main reason you get the tail up is to aid acceleration
and to have th eairplane in the correct atttude when you rotate.
You have a lot of power on and that is why the airplane feels more
stable than when you are taxiing. The reason being the vast amount of
air yu have going over the rudder.
Not all airplanes re like that, BTW. Some get very interesting when you
raise the tail on takeoff!
>
>> The problem with the Citabria is it's a bit too easy for tailwheel
>> conversion. You'll get the basics, but if you try a cub afterwards
>> you'll find it significantly more difficult, wheras the other way
>> around would be a piece of cake. Citabria is a good airplane, but
>> it's not the best tailwheel trainer for that reason. However, it will
>> certainly do in a pinch!
>
> Thanks for the tip, I have been looking to find a place to learn in a
> cub but the closest one is about 70 miles away, so that may have to
> wait.

Nothing wrong with a Citabria, but the cub is just so perfect. You'll
learn a lot in a Citabira as well, Just be aware that when you get the
tailwheel signoff you're not "there" In fact it doesn't matter what
you've been checked out in, you're only just like a kid who's been let
go onhis first two wheeler..
>
>> The CG doesn't change significantly when the tail is raised, though,
>> to
>> answer your question, and fast taxiing is something best left to
>> someone with a LOT of tailwhel time. Taxiing on the mains is
>> something best left to airshow pilots or guys that can afford to
>> replace props as easily as they would buy a cup of coffee.
>
> What my instructor seemed to imply (and things didn't really sink in
> till about a day after the flying) was that the takeoff roll is more
> stable when the tail is up. So I was wondering if the CG shifts
> forward when the tail is raised because this is a more stable
> configuration than when the CG is behind the main wheels.
>
>
Ah, OK. Well, it might have something to do with that, but I'd suspect
it;s more to do with decreasing the angle of attack on the wings.


Bertie
>
>
>

[BDS[_2_]]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote

> One piece of advice I can give that's useful to new talidragger pilots,
> or at least I've found it so, is to get religious about aving the
> controls in the right position when taxiing in wind. Any wind at all.
> Even three knots. For one thing, having the ailerons in particualr,
> plcaed correctly, you increase your control of the airplane
> dramatically. Being in the habit of doing this wil give you the edge you
> need it during crosswind landings. It's habits that come to the
> forefront when your brain degenerates to it's primevel state when things
> start happening quickly.

Good advice. It's easy to get complacent about control positioning while
taxiing, and I know what you mean about the difference in control when
they're in the right position. You can definitely feel the difference.

> BTW, when taxiing with a tailwind you need to reverse, as yo know. Don't
> forget to consider the taxi speed of your airplane in relation to the
> wind. Elevators are tricky in this situation. If you got a roaring
> tailwind, you need to have them forward (Careful with the power here or
> you could have an instant headwind as far as your elevators are
> concerned) It can be hard to tell if you need the elevators up or down
> when you're taxing downwind, but th erule I use is if you can feel the
> stick "click" as the wind passes ovr the elavotrs as you move them up
> and down you should have them down. Make sense?

I'll have to try that rule of thumb next time but it sounds like what you're
saying is that if you can feel the wind pushing on the elevator as it moves
through neutral then it should be down. I've been taxiing with the elevator
full forward in all tailwind conditions up to this point, and that's
probably not a good habit to get into, especially when moving into something
with more power.

BDS

[Viperdoc]

Our guy on the field had zero hours, but then bought a new SR-22. Rumor had
it was that he did a lot of flying IFR without the rating, and he would
routinely fly over Lake Michigan in IMC in the single.

His take off routine was to rotate, pick up some speed, and then do a high g
pull-up. We called him "super pull up" on the field.

He then bought an SU-29, with absolutely no tailwheel time. He got signed
off in less than 7 hours as being good to go (yeah, right), and on his first
couple of flights he dropped it in from a height, requiring a new prop, and
major structural repairs.

To his credit, he took a lot more lessons, and appears to be flying a lot
more conservatively and safely since his experience.

Of course, some people never make a mistake, so this wouldn't apply to them.

[[email protected]]

On Sep 25, 8:05 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> Little Endian > wrote in news:1190700037.145345.27050
> @y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com:
>
> > This weekend I began my tailwheel endorsement endeavor and had a
> > lesson in a shiny 160 hp Citabria. It was great fun but the stick and
> > rudder forces seemed pretty heavy compared to the C-150 I am used to.
> > The trim was in an unfamiliar position and I didn't get used to using
> > it enough on the first flight perhaps. However are there tailwheels
> > that are lighter to handle than the citabria?
> > The other issue I was wondering about: does the position of the CG
> > shift when the tail is raised? So is the tailwheel more stable while
> > taxing at a higher speed on the two front wheels? In other words, I am
> > wondering if a tailwheel taxing with the tail raised has a similar CG
> > position to a tricycle gear airplane.
>
> Not really, and I'd be surprised if you could taxi a Citabria with the
> tailwheel raised anyway. Easy in a cub, though.
>
> The problem with the Citabria is it's a bit too easy for tailwheel
> conversion. You'll get the basics, but if you try a cub afterwards you'll
> find it significantly more difficult, wheras the other way around would be
> a piece of cake. Citabria is a good airplane, but it's not the best
> tailwheel trainer for that reason. However, it will certainly do in a
> pinch!
> The CG doesn't change significantly when the tail is raised, though, to
> answer your question, and fast taxiing is something best left to someone
> with a LOT of tailwhel time. Taxiing on the mains is something best left to
> airshow pilots or guys that can afford to replace props as easily as they
> would buy a cup of coffee.
> Now ask me how I know this.
>
> Bertie

It's not that hard at all. I've taxied down the runway on one main.
I've taught students that if they're having trouble waking their feet
up or can't seem to get the cross-control set up for a crosswind. I've
brought both the Citabria and 185 pretty much to a halt with the
brakes before setting the tail down. I've done tail-high/nose-low
braking, using a tiny bit of power for elevator authority, to get
weight on the mains and stop really short. You have to realize that
you are flying a taildragger ALL the time, not just when it's in the
air.
I invented a term years ago to describe the disease suffered by
trike pilots: Somnopedosis. Means "sleepy feet."

Dan

[Cubdriver]

On Tue, 25 Sep 2007 10:37:03 -0400, "BDS" > wrote:

>I plan to transition to a Husky (180 HP CS prop), any comments about what to
>expect, relative difficulty, etc?

The Husky is a big, heavy airplane. (Husky, in fact!) It is nothing
like a Cub--not much like a Super Cub either.

It is much easier to land a Husky than a J-3. You can put the nose up
a bit and put on a bit of power, and lower yourself down as if you
were on a string. Try that in a J-3 and it will simply keep on flying.

The thing I really remember about flying a Husky is that I kept
skinning my knuckles on the trim wheel. I was bleeding all the time.

I never flew the Husky solo. I was on a "mountain flying" course with
Damian Delgaizo in Andover NJ. It's a lot easier to do something when
you have a skilled pilot backing you up.

Blue skies! -- Dan Ford

Claire Chennault and His American Volunteers, 1941-1942
new from HarperCollins www.FlyingTigersBook.com

[Cubdriver]

On Tue, 25 Sep 2007 10:39:37 -0700, wrote:

>What my instructor seemed to imply (and things didn't really sink in
>till about a day after the flying) was that the takeoff roll is more
>stable when the tail is up. So I was wondering if the CG shifts
>forward when the tail is raised because this is a more stable
>configuration than when the CG is behind the main wheels.

It's still aft of the mains!

I get the tailwheel off the ground as soon as the Cub begins to roll.
You don't want to do a takeoff roll flat on the asphalt, though, or
even on the grass. The plane will pound. Have the tail enough below
parallel that some of the weight of the plane is carried by the wings.

(I never really thought about this before, so excuse me if the wording
is awkward.)


Blue skies! -- Dan Ford

Claire Chennault and His American Volunteers, 1941-1942
new from HarperCollins www.FlyingTigersBook.com

[[email protected]]

> This is basic piloting 101.
> Have you calculated the takeoff CG?
> What can you do to make the CG change?
> How is what you described above going to influence the CG location on
> takeoff or landing?
> Answer those questions and you will have answered your own.

The airplane is not a rigid body from a physics point of view, so the
CG can change, maybe not by much but I dont know enough about the
tailwheel to know if it moves just a little bit forward which may be
all it takes to make it "more" stable. Basic 101 piloting may not
always be enough to answer every question.

[Kloudy via AviationKB.com]

Little Endian wrote:
> does the position of the CG shift when the tail is raised?

S'cuse me but perhaps I am confused but once everything is lashed down in yer
plane, ain't the CG static in relation to the airframe. Unless you lean
yourself waaaay forward in your seat. but even that's not gonna make that
much difference.

I suspect it may appear to move in some frame of reference but I'm thinking
all that matters is structural CG relation to MAC or CP...no?

> In other words, I am wondering if a tailwheel taxing with the tail raised has a similar CG
>position to a tricycle gear airplane.

And we know that cg is behind the mains on a t-dragger and in front for
trikes.

--
Message posted via http://www.aviationkb.com

[Bertie the Bunyip]

On 25 Sep, 19:22, "Viperdoc" > wrote:
> Our guy on the field had zero hours, but then bought a new SR-22. Rumor had
> it was that he did a lot of flying IFR without the rating, and he would
> routinely fly over Lake Michigan in IMC in the single.
>
> His take off routine was to rotate, pick up some speed, and then do a high g
> pull-up. We called him "super pull up" on the field.
>
> He then bought an SU-29, with absolutely no tailwheel time. He got signed
> off in less than 7 hours as being good to go (yeah, right), and on his first
> couple of flights he dropped it in from a height, requiring a new prop, and
> major structural repairs.
>
> To his credit, he took a lot more lessons, and appears to be flying a lot
> more conservatively and safely since his experience.
>
> Of course, some people never make a mistake, so this wouldn't apply to them.

Well, people that don't fly, obviously..


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip]

On 25 Sep, 19:03, "BDS" > wrote:
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote
>
> > One piece of advice I can give that's useful to new talidragger pilots,
> > or at least I've found it so, is to get religious about aving the
> > controls in the right position when taxiing in wind. Any wind at all.
> > Even three knots. For one thing, having the ailerons in particualr,
> > plcaed correctly, you increase your control of the airplane
> > dramatically. Being in the habit of doing this wil give you the edge you
> > need it during crosswind landings. It's habits that come to the
> > forefront when your brain degenerates to it's primevel state when things
> > start happening quickly.
>
> Good advice. It's easy to get complacent about control positioning while
> taxiing, and I know what you mean about the difference in control when
> they're in the right position. You can definitely feel the difference.
>
> > BTW, when taxiing with a tailwind you need to reverse, as yo know. Don't
> > forget to consider the taxi speed of your airplane in relation to the
> > wind. Elevators are tricky in this situation. If you got a roaring
> > tailwind, you need to have them forward (Careful with the power here or
> > you could have an instant headwind as far as your elevators are
> > concerned) It can be hard to tell if you need the elevators up or down
> > when you're taxing downwind, but th erule I use is if you can feel the
> > stick "click" as the wind passes ovr the elavotrs as you move them up
> > and down you should have them down. Make sense?
>
> I'll have to try that rule of thumb next time but it sounds like what you're
> saying is that if you can feel the wind pushing on the elevator as it moves
> through neutral then it should be down. I've been taxiing with the elevator
> full forward in all tailwind conditions up to this point, and that's
> probably not a good habit to get into, especially when moving into something
> with more power.
>
> BDS

Yes, sounds like you got the idea. An awful lot of airplanes end up on
their nose (particularly Supercubs for some reason) because the pilot
turns downwind quickley using a bit of brake at the same time.

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip]

On 25 Sep, 20:35, john smith > wrote:
> In article om>,
>
> wrote:
> > What my instructor seemed to imply (and things didn't really sink in
> > till about a day after the flying) was that the takeoff roll is more
> > stable when the tail is up. So I was wondering if the CG shifts
> > forward when the tail is raised because this is a more stable
> > configuration than when the CG is behind the main wheels.
>
> This is basic piloting 101.
> Have you calculated the takeoff CG?
> What can you do to make the CG change?
> How is what you described above going to influence the CG location on
> takeoff or landing?
> Answer those questions and you will have answered your own.


He means that the CG changes in relation to it's distance from the
mains, which it does, but it isn't really significant to what he was
taling about anyway.

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip]

On 25 Sep, 20:47, wrote:
> > This is basic piloting 101.
> > Have you calculated the takeoff CG?
> > What can you do to make the CG change?
> > How is what you described above going to influence the CG location on
> > takeoff or landing?
> > Answer those questions and you will have answered your own.
>
> The airplane is not a rigid body from a physics point of view, so the
> CG can change, maybe not by much but I dont know enough about the
> tailwheel to know if it moves just a little bit forward which may be
> all it takes to make it "more" stable. Basic 101 piloting may not
> always be enough to answer every question.

Well, the CG doesn't change, (disregarding fuel burn and such) but
it's position in relation to things like the Cl and the point where
the wheels touch the ground can change depending on what you're
doing. The example of the aircraft in a level attitude as opposed to
three point is one such case, but in general, it's not really
significant to the way you control the aircraft. It's worth knowing
about, but not getting excited about.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip]

On 25 Sep, 20:28, wrote:
> On Sep 25, 8:05 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Little Endian > wrote in news:1190700037.145345.27050
> > @y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com:
>
> > > This weekend I began my tailwheel endorsement endeavor and had a
> > > lesson in a shiny 160 hp Citabria. It was great fun but the stick and
> > > rudder forces seemed pretty heavy compared to the C-150 I am used to.
> > > The trim was in an unfamiliar position and I didn't get used to using
> > > it enough on the first flight perhaps. However are there tailwheels
> > > that are lighter to handle than the citabria?
> > > The other issue I was wondering about: does the position of the CG
> > > shift when the tail is raised? So is the tailwheel more stable while
> > > taxing at a higher speed on the two front wheels? In other words, I am
> > > wondering if a tailwheel taxing with the tail raised has a similar CG
> > > position to a tricycle gear airplane.
>
> > Not really, and I'd be surprised if you could taxi a Citabria with the
> > tailwheel raised anyway. Easy in a cub, though.
>
> > The problem with the Citabria is it's a bit too easy for tailwheel
> > conversion. You'll get the basics, but if you try a cub afterwards you'll
> > find it significantly more difficult, wheras the other way around would be
> > a piece of cake. Citabria is a good airplane, but it's not the best
> > tailwheel trainer for that reason. However, it will certainly do in a
> > pinch!
> > The CG doesn't change significantly when the tail is raised, though, to
> > answer your question, and fast taxiing is something best left to someone
> > with a LOT of tailwhel time. Taxiing on the mains is something best left to
> > airshow pilots or guys that can afford to replace props as easily as they
> > would buy a cup of coffee.
> > Now ask me how I know this.
>
> > Bertie
>
> It's not that hard at all. I've taxied down the runway on one main.

Yeah, I know you can do it but it takes an outrageous amount of brake
and power to do it in a Citabria. Or a 180 for that matter.
It's a lot easier in a cub but in any case it's a sure way for a
student to bend a prop..
Not only that you wear the brakes quickly and suck half the airport up
through your prop.





> I've taught students that if they're having trouble waking their feet
> up or can't seem to get the cross-control set up for a crosswind. I've
> brought both the Citabria and 185 pretty much to a halt with the
> brakes before setting the tail down. I've done tail-high/nose-low
> braking, using a tiny bit of power for elevator authority, to get
> weight on the mains and stop really short. You have to realize that
> you are flying a taildragger ALL the time, not just when it's in the
> air.

Yep,


Bertie

[[email protected]]

On Sep 25, 3:11 pm, Bertie the Bunyip >
wrote:
>
> Yes, sounds like you got the idea. An awful lot of airplanes end up on
> their nose (particularly Supercubs for some reason) because the pilot
> turns downwind quickley using a bit of brake at the same time.
>
> Bertie

Some quick ways to get a taildragger up on its nose:
-Using lots of brake in the rollout without using elevator to maintain
attitude. And holding the brakes on hard even when the speed is gone.
-Taxiing too fast downwind and either losing control (no airflow over
the surfaces; got to fly a taildragger all the time, remember?) and
initiating a groundloop, or turning too quickly out of a tailwind. The
wind against the side of the fuselage, under the upwind wing and under
the stab combines with centrifugal force to lift a wheel, whereupon
the downwind wing drags on the surface, and now that more wind can get
at the wing and stab, there's more lift, the tail comes up, and
inertia through the CG and against the dragging wing does the rest.
-With CG forward (nobody in the back), doing a runup without holding
the elevator back will lift the tail of many taildraggers. As the tail
comes up, the angle between the CG and the locked mains decreases so
that the tail gets even lighter, and over she goes. Happens if the
pilot has his head in the cockpit and isn't paying attention to what's
going on outside. Can happen, too, if the pilot is trying to taxi
through deep snow or gooey mud.

Dan

[Phil]

On Sep 25, 12:39 pm, wrote:
> > Not really, and I'd be surprised if you could taxi a Citabria with the
> > tailwheel raised anyway. Easy in a cub, though.
>
> Firstly this isnt a troll and if somebody feels it is, they simply
> need to ignore it, thats how usenet works. Anyways, the question was
> based more on what I saw on the takeoff run where we raise the tail as
> airspeed increases. It just felt more stable and more like a
> conventional gear takeoff run in that phase, so I was just wondering.
> The intent of the question wasn't about how to taxi at a high speed.
>
> > The problem with the Citabria is it's a bit too easy for tailwheel
> > conversion. You'll get the basics, but if you try a cub afterwards you'll
> > find it significantly more difficult, wheras the other way around would be
> > a piece of cake. Citabria is a good airplane, but it's not the best
> > tailwheel trainer for that reason. However, it will certainly do in a
> > pinch!
>
> Thanks for the tip, I have been looking to find a place to learn in a
> cub but the closest one is about 70 miles away, so that may have to
> wait.
>
> > The CG doesn't change significantly when the tail is raised, though, to
> > answer your question, and fast taxiing is something best left to someone
> > with a LOT of tailwhel time. Taxiing on the mains is something best left to
> > airshow pilots or guys that can afford to replace props as easily as they
> > would buy a cup of coffee.
>
> What my instructor seemed to imply (and things didn't really sink in
> till about a day after the flying) was that the takeoff roll is more
> stable when the tail is up. So I was wondering if the CG shifts
> forward when the tail is raised because this is a more stable
> configuration than when the CG is behind the main wheels.

OK, I'm just a student pilot, and not a taildragger student either.
But I know a little physics. The CG is still behind the mains even
with the tail up. It is possible that the airplane would feel more
stable in yaw when it is accelerating, however. Since the center of
gravity is being pulled along behind the propeller, I would think the
airplane would tend to stay in line. This ignores other influences
like crosswinds and the torque effects of the prop which would tend to
counter this. And it won't help you in taxiing when you are moving at
a constant speed.

[[email protected]]

>
> OK, I'm just a student pilot, and not a taildragger student either.
> But I know a little physics. The CG is still behind the mains even
> with the tail up. It is possible that the airplane would feel more
> stable in yaw when it is accelerating, however. Since the center of
> gravity is being pulled along behind the propeller, I would think the
> airplane would tend to stay in line. This ignores other influences
> like crosswinds and the torque effects of the prop which would tend to
> counter this. And it won't help you in taxiing when you are moving at
> a constant speed.

Yes, you are right about the CG not changing, I was probably
mistakenly thinking that the CG moves forward relative to the ground
as the airplane nose is "lowered" but I think that's not correct. The
stability in a level attitude while taxing probably also comes from
the fact that the P-factor is gone and there is no turning tendency
any more.

[[email protected]]

On Sep 25, 11:37 pm, wrote:
> > OK, I'm just a student pilot, and not a taildragger student either.
> > But I know a little physics. The CG is still behind the mains even
> > with the tail up. It is possible that the airplane would feel more
> > stable in yaw when it is accelerating, however. Since the center of
> > gravity is being pulled along behind the propeller, I would think the
> > airplane would tend to stay in line. This ignores other influences
> > like crosswinds and the torque effects of the prop which would tend to
> > counter this. And it won't help you in taxiing when you are moving at
> > a constant speed.
>
> Yes, you are right about the CG not changing, I was probably
> mistakenly thinking that the CG moves forward relative to the ground
> as the airplane nose is "lowered" but I think that's not correct. The
> stability in a level attitude while taxing probably also comes from
> the fact that the P-factor is gone and there is no turning tendency
> any more.

Thrust acts along the centerline whether the airplane is
tracking straight or not, whether the CG is behind the mains or in
front. The only time thrust is a little off is when the AOA is high
(tail low) and the downgoing blade has more pull (P-factor). The
airplane will still want to pull left with the tail up due to the
swirl of the prop slipstream striking the left side of the fin, and a
small amount caused by more pressure on the left main due to engine
torque reaction. Raising the tail will make the nose swerve left, a
gyroscopic precession caused by the prop's rotating mass.
Whatever the airplane tries to do, you have to be ready for it
and not afraid to use ALL the controls rather aggressively to show it
who's boss. It won't fly itself.

Dan