Conventional v tricycle gear

[[email protected]]

Other than the 'holier than thou' aspects of taildraggers and their
pilots, what are their real advantages? Has it to do with prop
clearance on unimproved fields, or fatter mains being better in that
same environment? Does anyone know if, with the same level of
experience pilots, they have a better or worse accident record when
compared to airplanes of the same general size that have the tailwheel
under the engine?

[Maxwell[_2_]]

> wrote in message
...
> Other than the 'holier than thou' aspects of taildraggers and their
> pilots, what are their real advantages? Has it to do with prop
> clearance on unimproved fields, or fatter mains being better in that
> same environment? Does anyone know if, with the same level of
> experience pilots, they have a better or worse accident record when
> compared to airplanes of the same general size that have the tailwheel
> under the engine?

Less weight and drag would be another plus.

[[email protected]]

On Jul 7, 6:43 am, wrote:
> Other than the 'holier than thou' aspects of taildraggers and their
> pilots, what are their real advantages? Has it to do with prop
> clearance on unimproved fields, or fatter mains being better in that
> same environment? Does anyone know if, with the same level of
> experience pilots, they have a better or worse accident record when
> compared to airplanes of the same general size that have the tailwheel
> under the engine?

Less tendency to flip over on soft fields than trikes. The
taildragger's mains are not far forward of the CG, and the trikes
nosewheel is a LOT further forward, so you can see, if you imagine a
pole-vaulter, that the trike's nosewheel will get more and more weight
shoved onto it when it starts to dig in, while the taildragger's mains
get only a little. Besides that, the taildragger has a nose-high
landing attitude that makes the wings lift the airplane and reduce the
weight on the wheels until much lower speeds are reached. All of this
applies for takeoff, too, though the trike's nose can be lifted under
power to get it out of the mud.

Dan

[Du Haxen Hase]

In article >, Maxwell says...

>
> > wrote in message
> ...
> > Other than the 'holier than thou' aspects of taildraggers and their
> > pilots, what are their real advantages? Has it to do with prop
> > clearance on unimproved fields, or fatter mains being better in that
> > same environment? Does anyone know if, with the same level of
> > experience pilots, they have a better or worse accident record when
> > compared to airplanes of the same general size that have the tailwheel
> > under the engine?
>
> Less weight and drag would be another plus.

You're always in drag, Maxine.

--

"Tis an ill wind that blows no minds"

[[email protected]]

On Jul 7, 10:05*am, wrote:
> On Jul 7, 6:43 am, wrote:
>
> > Other than the 'holier than thou' aspects of taildraggers and their
> > pilots, what are their real advantages? Has it to do with prop
> > clearance on unimproved fields, or fatter mains being better in that
> > same environment? Does anyone know if, with the same level of
> > experience pilots, they have a better or worse accident record when
> > compared to airplanes of the same general size that have the tailwheel
> > under the engine?
>
> * * * * *Less tendency to flip over on soft fields than trikes. The
> taildragger's mains are not far forward of the CG, and the trikes
> nosewheel is a LOT further forward, so you can see, if you imagine a
> pole-vaulter, that the trike's nosewheel will get more and more weight
> shoved onto it when it starts to dig in, while the taildragger's mains
> get only a little. Besides that, the taildragger has a nose-high
> landing attitude that makes the wings lift the airplane and reduce the
> weight on the wheels until much lower speeds are reached. All of this
> applies for takeoff, too, though the trike's nose can be lifted under
> power to get it out of the mud.
>
> * * * * * * * Dan

The nose high landing can be done with a trike, of course, but there's
no doubt most trike drivers come in too hot. I don't do sod fields
with my old Mooney because even if I do drag the tail on when the nose
wheel settles the prop is way too close to the ground.

I do think one can lift off in the same distance no matter if the
extra wheel is in the front or the back, but the extra weight could be
a minor factor.

Thanks for the insights, Max and Dan

Hadn't thought about the extra weight

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in news:Jwock.18253$%q.107
@newsfe24.lga:

>
> > wrote in message
> ...
>> Other than the 'holier than thou' aspects of taildraggers and their
>> pilots, what are their real advantages? Has it to do with prop
>> clearance on unimproved fields, or fatter mains being better in that
>> same environment? Does anyone know if, with the same level of
>> experience pilots, they have a better or worse accident record when
>> compared to airplanes of the same general size that have the tailwheel
>> under the engine?
>
> Less weight and drag would be another plus.
>
>
>
>

A bit like your pointy head.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

wrote in news:c715ed23-26fe-4b49-b446-97156e319867
@k30g2000hse.googlegroups.com:

> Other than the 'holier than thou' aspects of taildraggers and their
> pilots, what are their real advantages? Has it to do with prop
> clearance on unimproved fields, or fatter mains being better in that
> same environment? Does anyone know if, with the same level of
> experience pilots, they have a better or worse accident record when
> compared to airplanes of the same general size that have the tailwheel
> under the engine?

They do tend to be beter in rough fields for a few reasons. Noseheels end
to dig in a bit, especially if they're small, wheras the even smaller
tailwheel tends to ride up out of a soft runway. As you say, there's
generally better prop clearance as well. Tailwheel airplanes have generally
got more ample control surfaces and a proficient pilot can get better
crosswind performance because of that. The mains are usually the same size
as a comparable nosewheel airplane, though airplanes set up for the bush
and Cubs have low pressure tires, so that's not a factor.
The airplanes attitude at low speed is probably the biggest factor. Almost
as soon as you're moving with a taildragger you have a good bit of lift
from the wings and that lightens the load on the mains sooner than you
could do so with a trike.
On landing the three point attitude provides some aerodynamic braking that
slows you more quickly, but, OTOH, you can't brake quite as had as you do
with a trike.
Bottom line is there's not a whole lot of difference in performance or that
many advantages one way or another. Th eaccident record is worse, but
that's almost always down to pilot proficiency. I'm more comfortable in
taildragger when I'm current. I suppose the best comparison is that between
a bike and a car. Harder to keep a bike upright, but you have more control
over it when you do get "it"

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

wrote in news:ec2f5d9e-e9d6-4885-aaf1-41035bc59765
@m3g2000hsc.googlegroups.com:

> On Jul 7, 10:05*am, wrote:
>> On Jul 7, 6:43 am, wrote:
>>
>> > Other than the 'holier than thou' aspects of taildraggers and their
>> > pilots, what are their real advantages? Has it to do with prop
>> > clearance on unimproved fields, or fatter mains being better in
that
>> > same environment? Does anyone know if, with the same level of
>> > experience pilots, they have a better or worse accident record when
>> > compared to airplanes of the same general size that have the
tailwheel
>> > under the engine?
>>
>> * * * * *Less tendency to flip over on soft fields than trikes.
> The
>> taildragger's mains are not far forward of the CG, and the trikes
>> nosewheel is a LOT further forward, so you can see, if you imagine a
>> pole-vaulter, that the trike's nosewheel will get more and more
weight
>> shoved onto it when it starts to dig in, while the taildragger's
mains
>> get only a little. Besides that, the taildragger has a nose-high
>> landing attitude that makes the wings lift the airplane and reduce
the
>> weight on the wheels until much lower speeds are reached. All of this
>> applies for takeoff, too, though the trike's nose can be lifted under
>> power to get it out of the mud.
>>
>> * * * * * * * Dan
>
> The nose high landing can be done with a trike, of course, but there's
> no doubt most trike drivers come in too hot. I don't do sod fields
> with my old Mooney because even if I do drag the tail on when the nose
> wheel settles the prop is way too close to the ground.
>

Yeah, soft field technique in a tike is just the same as a tsaildragger,
but you can't maintian the high alpha down at low speeds. Unless the
field is very soft the difference isnt going to be that great, but given
two pretty much identical airplanes with different gear configurations,
like a 182 vs 180, the taildragger will outperform the trike and offer
greater utility in a wider variety of field conditions.



Bertie

[[email protected]]

wrote:
> Other than the 'holier than thou' aspects of taildraggers and their
> pilots, what are their real advantages? Has it to do with prop
> clearance on unimproved fields, or fatter mains being better in that
> same environment? Does anyone know if, with the same level of
> experience pilots, they have a better or worse accident record when
> compared to airplanes of the same general size that have the tailwheel
> under the engine?

If you look at most tail draggers, once the tail comes up the prop
clearance isn't significantly different than that of most trikes.

The biggest issue in my opinion is what happens if the nose wheel
"digs in" on a soft runway, which obviously can't happen with a tail
dragger.

A secondary issue is that you CAN put special purpose mains on a
tail dragger that if put on a trike would put the prop into the
ground when parked.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[mariposas rand mair fheal]

In article >,
Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:

> "Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in news:Jwock.18253$%q.107
> @newsfe24.lga:
>
> >
> > > wrote in message
> > ...
> >> Other than the 'holier than thou' aspects of taildraggers and their
> >> pilots, what are their real advantages? Has it to do with prop
> >> clearance on unimproved fields, or fatter mains being better in that
> >> same environment? Does anyone know if, with the same level of
> >> experience pilots, they have a better or worse accident record when
> >> compared to airplanes of the same general size that have the tailwheel
> >> under the engine?
> >
> > Less weight and drag would be another plus.
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> A bit like your pointy head.

there are tail draggers still in operation?
i thought everyone put the third wheel in front nowadays

if a nose up profile on the ground is such an advantage
why not just lengthen the front strut

arf meow arf - raggedy ann and andy for president and vice
limp and spineless lint for brains is better yet and nice
then rueing pair of shrub and dick the republican lice
call me desdenova seven seven seven seven seven seven

[Mike[_22_]]

> wrote in message
...
> On Jul 7, 10:05 am, wrote:
> > On Jul 7, 6:43 am, wrote:
> >
> > > Other than the 'holier than thou' aspects of taildraggers and their
> > > pilots, what are their real advantages? Has it to do with prop
> > > clearance on unimproved fields, or fatter mains being better in that
> > > same environment? Does anyone know if, with the same level of
> > > experience pilots, they have a better or worse accident record when
> > > compared to airplanes of the same general size that have the tailwheel
> > > under the engine?
> >
> > Less tendency to flip over on soft fields than trikes. The
> > taildragger's mains are not far forward of the CG, and the trikes
> > nosewheel is a LOT further forward, so you can see, if you imagine a
> > pole-vaulter, that the trike's nosewheel will get more and more weight
> > shoved onto it when it starts to dig in, while the taildragger's mains
> > get only a little. Besides that, the taildragger has a nose-high
> > landing attitude that makes the wings lift the airplane and reduce the
> > weight on the wheels until much lower speeds are reached. All of this
> > applies for takeoff, too, though the trike's nose can be lifted under
> > power to get it out of the mud.
> >
> > Dan
>
> The nose high landing can be done with a trike, of course, but there's
> no doubt most trike drivers come in too hot. I don't do sod fields
> with my old Mooney because even if I do drag the tail on when the nose
> wheel settles the prop is way too close to the ground.
>
> I do think one can lift off in the same distance no matter if the
> extra wheel is in the front or the back, but the extra weight could be
> a minor factor.
>
> Thanks for the insights, Max and Dan
>
> Hadn't thought about the extra weight

If you've ever gotten a nosewheel plane stuck in the mud, you can truly
appreciate a taildragger. You just simply can't unload the nosewheel
completely. If your nosewheel hits a big enough pothole you're either going
to snap it off or the plane is going over. As far as short field landing
go, I don't believe there's much difference between the two. Back when I
had a '56 172 I could land it just as short as a buddy's 170. A fixed gear
nosewheel plane will be slightly slower with all other things being equal
due to the tailwheel's cleaner configuration. A lot of guys prefer
taildraggers because many of them have a stick which makes them feel like a
real pilot. The tradeoffs to the tailwheel are reduced taxiing visibility
(some more than others), the susceptibility to the dreaded ground loop and
higher insurance costs as a result, especially to low time pilots.

[[email protected]]

On Jul 7, 11:45 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:

> On landing the three point attitude provides some aerodynamic braking that
> slows you more quickly, but, OTOH, you can't brake quite as had as you do
> with a trike.

If proficient, you can brake *harder* with the
taildragger, depending. The trike, when braked hard, tends to shift a
lot of its weight on the nose, and that weight is coming off the mains
and causing them to lose traction. In a taildragger, you can get the
tail up immediately after touchdown, and use brake and elevator to
control pitch, and with lots of braking early on there's enough
elevator authority to keep the tail where you want it. It has to by
tail-high to stop the wing's lifting. The trick is to know when to
ease up on the brakes and get the tail on the ground.

Dan

[john smith]

In article
>,
wrote:

> On Jul 7, 11:45 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
> > On landing the three point attitude provides some aerodynamic braking that
> > slows you more quickly, but, OTOH, you can't brake quite as had as you do
> > with a trike.
>
> If proficient, you can brake *harder* with the
> taildragger, depending. The trike, when braked hard, tends to shift a
> lot of its weight on the nose, and that weight is coming off the mains
> and causing them to lose traction. In a taildragger, you can get the
> tail up immediately after touchdown, and use brake and elevator to
> control pitch, and with lots of braking early on there's enough
> elevator authority to keep the tail where you want it. It has to by
> tail-high to stop the wing's lifting. The trick is to know when to
> ease up on the brakes and get the tail on the ground.

Be VERY, VERY careful when doing this on wet grass!
It gets real interesting when the tail is up, the brakes are on, and the
mains are sliding down the runway. :-0

[Matt Whiting]

wrote:
> On Jul 7, 6:43 am, wrote:
>> Other than the 'holier than thou' aspects of taildraggers and their
>> pilots, what are their real advantages? Has it to do with prop
>> clearance on unimproved fields, or fatter mains being better in that
>> same environment? Does anyone know if, with the same level of
>> experience pilots, they have a better or worse accident record when
>> compared to airplanes of the same general size that have the tailwheel
>> under the engine?
>
> Less tendency to flip over on soft fields than trikes. The
> taildragger's mains are not far forward of the CG, and the trikes
> nosewheel is a LOT further forward, so you can see, if you imagine a
> pole-vaulter, that the trike's nosewheel will get more and more weight
> shoved onto it when it starts to dig in, while the taildragger's mains
> get only a little. Besides that, the taildragger has a nose-high
> landing attitude that makes the wings lift the airplane and reduce the
> weight on the wheels until much lower speeds are reached. All of this
> applies for takeoff, too, though the trike's nose can be lifted under
> power to get it out of the mud.
>
> Dan

And most tail draggers are lighter and have less drag yielding slightly
better payload and performance in situations which may demand both.

Matt

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
...
> "Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in news:Jwock.18253$%q.107
> @newsfe24.lga:
>
>
> A bit like your pointy head.
>
>
> Bertie

No dumb ****, it's about weight and drag, more like your fat ass.

[[email protected]]

On Jul 7, 9:05*am, "Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote:
> > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > Other than the 'holier than thou' aspects of taildraggers and their
> > pilots, what are their real advantages? Has it to do with prop
> > clearance on unimproved fields, or fatter mains being better in that
> > same environment? Does anyone know if, with the same level of
> > experience pilots, they have a better or worse accident record when
> > compared to airplanes of the same general size that have the tailwheel
> > under the engine?
>
> Less weight and drag would be another plus.

The lesson is, on landing the yoke belongs full aft until it can't
keep the nose wheel off, and on takeoff ditto liftoff, then fly in
ground effect, bring up the flaps a bit, and climb when the airspeed
says it's prudent.

Then clean off the underside of the wings and cowling when you get
home. Got it!

Thanks all. For now I'll stick to hard surfaces as much as I can.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

mariposas rand mair fheal > wrote in
:

> In article >,
> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
>> "Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in news:Jwock.18253$%q.107
>> @newsfe24.lga:
>>
>> >
>> > > wrote in message
>> > news:c715ed23-26fe-4b49-b446-97156e319867
@k30g2000hse.googlegroups.c
>> > om...
>> >> Other than the 'holier than thou' aspects of taildraggers and
>> >> their pilots, what are their real advantages? Has it to do with
>> >> prop clearance on unimproved fields, or fatter mains being better
>> >> in that same environment? Does anyone know if, with the same level
>> >> of experience pilots, they have a better or worse accident record
>> >> when compared to airplanes of the same general size that have the
>> >> tailwheel under the engine?
>> >
>> > Less weight and drag would be another plus.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>> A bit like your pointy head.
>
> there are tail draggers still in operation?
> i thought everyone put the third wheel in front nowadays
>

If anythng they're making a bit of a comeback..


> if a nose up profile on the ground is such an advantage
> why not just lengthen the front strut

Now that would be messy! You'd just have a whellbarrow, then.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in news:OOxck.27073$i55.21912
@newsfe22.lga:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in news:Jwock.18253$%q.107
>> @newsfe24.lga:
>>
>>
>> A bit like your pointy head.
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>
> No dumb ****, it's about weight and drag, more like your fat ass.
>

Awww, it's the "battleship" method of flaming again.

You'd have to get something right for it to sting, fjukktard...


And even then, I'd have to give a **** what you thought...

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

wrote in
:

> On Jul 7, 11:45 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
>> On landing the three point attitude provides some aerodynamic braking
>> that slows you more quickly, but, OTOH, you can't brake quite as had
>> as you do with a trike.
>
> If proficient, you can brake *harder* with the
> taildragger, depending. The trike, when braked hard, tends to shift a
> lot of its weight on the nose, and that weight is coming off the mains
> and causing them to lose traction. In a taildragger, you can get the
> tail up immediately after touchdown, and use brake and elevator to
> control pitch, and with lots of braking early on there's enough
> elevator authority to keep the tail where you want it. It has to by
> tail-high to stop the wing's lifting. The trick is to know when to
> ease up on the brakes and get the tail on the ground.


Well, yeah, but I'd rather do it with the tail down!

In any case, I'd disagree about being able to brake harder in the
taildrgger. I agree that the nosewheel has a tendency to dig in, bu tif you
have the stick in your gut that's not a problem at speed and near max
braking is available. Braking that hard in taildragger is going to lead to
grief!

Bertie

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
...
>
> If anythng they're making a bit of a comeback..
>

No they are not, they never disappeared.

>
>
> Now that would be messy! You'd just have a whellbarrow, then.
>

No your wouldn't, you would have a longer front strut.

>
> Bertie
>

Barfie

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
...
> "Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in news:OOxck.27073$i55.21912
> @newsfe22.lga:
>
>>
>> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> "Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in news:Jwock.18253$%q.107
>>> @newsfe24.lga:
>>>
>>>
>>> A bit like your pointy head.
>>>
>>>
>>> Bertie
>>
>> No dumb ****, it's about weight and drag, more like your fat ass.
>>
>
> Awww, it's the "battleship" method of flaming again.
>
> You'd have to get something right for it to sting, fjukktard...
>
>
> And even then, I'd have to give a **** what you thought...
>
> Bertie

Your ass reminds you of a battleship?

Ah, but you do.

Nice thing about lying, you can always have it your way!

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
...
>
> Yeah, soft field technique in a tike is just the same as a tsaildragger,
> but you can't maintian the high alpha down at low speeds.
>
> Bertie

You're really stuck on that "alpha" word aren't you. You seem to use it all
the time, lately.

I think you have just been spending a little too much time with your nose up
the lead dogs ass.

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
...
> wrote in news:c715ed23-26fe-4b49-b446-97156e319867
> @k30g2000hse.googlegroups.com:
>

>
> They do tend to be beter in rough fields for a few reasons. Noseheels end
> to dig in a bit, especially if they're small, wheras the even smaller
> tailwheel tends to ride up out of a soft runway.

Direct contradiciton to a latter statement. Wow, who would have guessed?

As you say, there's
> generally better prop clearance as well. Tailwheel airplanes have
> generally
> got more ample control surfaces and a proficient pilot can get better
> crosswind performance because of that.

Has zip **** to do with a tail wheel.

The mains are usually the same size
> as a comparable nosewheel airplane, though airplanes set up for the bush
> and Cubs have low pressure tires, so that's not a factor.

It's not relative here either.

> The airplanes attitude at low speed is probably the biggest factor. Almost
> as soon as you're moving with a taildragger you have a good bit of lift
> from the wings and that lightens the load on the mains sooner than you
> could do so with a trike.

No it doesn't. Under full power you can get a trikes tail on the ground at
almost zero ground speed.
Who have you been talking to, MX?

> On landing the three point attitude provides some aerodynamic braking that
> slows you more quickly, but, OTOH, you can't brake quite as had as you do
> with a trike.

Have another drink.

> Bottom line is there's not a whole lot of difference in performance or
> that
> many advantages one way or another. Th eaccident record is worse, but
> that's almost always down to pilot proficiency. I'm more comfortable in
> taildragger when I'm current. I suppose the best comparison is that
> between
> a bike and a car. Harder to keep a bike upright, but you have more control
> over it when you do get "it"
>

Learn to ride a bike. They stop quicker on soft fields, duh?

> Bertie

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
...
>
> Well, yeah, but I'd rather do it with the tail down!

Or your tail between your legs.

>
> In any case, I'd disagree about being able to brake harder in the
> taildrgger.

That's because you are incompetent.


I agree that the nosewheel has a tendency to dig in, bu tif you
> have the stick in your gut that's not a problem at speed and near max
> braking is available.

You didn't think so two posts up.

Braking that hard in taildragger is going to lead to
> grief!
>


Bull****. If you can't fly one, rent a trike.

[Dylan Smith]

On 2008-07-07, > wrote:
> If you look at most tail draggers, once the tail comes up the prop
> clearance isn't significantly different than that of most trikes.

You don't need to let the tail come up in most tailwheel planes, though.
Taking off from rough/soft fields you're probably going to want to keep
the tail low throughout the takeoff run.

--
From the sunny Isle of Man.
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.

[Stealth Pilot[_2_]]

On Mon, 7 Jul 2008 05:43:30 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

>Other than the 'holier than thou' aspects of taildraggers and their
>pilots, what are their real advantages? Has it to do with prop
>clearance on unimproved fields, or fatter mains being better in that
>same environment? Does anyone know if, with the same level of
>experience pilots, they have a better or worse accident record when
>compared to airplanes of the same general size that have the tailwheel
>under the engine?

statistics are that the introduction of the nose wheel significantly
reduced accident rates.

I flew nose wheel aircraft in my early years then did a tailwheel
endorsement in a bugger of an aircraft to land, the Auster.
Then I bough a Tailwind through a long convoluted process and have
flown it ever since.

first misconception is that only tailwheel aircraft ground loop. if
you land on the nosewheel you can experience a far far more viscious
ground loop than you'll ever see in a taildragger.

your question on experience levels misses something.
taking a Cessna 150 as the datum point, an Auster is a quantum leap
harder to land and takeoff well. in the air both are superb to fly.
the tailwind is a quantum harder again to fly.
so what is lost in the details is that there arent as equally as
experienced pilots flying both. the taildragger pilot has had to
improve his general level of piloting considerably to appear mediocre
in a taildragger.

I love flying Cessnas, but having made the transition to Austers and
the W8 Tailwind I simply wouldnt want to not fly the taildraggers.
Snicking the daisies in the flare in a taildragger on a grass strip is
just the greatest satisfaction.

btw keep that mooney of yours on the bitumen or you'll prang it.

(now let me get this right. you are one of the first wave decoys
attacking this newsgroup arent you? )
Stealth Pilot

[[email protected]]

On Jul 7, 1:13 pm, John Smith > wrote:

> Be VERY, VERY careful when doing this on wet grass!
> It gets real interesting when the tail is up, the brakes are on, and the
> mains are sliding down the runway. :-0

Done that, in a 185, braking as hard as I could with the tail
way up. It'll stop much shorter than the POH says, even when the grass
is wet.

Dan

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in news:C_Hck.18504$%q.17195
@newsfe24.lga:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> If anythng they're making a bit of a comeback..
>>
>
> No they are not, they never disappeared.
>
>>
>>
>> Now that would be messy! You'd just have a whellbarrow, then.
>>
>
> No your wouldn't, you would have a longer front strut.


You're a moron and you know nothing about airplanes.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in
:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> Yeah, soft field technique in a tike is just the same as a
>> tsaildragger, but you can't maintian the high alpha down at low
>> speeds.
>>
>> Bertie
>
> You're really stuck on that "alpha" word aren't you. You seem to use
> it all the time, lately.


Used it for many years, fjukkwit.
>
> I think you have just been spending a little too much time with your
> nose up the lead dogs ass.
>

Yeh, right, nominee boi.


Voting is going well, though you're behind at the moment. Mind you,this is
what you're competing with...


http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/Jamie_Baillie


He's good, but you can do it Maxie! Go on boi!



Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in
:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> ...
>> wrote in news:c715ed23-26fe-4b49-b446-97156e319867
>> @k30g2000hse.googlegroups.com:
>>
>
>>
>> They do tend to be beter in rough fields for a few reasons. Noseheels
>> end to dig in a bit, especially if they're small, wheras the even
>> smaller tailwheel tends to ride up out of a soft runway.
>
> Direct contradiciton to a latter statement. Wow, who would have
> guessed?
>
> As you say, there's
>> generally better prop clearance as well. Tailwheel airplanes have
>> generally
>> got more ample control surfaces and a proficient pilot can get better
>> crosswind performance because of that.
>
> Has zip **** to do with a tail wheel.
>
> The mains are usually the same size
>> as a comparable nosewheel airplane, though airplanes set up for the
>> bush and Cubs have low pressure tires, so that's not a factor.
>
> It's not relative here either.
>
>> The airplanes attitude at low speed is probably the biggest factor.
>> Almost as soon as you're moving with a taildragger you have a good
>> bit of lift from the wings and that lightens the load on the mains
>> sooner than you could do so with a trike.
>
> No it doesn't. Under full power you can get a trikes tail on the
> ground at almost zero ground speed.

Some of them, fjukkkwit.



> Who have you been talking to, MX?


Why, jealous?

>
>> On landing the three point attitude provides some aerodynamic braking
>> that slows you more quickly, but, OTOH, you can't brake quite as had
>> as you do with a trike.
>
> Have another drink.
>

Like you'd know, fjukktard


>> Bottom line is there's not a whole lot of difference in performance
>> or that
>> many advantages one way or another. Th eaccident record is worse, but
>> that's almost always down to pilot proficiency. I'm more comfortable
>> in taildragger when I'm current. I suppose the best comparison is
>> that between
>> a bike and a car. Harder to keep a bike upright, but you have more
>> control over it when you do get "it"
>>
>
> Learn to ride a bike. They stop quicker on soft fields, duh?
>

Which would explain the multiple blows to your head..
>
>

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in news:u8Ick.18512$%q.3380
@newsfe24.lga:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> Well, yeah, but I'd rather do it with the tail down!
>
> Or your tail between your legs.
>
>>


Dream on, nominee.

>> In any case, I'd disagree about being able to brake harder in the
>> taildrgger.
>
> That's because you are incompetent.
>

Snort!



>
> I agree that the nosewheel has a tendency to dig in, bu tif you
>> have the stick in your gut that's not a problem at speed and near max
>> braking is available.
>
> You didn't think so two posts up.


Yes, i did, you just don;'t know how to read, fjukkktard.
>
> Braking that hard in taildragger is going to lead to
>> grief!
>>
>
>
> Bull****. If you can't fly one, rent a trike.

And you know this how, luser boi?


Bertie

[[email protected]]

Dylan Smith > wrote:
> On 2008-07-07, > wrote:
> > If you look at most tail draggers, once the tail comes up the prop
> > clearance isn't significantly different than that of most trikes.

> You don't need to let the tail come up in most tailwheel planes, though.
> Taking off from rough/soft fields you're probably going to want to keep
> the tail low throughout the takeoff run.

I won't argue that, but from what I've seen that isn't what happens
with most pilots.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in news:y%Hck.18505$%q.12362
@newsfe24.lga:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in news:OOxck.27073$i55.21912
>> @newsfe22.lga:
>>
>>>
>>> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> "Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in news:Jwock.18253$%q.107
>>>> @newsfe24.lga:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> A bit like your pointy head.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Bertie
>>>
>>> No dumb ****, it's about weight and drag, more like your fat ass.
>>>
>>
>> Awww, it's the "battleship" method of flaming again.
>>
>> You'd have to get something right for it to sting, fjukktard...
>>
>>
>> And even then, I'd have to give a **** what you thought...
>>
>> Bertie
>
> Your ass reminds you of a battleship?


Whooosh.
>
> Ah, but you do.
>
> Nice thing about lying, you can always have it your way!


I'll take your word for it, k00k.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Dylan Smith > wrote in
:

> On 2008-07-07, >
> wrote:
>> If you look at most tail draggers, once the tail comes up the prop
>> clearance isn't significantly different than that of most trikes.
>
> You don't need to let the tail come up in most tailwheel planes,
> though. Taking off from rough/soft fields you're probably going to
> want to keep the tail low throughout the takeoff run.
>

Which is probably the taildragger's biggest strength. A lot of control over
your attitude and an ability to aply the best for performance at any given
moment.


Bertie

[john smith]

In article
>,
wrote:

> On Jul 7, 1:13 pm, John Smith > wrote:
>
> > Be VERY, VERY careful when doing this on wet grass!
> > It gets real interesting when the tail is up, the brakes are on, and the
> > mains are sliding down the runway. :-0
>
> Done that, in a 185, braking as hard as I could with the tail
> way up. It'll stop much shorter than the POH says, even when the grass
> is wet.

And the surprised look on your face at the time... priceless! :-))
(I know it probably was on mine.)

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
...
> Dylan Smith > wrote in
> :
>
>> On 2008-07-07, >
>> wrote:
>>> If you look at most tail draggers, once the tail comes up the prop
>>> clearance isn't significantly different than that of most trikes.
>>
>> You don't need to let the tail come up in most tailwheel planes,
>> though. Taking off from rough/soft fields you're probably going to
>> want to keep the tail low throughout the takeoff run.
>>
>
> Which is probably the taildragger's biggest strength. A lot of control
> over
> your attitude and an ability to aply the best for performance at any given
> moment.
>
>
> Bertie

You're exactly right, that make no sense at all.

You sound more like Dudley every day.

[Stealth Pilot[_2_]]

On Tue, 8 Jul 2008 18:11:44 -0500, "Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net>
wrote:

>
>"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
...
>> Dylan Smith > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> On 2008-07-07, >
>>> wrote:
>>>> If you look at most tail draggers, once the tail comes up the prop
>>>> clearance isn't significantly different than that of most trikes.
>>>
>>> You don't need to let the tail come up in most tailwheel planes,
>>> though. Taking off from rough/soft fields you're probably going to
>>> want to keep the tail low throughout the takeoff run.
>>>
>>
>> Which is probably the taildragger's biggest strength. A lot of control
>> over
>> your attitude and an ability to aply the best for performance at any given
>> moment.
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>
>You're exactly right, that make no sense at all.
>
>You sound more like Dudley every day.
>
>
maxwell I'm confused. which role in the troll attack are you taking?
are you in the first wave of loons or are you the extremist that makes
everyone seem normal?

I've forgotten. I must hunt down the battle plan again.
Stealth Pilot

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Stealth Pilot" > wrote in message
...

> maxwell I'm confused. which role in the troll attack are you taking?
> are you in the first wave of loons or are you the extremist that makes
> everyone seem normal?
>


You're exactly right, you are confused.

[Du Haxen Hase]

In article >, Bertie the
Bunyip says...

> "Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in
> :
>
> >
> > "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >>
> >> Yeah, soft field technique in a tike is just the same as a
> >> tsaildragger, but you can't maintian the high alpha down at low
> >> speeds.
> >>
> >> Bertie
> >
> > You're really stuck on that "alpha" word aren't you. You seem to use
> > it all the time, lately.
>
>
> Used it for many years, fjukkwit.
> >
> > I think you have just been spending a little too much time with your
> > nose up the lead dogs ass.
> >
>
> Yeh, right, nominee boi.
>
>
> Voting is going well, though you're behind at the moment. Mind you,this is
> what you're competing with...
>
>
> http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/Jamie_Baillie
>
>
> He's good, but you can do it Maxie! Go on boi!

If at first you don't succeed...

I don't think this will be his last nom

--

"Tis an ill wind that blows no minds"

[Du Haxen Hase]

In article >, Stealth Pilot
says...

> On Tue, 8 Jul 2008 18:11:44 -0500, "Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> Dylan Smith > wrote in
> >> :
> >>
> >>> On 2008-07-07, >
> >>> wrote:
> >>>> If you look at most tail draggers, once the tail comes up the prop
> >>>> clearance isn't significantly different than that of most trikes.
> >>>
> >>> You don't need to let the tail come up in most tailwheel planes,
> >>> though. Taking off from rough/soft fields you're probably going to
> >>> want to keep the tail low throughout the takeoff run.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Which is probably the taildragger's biggest strength. A lot of control
> >> over
> >> your attitude and an ability to aply the best for performance at any given
> >> moment.
> >>
> >>
> >> Bertie
> >
> >You're exactly right, that make no sense at all.
> >
> >You sound more like Dudley every day.
> >
> >
> maxwell I'm confused. which role in the troll attack are you taking?
> are you in the first wave of loons or are you the extremist that makes
> everyone seem normal?
>
> I've forgotten. I must hunt down the battle plan again.
> Stealth Pilot

Let me help with that...

http://ddi.digital.net/~gandalf/trollfaq.html#item8

The Invasion FAQ of A.S.T.


Although not exactly a FAQ, this file is more of an explanation of why
alt.syntax.tactical and the tactical-list were created. It also lays
down the foundation for the structure, strategy, and protocol of USENET
invasions.


* Invasion *

Each of us brings our own reasons, backgrounds and motivations into
this scheme. What is important is that each individual brings into this
their own brand of inspired mischief. In some ways it is completely
innocent. In some ways it is completely destructive.

Anyone can walk into alt.sex and post that pornography should be
banned. Anyone can walk into rec.sport.baseball and say "baseball
sucks". It takes unbelievable skill and discipline to cause a PROLONGED
flame war. That is what we do. But it can only be done with talent, and
numbers to match that talent. We only bring into the fold people who
have the knack to use smarts to incite chaos, not stupidity to incite
being ignored when people see a post and know what you're up to.

To keep things running smoothly, Antebi is our 'moderator'. jpdavid was
responsible for creating the mailing-list and setting up the initial
newsgroup. Everyone is equal in suggesting and voting on invasion sites
and other basic day-to-day workings of the group. Everyone here gains
or loses merit only in the invasion arena.


* Waves of Invasion *


Flames and wars between groups are as old as Usenet. What we try to do
is in many ways fundamentally different from what is or has been done
in this area.

After picking a site, we call for an invasion on that site. There are a
number of phases to an invasion. Each person can volunteer for which
wave they want to be in, but more times than not, it is a first come-
first served policy. It is always important that no one jump the gun
and go in before we have time to prepare and bounce ideas off each
other. It's also important that people don't switch waves without
letting everyone know. Flexibility is the key, as is communication.

Typically, we use between two and five Waves of attack. Waves will
generally break down into this kind of structure:

a: Reconnaissance (RECON): These people will go in early and usually
set up camp as "friends of the newsgroup". They will become trusted and
participate by joining previous discussions or starting non-
controversial ones themselves. They will also act as "double-agents" to
counter-flame the other waves as the invasion progresses. They key is
building a bit of credibility.

b: Wave One: Wave one will usually be what starts the flame war.
Those involved in this wave can go on and each have a different flame,
or go on and flame in unison. They can bring in a subject of their own
or flame a previous discussion. What matters is that this initial wave
will be the one that the invaded newsgroup will have their attention
on. This wave calls for extreme subtlety. The quality of the flame MUST
be at its highest point here.

c: Wave Two: Wave Two will consist of tactics to attack the people who
were sent in as recon and attempt to start totally new flame threads.
The key here is that even if we attack a group of people restrained
enough to resist our flame-bait, wave two will stir things up and get
others to join in.

d: Wave Three: Wave three will generally change depending on the
campaign, but will generally be added to push the confusion and chaos
over the top. Flame the recon, flame the first wave, flame the second
wave. These guys are our balls out, rude SOB's. Mop up and clean out.

Sometimes (usually with bigger groups) Wave three will simply be along
the lines of a wave two. We will call for a wave four (or five) to be
the balls out routine. We will sometimes add a wave or two because
depending on the size and intelligence of a newsgroup.

Miscellaneous Tactics:

There are three other things that we typically use, depending on
the sophistication of the invasion.

LOOSE CANNONS are people who come in and act so strange and obtuse that
it makes the rest of the flames look genuine.

THE ANON SERVICE can be used to send posts anonymously. This is a good
way to post and pretend to be scared of retribution. Only problem is
that this is usually the first sign that a post is a flame, so it
should only be used with a TREMENDOUS amount of DISCRETION.

CROSS POSTING is also a popular method of choice by other flame groups,
so it is important to Cross Post with discretion. If we can cross post
to bring in other newsgroups to unwittingly assist us, perfect. If we
cross post to suspicious newsgroups, our intentions will be obvious.

* Victory *

Ideally, signs of victory are the following:

o Our names appear in killfiles
o Majority or ALL threads in invaded newsgroup were started by us
o Regulars/legit people abandon invaded newsgroup
o Receive much hate mail - as does our SysAdmin
o To be reprimanded by the glorious SysAdmin

* Notes *

Most important is the need to be SUBTLE when it is required. One
misplaced post can ruin it for the rest of us. Those of you who have
participated in widespread flame wars know the feeling of having a
newsgroup going for a long time, then someone posts an obvious flame or
something so far out of context, that everyone says to just ignore the
flames, which eventually includes all of us. Blowing a flame war will
occasionally happen, but if it could have been avoided with a little
thinking, then it's not as excusable.

We've got to share duties. Everyone should get practice playing
different roles and different waves.

It has been assumed that if you don't want to participate, fine. No one
will hold it against you. What is expected is that if you don't want to
participate you don't have to, but that also means that you wont go
warning that newsgroup when an invasion happens. You will close your
eyes and turn a blind eye. NO NEWSGROUP IS OFF LIMITS!!!!!!

Another thing many people seem to be talking about are SIGS AND NAMES.
Try to take on appropriate names. If you are on alt.rap, D.J. Trouble
is not going to stir things up...if you show up on soc.culture.physics
with that name, you're caught before your first word of text. If a Sig
is going to blow your cover, lose it.

Official Kudos:

- under construction -

--

"Tis an ill wind that blows no minds"

[[email protected]]

On Jul 7, 11:42 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:

> > if a nose up profile on the ground is such an advantage
> > why not just lengthen the front strut
>
> Now that would be messy! You'd just have a wheelbarrow, then.

Trikes are full of compromises. Lengthen the nose strut (or
inflate it more)to get the prop up away from the rocks and guys who
land too fast will wheelbarrow it. So the manufacturer and the
mechanic both have to take poor airmanship into account.
Give me a taildragger. It won't forgive poor airmanship, so
that a pilot either smartens up or buys a boat.

Dan

[[email protected]]

On Jul 8, 10:49 am, John Smith > wrote:
> wrote:
> > On Jul 7, 1:13 pm, John Smith > wrote:
>
> > > Be VERY, VERY careful when doing this on wet grass!
> > > It gets real interesting when the tail is up, the brakes are on, and the
> > > mains are sliding down the runway. :-0
>
> > Done that, in a 185, braking as hard as I could with the tail
> > way up. It'll stop much shorter than the POH says, even when the grass
> > is wet.
>
> And the surprised look on your face at the time... priceless! :-))
> (I know it probably was on mine.)

I was taught be a pro who'd been a bush pilot and a pilot in
Africa, flying with a relief organization that had high standards and
many difficult and seldom-seen techniques. They still do. He showed me
what it would do, then taught me the technique. I've used in in other
taildraggers, too, and it's not difficult if you're current, which I'm
not much anymore. Too little time flying and too much time fixing.
That's what you get when you spend an extra four years becoming an
engineer: the pilots who don't do all that extra work get to do all
the flying. Life seems unfair sometimes.

Dan

[Stealth Pilot[_2_]]

On Wed, 9 Jul 2008 06:07:13 -0700, Du Haxen Hase
> wrote:

>In article >, Stealth Pilot
>says...
>
>> On Tue, 8 Jul 2008 18:11:44 -0500, "Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >> Dylan Smith > wrote in
>> >> :
>> >>
>> >>> On 2008-07-07, >
>> >>> wrote:
>> >>>> If you look at most tail draggers, once the tail comes up the prop
>> >>>> clearance isn't significantly different than that of most trikes.
>> >>>
>> >>> You don't need to let the tail come up in most tailwheel planes,
>> >>> though. Taking off from rough/soft fields you're probably going to
>> >>> want to keep the tail low throughout the takeoff run.
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >> Which is probably the taildragger's biggest strength. A lot of control
>> >> over
>> >> your attitude and an ability to aply the best for performance at any given
>> >> moment.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Bertie
>> >
>> >You're exactly right, that make no sense at all.
>> >
>> >You sound more like Dudley every day.
>> >
>> >
>> maxwell I'm confused. which role in the troll attack are you taking?
>> are you in the first wave of loons or are you the extremist that makes
>> everyone seem normal?
>>
>> I've forgotten. I must hunt down the battle plan again.
>> Stealth Pilot
>
>Let me help with that...
>
>http://ddi.digital.net/~gandalf/trollfaq.html#item8
>
> The Invasion FAQ of A.S.T.
>
>
>Although not exactly a FAQ, this file is more of an explanation of why
>alt.syntax.tactical and the tactical-list were created. It also lays
>down the foundation for the structure, strategy, and protocol of USENET
>invasions.
>
>
> * Invasion *
>
>Each of us brings our own reasons, backgrounds and motivations into
>this scheme. What is important is that each individual brings into this
>their own brand of inspired mischief. In some ways it is completely
>innocent. In some ways it is completely destructive.
>
>Anyone can walk into alt.sex and post that pornography should be
>banned. Anyone can walk into rec.sport.baseball and say "baseball
>sucks". It takes unbelievable skill and discipline to cause a PROLONGED
>flame war. That is what we do. But it can only be done with talent, and
>numbers to match that talent. We only bring into the fold people who
>have the knack to use smarts to incite chaos, not stupidity to incite
>being ignored when people see a post and know what you're up to.
>
>To keep things running smoothly, Antebi is our 'moderator'. jpdavid was
>responsible for creating the mailing-list and setting up the initial
>newsgroup. Everyone is equal in suggesting and voting on invasion sites
>and other basic day-to-day workings of the group. Everyone here gains
>or loses merit only in the invasion arena.
>
>
> * Waves of Invasion *
>
>
>Flames and wars between groups are as old as Usenet. What we try to do
>is in many ways fundamentally different from what is or has been done
>in this area.
>
>After picking a site, we call for an invasion on that site. There are a
>number of phases to an invasion. Each person can volunteer for which
>wave they want to be in, but more times than not, it is a first come-
>first served policy. It is always important that no one jump the gun
>and go in before we have time to prepare and bounce ideas off each
>other. It's also important that people don't switch waves without
>letting everyone know. Flexibility is the key, as is communication.
>
>Typically, we use between two and five Waves of attack. Waves will
>generally break down into this kind of structure:
>
> a: Reconnaissance (RECON): These people will go in early and usually
>set up camp as "friends of the newsgroup". They will become trusted and
>participate by joining previous discussions or starting non-
>controversial ones themselves. They will also act as "double-agents" to
>counter-flame the other waves as the invasion progresses. They key is
>building a bit of credibility.
>
> b: Wave One: Wave one will usually be what starts the flame war.
>Those involved in this wave can go on and each have a different flame,
>or go on and flame in unison. They can bring in a subject of their own
>or flame a previous discussion. What matters is that this initial wave
>will be the one that the invaded newsgroup will have their attention
>on. This wave calls for extreme subtlety. The quality of the flame MUST
>be at its highest point here.
>
> c: Wave Two: Wave Two will consist of tactics to attack the people who
>were sent in as recon and attempt to start totally new flame threads.
>The key here is that even if we attack a group of people restrained
>enough to resist our flame-bait, wave two will stir things up and get
>others to join in.
>
> d: Wave Three: Wave three will generally change depending on the
>campaign, but will generally be added to push the confusion and chaos
>over the top. Flame the recon, flame the first wave, flame the second
>wave. These guys are our balls out, rude SOB's. Mop up and clean out.
>
>Sometimes (usually with bigger groups) Wave three will simply be along
>the lines of a wave two. We will call for a wave four (or five) to be
>the balls out routine. We will sometimes add a wave or two because
>depending on the size and intelligence of a newsgroup.
>
> Miscellaneous Tactics:
>
> There are three other things that we typically use, depending on
>the sophistication of the invasion.
>
>LOOSE CANNONS are people who come in and act so strange and obtuse that
>it makes the rest of the flames look genuine.
>
>THE ANON SERVICE can be used to send posts anonymously. This is a good
>way to post and pretend to be scared of retribution. Only problem is
>that this is usually the first sign that a post is a flame, so it
>should only be used with a TREMENDOUS amount of DISCRETION.
>
>CROSS POSTING is also a popular method of choice by other flame groups,
>so it is important to Cross Post with discretion. If we can cross post
>to bring in other newsgroups to unwittingly assist us, perfect. If we
>cross post to suspicious newsgroups, our intentions will be obvious.
>
> * Victory *
>
>Ideally, signs of victory are the following:
>
>o Our names appear in killfiles
>o Majority or ALL threads in invaded newsgroup were started by us
>o Regulars/legit people abandon invaded newsgroup
>o Receive much hate mail - as does our SysAdmin
>o To be reprimanded by the glorious SysAdmin
>
> * Notes *
>
>Most important is the need to be SUBTLE when it is required. One
>misplaced post can ruin it for the rest of us. Those of you who have
>participated in widespread flame wars know the feeling of having a
>newsgroup going for a long time, then someone posts an obvious flame or
>something so far out of context, that everyone says to just ignore the
>flames, which eventually includes all of us. Blowing a flame war will
>occasionally happen, but if it could have been avoided with a little
>thinking, then it's not as excusable.
>
>We've got to share duties. Everyone should get practice playing
>different roles and different waves.
>
>It has been assumed that if you don't want to participate, fine. No one
>will hold it against you. What is expected is that if you don't want to
>participate you don't have to, but that also means that you wont go
>warning that newsgroup when an invasion happens. You will close your
>eyes and turn a blind eye. NO NEWSGROUP IS OFF LIMITS!!!!!!
>
>Another thing many people seem to be talking about are SIGS AND NAMES.
>Try to take on appropriate names. If you are on alt.rap, D.J. Trouble
>is not going to stir things up...if you show up on soc.culture.physics
>with that name, you're caught before your first word of text. If a Sig
>is going to blow your cover, lose it.
>
>Official Kudos:
>
>- under construction -

nothing clued up about maxie so he fails on the subtle.
so he may be wave 3.

a loose cannon is an exaggeration.
the protocol doesnt name popguns.

do you trolls reposess a dismal failure?

[[email protected]]

On Jul 8, 7:31 am, Stealth Pilot >
wrote:

> I flew nose wheel aircraft in my early years then did a tailwheel
> endorsement in a bugger of an aircraft to land, the Auster.
> Then I bough a Tailwind through a long convoluted process and have
> flown it ever since.

I learned to fly taildraggers in an Auster VI. Towing
gliders. It went something like this: Two or three circuits, then the
other guy got out, I did another circuit, and then they connected the
glider and away I went. I later owned that airplane.

> your question on experience levels misses something.
> taking a Cessna 150 as the datum point, an Auster is a quantum leap
> harder to land and takeoff well. in the air both are superb to fly.
> the tailwind is a quantum harder again to fly.

I found the Auster to have all the handling qualitites of
a dump truck. It did have really good short-field performance,
especially that MkVI with those Zap flaps, but really heavy ailerons
just like its Taylorcraft ancestor. My Jodel is much more squirrelly.

Dan

[[email protected]]

On Jul 8, 9:31*am, Stealth Pilot >
wrote:
> On Mon, 7 Jul 2008 05:43:30 -0700 (PDT), wrote:
> >Other than the 'holier than thou' aspects of taildraggers and their
> >pilots, what are their real advantages? Has it to do with prop
> >clearance on unimproved fields, or fatter mains being better in that
> >same environment? Does anyone know if, with the same level of
> >experience pilots, they have a better or worse accident record when
> >compared to airplanes of the same general size that have the tailwheel
> >under the engine?
>
> statistics are that the introduction of the nose wheel significantly
> reduced accident rates.
>
> I flew nose wheel aircraft in my early years then did a tailwheel
> endorsement in a bugger of an aircraft to land, the Auster.
> Then I bough a Tailwind through a long convoluted process and have
> flown it ever since.
>
> first misconception is that only tailwheel aircraft ground loop. if
> you land on the nosewheel you can experience a far far more viscious
> ground loop than you'll ever see in a taildragger.
>
> your question on experience levels misses something.
> taking a Cessna 150 as the datum point, an Auster is a quantum leap
> harder to land and takeoff well. in the air both are superb to fly.
> the tailwind is a quantum harder again to fly.
> so what is lost in the details is that there arent as equally as
> experienced pilots flying both. the taildragger pilot has had to
> improve his general level of piloting considerably to appear mediocre
> in a taildragger.
>
> I love flying Cessnas, but having made the transition to Austers and
> the W8 Tailwind I simply wouldnt want to not fly the taildraggers.
> Snicking the daisies in the flare in a taildragger on a grass strip is
> just the greatest satisfaction.
>
> btw keep that mooney of yours on the bitumen or you'll prang it.
>
> (now let me get this right. you are one of the first wave decoys
> attacking this newsgroup arent you? )
> Stealth Pilot

I've no intention of landing my airplane on anything but hard
surfaces, thanks. My taildragger time has been limited to a few hours
in a real Piper Cub, and that airplane does not do a good job in
satisfying my mission requirements for GA (300 to 700 mile trips for
business). As for your parenthetical remark -- I wonder what
distortions in my posts you might have made to come to that
conclusion?
The several M words and Bertie when diverted are doing a good enough
job diluting the quality of this newsgroup.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in
:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Dylan Smith > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> On 2008-07-07, >
>>> wrote:
>>>> If you look at most tail draggers, once the tail comes up the prop
>>>> clearance isn't significantly different than that of most trikes.
>>>
>>> You don't need to let the tail come up in most tailwheel planes,
>>> though. Taking off from rough/soft fields you're probably going to
>>> want to keep the tail low throughout the takeoff run.
>>>
>>
>> Which is probably the taildragger's biggest strength. A lot of
>> control over
>> your attitude and an ability to aply the best for performance at any
>> given moment.
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>
> You're exactly right, that make no sense at all.
>
> You sound more like Dudley every day.


By the grace of god..



Bertie
>
>
>
>

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

wrote in
:

> On Jul 8, 10:49 am, John Smith > wrote:
>> wrote:
>> > On Jul 7, 1:13 pm, John Smith > wrote:
>>
>> > > Be VERY, VERY careful when doing this on wet grass!
>> > > It gets real interesting when the tail is up, the brakes are on,
>> > > and the mains are sliding down the runway. :-0
>>
>> > Done that, in a 185, braking as hard as I could with the tail
>> > way up. It'll stop much shorter than the POH says, even when the
>> > grass is wet.
>>
>> And the surprised look on your face at the time... priceless! :-))
>> (I know it probably was on mine.)
>
> I was taught be a pro who'd been a bush pilot and a pilot in
> Africa, flying with a relief organization that had high standards and
> many difficult and seldom-seen techniques. They still do. He showed me
> what it would do, then taught me the technique. I've used in in other
> taildraggers, too, and it's not difficult if you're current, which I'm
> not much anymore. Too little time flying and too much time fixing.
> That's what you get when you spend an extra four years becoming an
> engineer: the pilots who don't do all that extra work get to do all
> the flying. Life seems unfair sometimes.
>

I still don't see it shoteing the landing roll. Can't see the physics that
would make a wheel landing shorter. I'll just have to try it!

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

Du Haxen Hase > wrote in
:

> In article >, Stealth Pilot
> says...
>
>> On Tue, 8 Jul 2008 18:11:44 -0500, "Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >> Dylan Smith > wrote in
>> >> :
>> >>
>> >>> On 2008-07-07,
>> >>> > wrote:
>> >>>> If you look at most tail draggers, once the tail comes up the
>> >>>> prop clearance isn't significantly different than that of most
>> >>>> trikes.
>> >>>
>> >>> You don't need to let the tail come up in most tailwheel planes,
>> >>> though. Taking off from rough/soft fields you're probably going
>> >>> to want to keep the tail low throughout the takeoff run.
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >> Which is probably the taildragger's biggest strength. A lot of
>> >> control over
>> >> your attitude and an ability to aply the best for performance at
>> >> any given moment.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Bertie
>> >
>> >You're exactly right, that make no sense at all.
>> >
>> >You sound more like Dudley every day.
>> >
>> >
>> maxwell I'm confused. which role in the troll attack are you taking?
>> are you in the first wave of loons or are you the extremist that
>> makes everyone seem normal?
>>
>> I've forgotten. I must hunt down the battle plan again.
>> Stealth Pilot
>
> Let me help with that...
>
> http://ddi.digital.net/~gandalf/trollfaq.html#item8
>
> The Invasion FAQ of A.S.T.
>
>
> Although not exactly a FAQ, this file is more of an explanation of why
> alt.syntax.tactical and the tactical-list were created. It also lays
> down the foundation for the structure, strategy, and protocol of
> USENET invasions.
>
>
> * Invasion *
>
> Each of us brings our own reasons, backgrounds and motivations into
> this scheme. What is important is that each individual brings into
> this their own brand of inspired mischief. In some ways it is
> completely innocent. In some ways it is completely destructive.
>
> Anyone can walk into alt.sex and post that pornography should be
> banned. Anyone can walk into rec.sport.baseball and say "baseball
> sucks". It takes unbelievable skill and discipline to cause a
> PROLONGED flame war. That is what we do. But it can only be done with
> talent, and numbers to match that talent. We only bring into the fold
> people who have the knack to use smarts to incite chaos, not stupidity
> to incite being ignored when people see a post and know what you're up
> to.
>
> To keep things running smoothly, Antebi is our 'moderator'. jpdavid
> was responsible for creating the mailing-list and setting up the
> initial newsgroup. Everyone is equal in suggesting and voting on
> invasion sites and other basic day-to-day workings of the group.
> Everyone here gains or loses merit only in the invasion arena.
>
>
> * Waves of Invasion *
>
>
> Flames and wars between groups are as old as Usenet. What we try to do
> is in many ways fundamentally different from what is or has been done
> in this area.
>
> After picking a site, we call for an invasion on that site. There are
> a number of phases to an invasion. Each person can volunteer for which
> wave they want to be in, but more times than not, it is a first come-
> first served policy. It is always important that no one jump the gun
> and go in before we have time to prepare and bounce ideas off each
> other. It's also important that people don't switch waves without
> letting everyone know. Flexibility is the key, as is communication.
>
> Typically, we use between two and five Waves of attack. Waves will
> generally break down into this kind of structure:
>
> a: Reconnaissance (RECON): These people will go in early and usually
> set up camp as "friends of the newsgroup". They will become trusted
> and participate by joining previous discussions or starting non-
> controversial ones themselves. They will also act as "double-agents"
> to counter-flame the other waves as the invasion progresses. They key
> is building a bit of credibility.
>
> b: Wave One: Wave one will usually be what starts the flame war.
> Those involved in this wave can go on and each have a different flame,
> or go on and flame in unison. They can bring in a subject of their
> own or flame a previous discussion. What matters is that this initial
> wave will be the one that the invaded newsgroup will have their
> attention on. This wave calls for extreme subtlety. The quality of the
> flame MUST be at its highest point here.
>
> c: Wave Two: Wave Two will consist of tactics to attack the people
> who
> were sent in as recon and attempt to start totally new flame threads.
> The key here is that even if we attack a group of people restrained
> enough to resist our flame-bait, wave two will stir things up and get
> others to join in.
>
> d: Wave Three: Wave three will generally change depending on the
> campaign, but will generally be added to push the confusion and chaos
> over the top. Flame the recon, flame the first wave, flame the second
> wave. These guys are our balls out, rude SOB's. Mop up and clean out.
>
> Sometimes (usually with bigger groups) Wave three will simply be along
> the lines of a wave two. We will call for a wave four (or five) to be
> the balls out routine. We will sometimes add a wave or two because
> depending on the size and intelligence of a newsgroup.
>
> Miscellaneous Tactics:
>
> There are three other things that we typically use, depending on
> the sophistication of the invasion.
>
> LOOSE CANNONS are people who come in and act so strange and obtuse
> that it makes the rest of the flames look genuine.
>
> THE ANON SERVICE can be used to send posts anonymously. This is a good
> way to post and pretend to be scared of retribution. Only problem is
> that this is usually the first sign that a post is a flame, so it
> should only be used with a TREMENDOUS amount of DISCRETION.
>
> CROSS POSTING is also a popular method of choice by other flame
> groups, so it is important to Cross Post with discretion. If we can
> cross post to bring in other newsgroups to unwittingly assist us,
> perfect. If we cross post to suspicious newsgroups, our intentions
> will be obvious.
>
> * Victory *
>
> Ideally, signs of victory are the following:
>
> o Our names appear in killfiles
> o Majority or ALL threads in invaded newsgroup were started by us
> o Regulars/legit people abandon invaded newsgroup
> o Receive much hate mail - as does our SysAdmin
> o To be reprimanded by the glorious SysAdmin
>
> * Notes *
>
> Most important is the need to be SUBTLE when it is required. One
> misplaced post can ruin it for the rest of us. Those of you who have
> participated in widespread flame wars know the feeling of having a
> newsgroup going for a long time, then someone posts an obvious flame
> or something so far out of context, that everyone says to just ignore
> the flames, which eventually includes all of us. Blowing a flame war
> will occasionally happen, but if it could have been avoided with a
> little thinking, then it's not as excusable.
>
> We've got to share duties. Everyone should get practice playing
> different roles and different waves.
>
> It has been assumed that if you don't want to participate, fine. No
> one will hold it against you. What is expected is that if you don't
> want to participate you don't have to, but that also means that you
> wont go warning that newsgroup when an invasion happens. You will
> close your eyes and turn a blind eye. NO NEWSGROUP IS OFF LIMITS!!!!!!
>
> Another thing many people seem to be talking about are SIGS AND NAMES.
> Try to take on appropriate names. If you are on alt.rap, D.J. Trouble
> is not going to stir things up...if you show up on soc.culture.physics
> with that name, you're caught before your first word of text. If a Sig
> is going to blow your cover, lose it.
>
> Official Kudos:
>
> - under construction -
>

Me, I just posst



Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

Du Haxen Hase > wrote in
:

> In article >, Bertie the
> Bunyip says...
>
>> "Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in
>> :
>>
>> >
>> > "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
>> > ...
>> >>
>> >> Yeah, soft field technique in a tike is just the same as a
>> >> tsaildragger, but you can't maintian the high alpha down at low
>> >> speeds.
>> >>
>> >> Bertie
>> >
>> > You're really stuck on that "alpha" word aren't you. You seem to
>> > use it all the time, lately.
>>
>>
>> Used it for many years, fjukkwit.
>> >
>> > I think you have just been spending a little too much time with
>> > your nose up the lead dogs ass.
>> >
>>
>> Yeh, right, nominee boi.
>>
>>
>> Voting is going well, though you're behind at the moment. Mind
>> you,this is what you're competing with...
>>
>>
>> http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/Jamie_Baillie
>>
>>
>> He's good, but you can do it Maxie! Go on boi!
>
> If at first you don't succeed...
>
> I don't think this will be his last nom
>

Definitely not! Boi's got poh-tehnshul.





Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

wrote in news:fb6e5c00-c3fe-4ab3-8031-
:

> On Jul 7, 11:42 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
>> > if a nose up profile on the ground is such an advantage
>> > why not just lengthen the front strut
>>
>> Now that would be messy! You'd just have a wheelbarrow, then.
>
> Trikes are full of compromises. Lengthen the nose strut (or
> inflate it more)to get the prop up away from the rocks and guys who
> land too fast will wheelbarrow it. So the manufacturer and the
> mechanic both have to take poor airmanship into account.
> Give me a taildragger. It won't forgive poor airmanship, so
> that a pilot either smartens up or buys a boat.


Yep

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

wrote in news:d1eb3b97-ebb8-48a2-8725-fa1dc2a50044
@a1g2000hsb.googlegroups.com:

> On Jul 8, 9:31*am, Stealth Pilot >
> wrote:
>> On Mon, 7 Jul 2008 05:43:30 -0700 (PDT), wrote:
>> >Other than the 'holier than thou' aspects of taildraggers and their
>> >pilots, what are their real advantages? Has it to do with prop
>> >clearance on unimproved fields, or fatter mains being better in that
>> >same environment? Does anyone know if, with the same level of
>> >experience pilots, they have a better or worse accident record when
>> >compared to airplanes of the same general size that have the
tailwheel
>> >under the engine?
>>
>> statistics are that the introduction of the nose wheel significantly
>> reduced accident rates.
>>
>> I flew nose wheel aircraft in my early years then did a tailwheel
>> endorsement in a bugger of an aircraft to land, the Auster.
>> Then I bough a Tailwind through a long convoluted process and have
>> flown it ever since.
>>
>> first misconception is that only tailwheel aircraft ground loop. if
>> you land on the nosewheel you can experience a far far more viscious
>> ground loop than you'll ever see in a taildragger.
>>
>> your question on experience levels misses something.
>> taking a Cessna 150 as the datum point, an Auster is a quantum leap
>> harder to land and takeoff well. in the air both are superb to fly.
>> the tailwind is a quantum harder again to fly.
>> so what is lost in the details is that there arent as equally as
>> experienced pilots flying both. the taildragger pilot has had to
>> improve his general level of piloting considerably to appear mediocre
>> in a taildragger.
>>
>> I love flying Cessnas, but having made the transition to Austers and
>> the W8 Tailwind I simply wouldnt want to not fly the taildraggers.
>> Snicking the daisies in the flare in a taildragger on a grass strip
is
>> just the greatest satisfaction.
>>
>> btw keep that mooney of yours on the bitumen or you'll prang it.
>>
>> (now let me get this right. you are one of the first wave decoys
>> attacking this newsgroup arent you? )
>> Stealth Pilot
>
> I've no intention of landing my airplane on anything but hard
> surfaces, thanks. My taildragger time has been limited to a few hours
> in a real Piper Cub, and that airplane does not do a good job in
> satisfying my mission requirements for GA (300 to 700 mile trips for
> business). As for your parenthetical remark -- I wonder what
> distortions in my posts you might have made to come to that
> conclusion?
> The several M words and Bertie when diverted are doing a good enough
> job diluting the quality of this newsgroup.
>
>

Moi? I just poast.


Bertie

[mariposas rand mair fheal]

In article >,
wrote:

> On Jul 7, 11:42 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
> > > if a nose up profile on the ground is such an advantage
> > > why not just lengthen the front strut
> >
> > Now that would be messy! You'd just have a wheelbarrow, then.
>
> Trikes are full of compromises. Lengthen the nose strut (or
> inflate it more)to get the prop up away from the rocks and guys who

i didnt realize there was still a lot of traffic on unpaved fields

arf meow arf - raggedy ann and andy for president and vice
limp and spineless lint for brains is better yet and nice
then rueing pair of shrub and dick the republican lice
call me desdenova seven seven seven seven seven seven

[[email protected]]

On Jul 9, 1:24 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:

> I still don't see it shortening the landing roll. Can't see the physics that
> would make a wheel landing shorter. I'll just have to try it!

Here are the physics:

The trike, to get maximum weight on its mains for braking
traction, has to keep its weight off the nose. We can use full up-
elevator, but the presence of the nosewheel assures us that it will
take some of the weight and that we cannot get the wing's AOA low
enough to stop it lifting. The only advantage we have in the trike is
the elevator's downforce added to the airplane's weight. Electric flas
make it worse, since we can't retract them instantly to dump their
lift.

The taildragger can get its tail way up high. If you sit in the
airplane while its tail is on a jack or some other support so that the
airplane is in level attitude, you will be astounded at how nose-low
it feels. Observe the propeller clearance in this position, too, and
make some allowance for bouncing that might lower the prop closer to
the runway. I used to do this with students who were afraid to raise
the tail to level attitude, and they always amazed at the picture out
the front.
A taildragger with long legs, like a 185, can get its tail even
higher than level. I've seen a shot of a Helio Courier with its tail
up so that the fuselage was pointed downward at 5 or 10 degrees, and
the pilot was braking hard. No lift at all in that scenario, and
manual flaps can be retracted quickly to get even more weight on the
wheels. Most taildraggers will have the main axles 15 degrees ahead of
the airplane's CG, meaning that if you pick up the tail you can raise
it until the airplane is at that 15 degree nose-low attitude and it
will be balanced there. You'd better have lots of skill if you're
going to try this in the rollout. Pilots of another humanitarian
outfit that operated Helios did this all the time, since the Helio's
short-field takeoff capabilities are of no use if you can't get into
that short little strip and get stopped in the first place.

Dan

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

wrote in
:

> On Jul 9, 1:24 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
>> I still don't see it shortening the landing roll. Can't see the
>> physics that would make a wheel landing shorter. I'll just have to
>> try it!
>
> Here are the physics:
>
> The trike, to get maximum weight on its mains for braking
> traction, has to keep its weight off the nose. We can use full up-
> elevator, but the presence of the nosewheel assures us that it will
> take some of the weight and that we cannot get the wing's AOA low
> enough to stop it lifting. The only advantage we have in the trike is
> the elevator's downforce added to the airplane's weight. Electric flas
> make it worse, since we can't retract them instantly to dump their
> lift.
>
> The taildragger can get its tail way up high. If you sit in the
> airplane while its tail is on a jack or some other support so that the
> airplane is in level attitude, you will be astounded at how nose-low
> it feels. Observe the propeller clearance in this position, too, and
> make some allowance for bouncing that might lower the prop closer to
> the runway. I used to do this with students who were afraid to raise
> the tail to level attitude, and they always amazed at the picture out
> the front.
> A taildragger with long legs, like a 185, can get its tail even
> higher than level. I've seen a shot of a Helio Courier with its tail
> up so that the fuselage was pointed downward at 5 or 10 degrees, and
> the pilot was braking hard. No lift at all in that scenario, and
> manual flaps can be retracted quickly to get even more weight on the
> wheels. Most taildraggers will have the main axles 15 degrees ahead of
> the airplane's CG, meaning that if you pick up the tail you can raise
> it until the airplane is at that 15 degree nose-low attitude and it
> will be balanced there. You'd better have lots of skill if you're
> going to try this in the rollout. Pilots of another humanitarian
> outfit that operated Helios did this all the time, since the Helio's
> short-field takeoff capabilities are of no use if you can't get into
> that short little strip and get stopped in the first place.
>

Oh, I can do it, but I don't see it giving you any more braking. Quite
the contrary. A given braking force will apply a rotational force around
the airplane's gear. In the three point attitude, you've got more of the
airpane sitting behind the gear, so more braking should be available.
Also, if you touch down in the same spot three point as opposed to doing
a wheel landing, you should have touched down with less airspeed.
Therefore less energy to kill.
For the sake of argument, let's say that you touched down at the same
speed, though, and that you are now tail high. It would want to be very
high indeed to contribute the same amount of aerodynamic drag as the
three point attitude. OK, your Cf is a bit better because of the extra
weight on the wheels, but since the limiting factor is nosing the
airplane over as opposed to achieving max Cf that's irrelevant.


Bertie

[Stealth Pilot[_2_]]

On Thu, 10 Jul 2008 07:54:50 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip >
wrote:

wrote in
:
>
>> On Jul 9, 1:24 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>
>>> I still don't see it shortening the landing roll. Can't see the
>>> physics that would make a wheel landing shorter. I'll just have to
>>> try it!
>>
>> Here are the physics:
>>
>> The trike, to get maximum weight on its mains for braking
>> traction, has to keep its weight off the nose. We can use full up-
>> elevator, but the presence of the nosewheel assures us that it will
>> take some of the weight and that we cannot get the wing's AOA low
>> enough to stop it lifting. The only advantage we have in the trike is
>> the elevator's downforce added to the airplane's weight. Electric flas
>> make it worse, since we can't retract them instantly to dump their
>> lift.
>>
>> The taildragger can get its tail way up high. If you sit in the
>> airplane while its tail is on a jack or some other support so that the
>> airplane is in level attitude, you will be astounded at how nose-low
>> it feels. Observe the propeller clearance in this position, too, and
>> make some allowance for bouncing that might lower the prop closer to
>> the runway. I used to do this with students who were afraid to raise
>> the tail to level attitude, and they always amazed at the picture out
>> the front.
>> A taildragger with long legs, like a 185, can get its tail even
>> higher than level. I've seen a shot of a Helio Courier with its tail
>> up so that the fuselage was pointed downward at 5 or 10 degrees, and
>> the pilot was braking hard. No lift at all in that scenario, and
>> manual flaps can be retracted quickly to get even more weight on the
>> wheels. Most taildraggers will have the main axles 15 degrees ahead of
>> the airplane's CG, meaning that if you pick up the tail you can raise
>> it until the airplane is at that 15 degree nose-low attitude and it
>> will be balanced there. You'd better have lots of skill if you're
>> going to try this in the rollout. Pilots of another humanitarian
>> outfit that operated Helios did this all the time, since the Helio's
>> short-field takeoff capabilities are of no use if you can't get into
>> that short little strip and get stopped in the first place.
>>
>
>Oh, I can do it, but I don't see it giving you any more braking. Quite
>the contrary. A given braking force will apply a rotational force around
>the airplane's gear. In the three point attitude, you've got more of the
>airpane sitting behind the gear, so more braking should be available.
>Also, if you touch down in the same spot three point as opposed to doing
>a wheel landing, you should have touched down with less airspeed.
>Therefore less energy to kill.
>For the sake of argument, let's say that you touched down at the same
>speed, though, and that you are now tail high. It would want to be very
>high indeed to contribute the same amount of aerodynamic drag as the
>three point attitude. OK, your Cf is a bit better because of the extra
>weight on the wheels, but since the limiting factor is nosing the
>airplane over as opposed to achieving max Cf that's irrelevant.
>
>
>Bertie

the wings stop an aircraft more effectively than tiny brake pucks.
thats why 3 pointing it achieves the shortest landing.
the actual landing speed is lower and the wing is generating lotsa
induced drag on the backside of the performance curve.

I dont believe that getting rid of flaps shortens the landing.

Stealth Pilot

[Stealth Pilot[_2_]]

On Wed, 9 Jul 2008 20:05:17 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip >
wrote:

wrote in news:d1eb3b97-ebb8-48a2-8725-fa1dc2a50044
:
>
>> On Jul 8, 9:31*am, Stealth Pilot >
>> wrote:
>>> On Mon, 7 Jul 2008 05:43:30 -0700 (PDT), wrote:
>>> >Other than the 'holier than thou' aspects of taildraggers and their
>>> >pilots, what are their real advantages? Has it to do with prop
>>> >clearance on unimproved fields, or fatter mains being better in that
>>> >same environment? Does anyone know if, with the same level of
>>> >experience pilots, they have a better or worse accident record when
>>> >compared to airplanes of the same general size that have the
>tailwheel
>>> >under the engine?
>>>
>>> statistics are that the introduction of the nose wheel significantly
>>> reduced accident rates.
>>>
>>> I flew nose wheel aircraft in my early years then did a tailwheel
>>> endorsement in a bugger of an aircraft to land, the Auster.
>>> Then I bough a Tailwind through a long convoluted process and have
>>> flown it ever since.
>>>
>>> first misconception is that only tailwheel aircraft ground loop. if
>>> you land on the nosewheel you can experience a far far more viscious
>>> ground loop than you'll ever see in a taildragger.
>>>
>>> your question on experience levels misses something.
>>> taking a Cessna 150 as the datum point, an Auster is a quantum leap
>>> harder to land and takeoff well. in the air both are superb to fly.
>>> the tailwind is a quantum harder again to fly.
>>> so what is lost in the details is that there arent as equally as
>>> experienced pilots flying both. the taildragger pilot has had to
>>> improve his general level of piloting considerably to appear mediocre
>>> in a taildragger.
>>>
>>> I love flying Cessnas, but having made the transition to Austers and
>>> the W8 Tailwind I simply wouldnt want to not fly the taildraggers.
>>> Snicking the daisies in the flare in a taildragger on a grass strip
>is
>>> just the greatest satisfaction.
>>>
>>> btw keep that mooney of yours on the bitumen or you'll prang it.
>>>
>>> (now let me get this right. you are one of the first wave decoys
>>> attacking this newsgroup arent you? )
>>> Stealth Pilot
>>
>> I've no intention of landing my airplane on anything but hard
>> surfaces, thanks. My taildragger time has been limited to a few hours
>> in a real Piper Cub, and that airplane does not do a good job in
>> satisfying my mission requirements for GA (300 to 700 mile trips for
>> business). As for your parenthetical remark -- I wonder what
>> distortions in my posts you might have made to come to that
>> conclusion?

a bit of chaff sorting. you pass :-)

>> The several M words and Bertie when diverted are doing a good enough
>> job diluting the quality of this newsgroup.
>>
>>
>
>Moi? I just poast.
>
>
>Bertie

the quality of the posts usually inversely proportional to the length
before the sig line. yours are often the shortest.

(it never occurred to me that you were not a white guy)
Stealth Pilot

[[email protected]]

On Jul 10, 9:06*am, Stealth Pilot >
wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Jul 2008 07:54:50 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip >
> wrote:
>
>
>
> wrote in
> :
>
> >> On Jul 9, 1:24 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
> >>> I still don't see it shortening the landing roll. Can't see the
> >>> physics that would make a wheel landing shorter. I'll just have to
> >>> try it!
>
> >> * Here are the physics:
>
> >> * * The trike, to get maximum weight on its mains for braking
> >> traction, has to keep its weight off the nose. We can use full up-
> >> elevator, but the presence of the nosewheel assures us that it will
> >> take some of the weight and that we cannot get the wing's AOA low
> >> enough to stop it lifting. The only advantage we have in the trike is
> >> the elevator's downforce added to the airplane's weight. Electric flas
> >> make it worse, since we can't retract them instantly to dump their
> >> lift.
>
> >> * * * The taildragger can get its tail way up high. If you sit in the
> >> airplane while its tail is on a jack or some other support so that the
> >> airplane is in level attitude, you will be astounded at how nose-low
> >> it feels. Observe the propeller clearance in this position, too, and
> >> make some allowance for bouncing that might lower the prop closer to
> >> the runway. I used to do this with students who were afraid to raise
> >> the tail to level attitude, and they always amazed at the picture out
> >> the front.
> >> * * *A taildragger with long legs, like a 185, can get its tail even
> >> higher than level. I've seen a shot of a Helio Courier with its tail
> >> up so that the fuselage was pointed downward at 5 or 10 degrees, and
> >> the pilot was braking hard. No lift at all in that scenario, and
> >> manual flaps can be retracted quickly to get even more weight on the
> >> wheels. Most taildraggers will have the main axles 15 degrees ahead of
> >> the airplane's CG, meaning that if you pick up the tail you can raise
> >> it until the airplane is at that 15 degree nose-low attitude and it
> >> will be balanced there. You'd better have lots of skill if you're
> >> going to try this in the rollout. Pilots of another humanitarian
> >> outfit that operated Helios did this all the time, since the Helio's
> >> short-field takeoff capabilities are of no use if you can't get into
> >> that short little strip and get stopped in the first place.
>
> >Oh, I can do it, but I don't see it giving you any more braking. Quite
> >the contrary. A given braking force will apply a rotational force around
> >the airplane's gear. In the three point attitude, you've got more of the
> >airpane sitting behind the gear, so more braking should be available.
> >Also, if you touch down in the same spot three point as opposed to doing
> >a wheel landing, you should have touched down with less airspeed.
> >Therefore less energy to kill.
> >For the sake of argument, let's say that you touched down at the same
> >speed, though, and that you are now tail high. It would want to be very
> >high indeed to contribute the same amount of aerodynamic drag as the
> >three point attitude. OK, your Cf is a bit better because of the extra
> >weight on the wheels, but since the limiting factor is nosing the
> >airplane over as opposed to achieving max Cf that's irrelevant.
>
> >Bertie
>
> the wings stop an aircraft more effectively than tiny brake pucks.
> thats why 3 pointing it achieves the shortest landing.
> the actual landing speed is lower and the wing is generating lotsa
> induced drag on the backside of the performance curve.
>
> I dont believe that getting rid of flaps shortens the landing.
>
> Stealth Pilot

In something like a Mooney, full flaps into the flare, flying the
airplane until it's out of airspeed, then sucking in the flaps just at
touchdown does shorten the landing roll -- weight gets onto the mains
a lot sooner, so frictional braking works when there's not airspeed
left to keep the nosewheel high. On the other hand, I'd not be
surprised to learn the difference is stopping distance from touchdown,
keeping the flaps extended vs retracting them, is less than 30 feet.
My goal is to touch down close enough to where I want to exit the
active so that it doesn't take much engine, or much braking, to make
the turn.


It drives me nuts to see the 172 I'm following touch down on the
numbers when the turn off is 3000 feet down the runway

[[email protected]]

On Jul 9, 9:26 pm, wrote:
> On Jul 9, 1:24 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
> > I still don't see it shortening the landing roll. Can't see the physics that
> > would make a wheel landing shorter. I'll just have to try it!
>
> Here are the physics:
>
> The trike, to get maximum weight on its mains for braking
> traction, has to keep its weight off the nose. We can use full up-
> elevator, but the presence of the nosewheel assures us that it will
> take some of the weight and that we cannot get the wing's AOA low
> enough to stop it lifting. The only advantage we have in the trike is
> the elevator's downforce added to the airplane's weight. Electric flas
> make it worse, since we can't retract them instantly to dump their
> lift.
>
> The taildragger can get its tail way up high. If you sit in the
> airplane while its tail is on a jack or some other support so that the
> airplane is in level attitude, you will be astounded at how nose-low
> it feels. Observe the propeller clearance in this position, too, and
> make some allowance for bouncing that might lower the prop closer to
> the runway. I used to do this with students who were afraid to raise
> the tail to level attitude, and they always amazed at the picture out
> the front.
> A taildragger with long legs, like a 185, can get its tail even
> higher than level. I've seen a shot of a Helio Courier with its tail
> up so that the fuselage was pointed downward at 5 or 10 degrees, and
> the pilot was braking hard. No lift at all in that scenario, and
> manual flaps can be retracted quickly to get even more weight on the
> wheels. Most taildraggers will have the main axles 15 degrees ahead of
> the airplane's CG, meaning that if you pick up the tail you can raise
> it until the airplane is at that 15 degree nose-low attitude and it
> will be balanced there. You'd better have lots of skill if you're
> going to try this in the rollout. Pilots of another humanitarian
> outfit that operated Helios did this all the time, since the Helio's
> short-field takeoff capabilities are of no use if you can't get into
> that short little strip and get stopped in the first place.
>
> Dan

You'd better go try a few. It works, believe me.

Dan

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Stealth Pilot > wrote in
:

> On Thu, 10 Jul 2008 07:54:50 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip >
> wrote:
>
wrote in
>>news:801c3098-d23a-4d31-a72c-9b93ad4e5339
@m45g2000hsb.googlegroups.com:
>>
>>> On Jul 9, 1:24 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>>
>>>> I still don't see it shortening the landing roll. Can't see the
>>>> physics that would make a wheel landing shorter. I'll just have to
>>>> try it!
>>>
>>> Here are the physics:
>>>
>>> The trike, to get maximum weight on its mains for braking
>>> traction, has to keep its weight off the nose. We can use full up-
>>> elevator, but the presence of the nosewheel assures us that it will
>>> take some of the weight and that we cannot get the wing's AOA low
>>> enough to stop it lifting. The only advantage we have in the trike
is
>>> the elevator's downforce added to the airplane's weight. Electric
flas
>>> make it worse, since we can't retract them instantly to dump their
>>> lift.
>>>
>>> The taildragger can get its tail way up high. If you sit in
the
>>> airplane while its tail is on a jack or some other support so that
the
>>> airplane is in level attitude, you will be astounded at how nose-low
>>> it feels. Observe the propeller clearance in this position, too, and
>>> make some allowance for bouncing that might lower the prop closer to
>>> the runway. I used to do this with students who were afraid to raise
>>> the tail to level attitude, and they always amazed at the picture
out
>>> the front.
>>> A taildragger with long legs, like a 185, can get its tail even
>>> higher than level. I've seen a shot of a Helio Courier with its tail
>>> up so that the fuselage was pointed downward at 5 or 10 degrees, and
>>> the pilot was braking hard. No lift at all in that scenario, and
>>> manual flaps can be retracted quickly to get even more weight on the
>>> wheels. Most taildraggers will have the main axles 15 degrees ahead
of
>>> the airplane's CG, meaning that if you pick up the tail you can
raise
>>> it until the airplane is at that 15 degree nose-low attitude and it
>>> will be balanced there. You'd better have lots of skill if you're
>>> going to try this in the rollout. Pilots of another humanitarian
>>> outfit that operated Helios did this all the time, since the Helio's
>>> short-field takeoff capabilities are of no use if you can't get into
>>> that short little strip and get stopped in the first place.
>>>
>>
>>Oh, I can do it, but I don't see it giving you any more braking. Quite
>>the contrary. A given braking force will apply a rotational force
around
>>the airplane's gear. In the three point attitude, you've got more of
the
>>airpane sitting behind the gear, so more braking should be available.
>>Also, if you touch down in the same spot three point as opposed to
doing
>>a wheel landing, you should have touched down with less airspeed.
>>Therefore less energy to kill.
>>For the sake of argument, let's say that you touched down at the same
>>speed, though, and that you are now tail high. It would want to be
very
>>high indeed to contribute the same amount of aerodynamic drag as the
>>three point attitude. OK, your Cf is a bit better because of the extra
>>weight on the wheels, but since the limiting factor is nosing the
>>airplane over as opposed to achieving max Cf that's irrelevant.
>>
>>
>>Bertie
>
> the wings stop an aircraft more effectively than tiny brake pucks.
> thats why 3 pointing it achieves the shortest landing.
> the actual landing speed is lower and the wing is generating lotsa
> induced drag on the backside of the performance curve.
>
> I dont believe that getting rid of flaps shortens the landing.

Yeah, generally I agree. Depends on the airpalne, probably, but I can't
think of anything that would stop more quickly with the flaps up.
One of the things I found alarming in at least one old private pilot
course that was out there, I think it was the Jeppeson one, was advising
the pilot to push forward on the stick in a trike in order to shorten
the landing distance. The reasining was that it put more weight on the
wheels and allowed harder braking. In my experinece, if you are braking
that hard, the nosewheel is already pretty firmly on the ground and you
have enough braking already! Pushing would only put more weight on the
nosewheel at the expense of weight on the mains...
I've seen a lot of airline pilots do this, even though the Boeing
manuals specifically state to only relax up elevator enough to allow
good enough nosewheel contact in order to allow good steering.

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Stealth Pilot > wrote in
:

> On Wed, 9 Jul 2008 20:05:17 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip >
> wrote:
>
wrote in news:d1eb3b97-ebb8-48a2-8725-fa1dc2a50044
:
>>
>>> On Jul 8, 9:31*am, Stealth Pilot >
>>> wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 7 Jul 2008 05:43:30 -0700 (PDT), wrote:
>>>> >Other than the 'holier than thou' aspects of taildraggers and
their
>>>> >pilots, what are their real advantages? Has it to do with prop
>>>> >clearance on unimproved fields, or fatter mains being better in
that
>>>> >same environment? Does anyone know if, with the same level of
>>>> >experience pilots, they have a better or worse accident record
when
>>>> >compared to airplanes of the same general size that have the
>>tailwheel
>>>> >under the engine?
>>>>
>>>> statistics are that the introduction of the nose wheel
significantly
>>>> reduced accident rates.
>>>>
>>>> I flew nose wheel aircraft in my early years then did a tailwheel
>>>> endorsement in a bugger of an aircraft to land, the Auster.
>>>> Then I bough a Tailwind through a long convoluted process and have
>>>> flown it ever since.
>>>>
>>>> first misconception is that only tailwheel aircraft ground loop. if
>>>> you land on the nosewheel you can experience a far far more
viscious
>>>> ground loop than you'll ever see in a taildragger.
>>>>
>>>> your question on experience levels misses something.
>>>> taking a Cessna 150 as the datum point, an Auster is a quantum leap
>>>> harder to land and takeoff well. in the air both are superb to fly.
>>>> the tailwind is a quantum harder again to fly.
>>>> so what is lost in the details is that there arent as equally as
>>>> experienced pilots flying both. the taildragger pilot has had to
>>>> improve his general level of piloting considerably to appear
mediocre
>>>> in a taildragger.
>>>>
>>>> I love flying Cessnas, but having made the transition to Austers
and
>>>> the W8 Tailwind I simply wouldnt want to not fly the taildraggers.
>>>> Snicking the daisies in the flare in a taildragger on a grass strip
>>is
>>>> just the greatest satisfaction.
>>>>
>>>> btw keep that mooney of yours on the bitumen or you'll prang it.
>>>>
>>>> (now let me get this right. you are one of the first wave decoys
>>>> attacking this newsgroup arent you? )
>>>> Stealth Pilot
>>>
>>> I've no intention of landing my airplane on anything but hard
>>> surfaces, thanks. My taildragger time has been limited to a few
hours
>>> in a real Piper Cub, and that airplane does not do a good job in
>>> satisfying my mission requirements for GA (300 to 700 mile trips for
>>> business). As for your parenthetical remark -- I wonder what
>>> distortions in my posts you might have made to come to that
>>> conclusion?
>
> a bit of chaff sorting. you pass :-)
>
>>> The several M words and Bertie when diverted are doing a good enough
>>> job diluting the quality of this newsgroup.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Moi? I just poast.
>>
>>
>>Bertie
>
> the quality of the posts usually inversely proportional to the length
> before the sig line. yours are often the shortest.

That's just laziness..
>
> (it never occurred to me that you were not a white guy)


Me neither. I'd better check.

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

wrote in
:

> On Jul 9, 9:26 pm, wrote:
>> On Jul 9, 1:24 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>
>> > I still don't see it shortening the landing roll. Can't see the
>> > physics that would make a wheel landing shorter. I'll just have to
>> > try it!
>>
>> Here are the physics:
>>
>> The trike, to get maximum weight on its mains for braking
>> traction, has to keep its weight off the nose. We can use full up-
>> elevator, but the presence of the nosewheel assures us that it will
>> take some of the weight and that we cannot get the wing's AOA low
>> enough to stop it lifting. The only advantage we have in the trike is
>> the elevator's downforce added to the airplane's weight. Electric
>> flas make it worse, since we can't retract them instantly to dump
>> their lift.
>>
>> The taildragger can get its tail way up high. If you sit in the
>> airplane while its tail is on a jack or some other support so that
>> the airplane is in level attitude, you will be astounded at how
>> nose-low it feels. Observe the propeller clearance in this position,
>> too, and make some allowance for bouncing that might lower the prop
>> closer to the runway. I used to do this with students who were afraid
>> to raise the tail to level attitude, and they always amazed at the
>> picture out the front.
>> A taildragger with long legs, like a 185, can get its tail even
>> higher than level. I've seen a shot of a Helio Courier with its tail
>> up so that the fuselage was pointed downward at 5 or 10 degrees, and
>> the pilot was braking hard. No lift at all in that scenario, and
>> manual flaps can be retracted quickly to get even more weight on the
>> wheels. Most taildraggers will have the main axles 15 degrees ahead
>> of the airplane's CG, meaning that if you pick up the tail you can
>> raise it until the airplane is at that 15 degree nose-low attitude
>> and it will be balanced there. You'd better have lots of skill if
>> you're going to try this in the rollout. Pilots of another
>> humanitarian outfit that operated Helios did this all the time, since
>> the Helio's short-field takeoff capabilities are of no use if you
>> can't get into that short little strip and get stopped in the first
>> place.
>>
>> Dan
>
> You'd better go try a few. It works, believe me.


I will. I have done some very short field stuff and your's wouldn't be a
technique that would appeal! I'm going to try it if I ever get this
damned airplane flying, though..

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

"Stealth Pilot" > wrote in message
...
<...>
> the wings stop an aircraft more effectively than tiny brake pucks.
> thats why 3 pointing it achieves the shortest landing.
> the actual landing speed is lower and the wing is generating lotsa
> induced drag on the backside of the performance curve.
>
> I dont believe that getting rid of flaps shortens the landing.

My _experience_ has been that brakes slow you down faster than floating
along the runway waiting for a three point.

Get to the end of the runway at a reasonably slow speed, plant the mains,
use the brakes, and you will be stopped before you pass the numbers.

I am told, by someone who flew them for a living, that the shortest way to
stop a DC3 is wheel land, yoke FORWARD to put the tail up and generate
negitive lift to drive the mains down against the runway, and use lots of
brakes.

Of course, with tricycle gear, you don't have this sort of option.

--
Geoff
The Sea Hawk at Wow Way d0t Com
remove spaces and make the obvious substitutions to reply by mail
When immigration is outlawed, only outlaws will immigrate.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

"Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe" <The Sea Hawk @See My Sig.com> wrote in
:

> "Stealth Pilot" > wrote in message
> ...
> <...>
>> the wings stop an aircraft more effectively than tiny brake pucks.
>> thats why 3 pointing it achieves the shortest landing.
>> the actual landing speed is lower and the wing is generating lotsa
>> induced drag on the backside of the performance curve.
>>
>> I dont believe that getting rid of flaps shortens the landing.
>
> My _experience_ has been that brakes slow you down faster than
> floating along the runway waiting for a three point.

True, but you don't float if you want to land wiht little roll. Much of
your flare would have been accomplishded before you cross the fence.
>
> Get to the end of the runway at a reasonably slow speed, plant the
> mains, use the brakes, and you will be stopped before you pass the
> numbers.
>
> I am told, by someone who flew them for a living, that the shortest
> way to stop a DC3 is wheel land, yoke FORWARD to put the tail up and
> generate negitive lift to drive the mains down against the runway, and
> use lots of brakes.
>
> Of course, with tricycle gear, you don't have this sort of option.

True. I've flown DC 3s for a living and the reason you wheel it on is to
avoid blanking of the stab, though.
There's ample brake available to nose it over from three point, though,
so generating negative lift to plant the mains more firmly would
accompish nothing.


Bertie

[Stealth Pilot[_2_]]

On Fri, 11 Jul 2008 00:27:21 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip >
wrote:

>"Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe" <The Sea Hawk @See My Sig.com> wrote in
:
>
>> "Stealth Pilot" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> <...>
>>> the wings stop an aircraft more effectively than tiny brake pucks.
>>> thats why 3 pointing it achieves the shortest landing.
>>> the actual landing speed is lower and the wing is generating lotsa
>>> induced drag on the backside of the performance curve.
>>>
>>> I dont believe that getting rid of flaps shortens the landing.
>>
>> My _experience_ has been that brakes slow you down faster than
>> floating along the runway waiting for a three point.
>
>True, but you don't float if you want to land wiht little roll. Much of
>your flare would have been accomplishded before you cross the fence.
>>
>> Get to the end of the runway at a reasonably slow speed, plant the
>> mains, use the brakes, and you will be stopped before you pass the
>> numbers.
>>
>> I am told, by someone who flew them for a living, that the shortest
>> way to stop a DC3 is wheel land, yoke FORWARD to put the tail up and
>> generate negitive lift to drive the mains down against the runway, and
>> use lots of brakes.
>>
>> Of course, with tricycle gear, you don't have this sort of option.
>
>True. I've flown DC 3s for a living and the reason you wheel it on is to
>avoid blanking of the stab, though.
>There's ample brake available to nose it over from three point, though,
>so generating negative lift to plant the mains more firmly would
>accompish nothing.
>
>
>Bertie

what were they like to fly? the dak I mean.
it is one aircraft I'd really love to fly just to see what they were
like, having read Gann's masterpieces.
I had an old airline dak pilot as a customer once. he reckoned that
they were a really sweet aircraft to fly and lifting the tail on
takeoff was a non event.
Stealth Pilot

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Stealth Pilot > wrote in
:

> On Fri, 11 Jul 2008 00:27:21 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip >
> wrote:
>
>>"Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe" <The Sea Hawk @See My Sig.com> wrote in
:
>>
>>> "Stealth Pilot" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>> <...>
>>>> the wings stop an aircraft more effectively than tiny brake pucks.
>>>> thats why 3 pointing it achieves the shortest landing.
>>>> the actual landing speed is lower and the wing is generating lotsa
>>>> induced drag on the backside of the performance curve.
>>>>
>>>> I dont believe that getting rid of flaps shortens the landing.
>>>
>>> My _experience_ has been that brakes slow you down faster than
>>> floating along the runway waiting for a three point.
>>
>>True, but you don't float if you want to land wiht little roll. Much
of
>>your flare would have been accomplishded before you cross the fence.
>>>
>>> Get to the end of the runway at a reasonably slow speed, plant the
>>> mains, use the brakes, and you will be stopped before you pass the
>>> numbers.
>>>
>>> I am told, by someone who flew them for a living, that the shortest
>>> way to stop a DC3 is wheel land, yoke FORWARD to put the tail up and
>>> generate negitive lift to drive the mains down against the runway,
and
>>> use lots of brakes.
>>>
>>> Of course, with tricycle gear, you don't have this sort of option.
>>
>>True. I've flown DC 3s for a living and the reason you wheel it on is
to
>>avoid blanking of the stab, though.
>>There's ample brake available to nose it over from three point,
though,
>>so generating negative lift to plant the mains more firmly would
>>accompish nothing.
>>
>>
>>Bertie
>
> what were they like to fly? the dak I mean.

Aaargh! Only Brits call it a Dak.

It flies just lke a Cub. Really.
That's why it was such a success in WW2. You could take a 200 pilot and
stick him in it and he had a reasonable chance of surviving.
It's big and sluggish, but it does what it's told if you told it firmly.

> it is one aircraft I'd really love to fly just to see what they were
> like, having read Gann's masterpieces.
> I had an old airline dak pilot as a customer once. he reckoned that
> they were a really sweet aircraft to fly and lifting the tail on
> takeoff was a non event.

Yeah, it realy did fly just like a cub. Very slow in spite of what the
published figures say. About 120 knots or so.
You could three point it, but it had a problem in that the wing would
blank the stab near the stall causing a pitch down that would shove the
mains into the ground pretty firmly and a rather exciting bounce. You
could do it, but you had to have the mains about 1/4 inch or less above
the runway as you reached that point. That's why you see most of them
wheeling on. The Twin Beech was the same as were a lot of low wing
taildraggers. The three really was docile. Stall was low. About 60 IIRC
so it was approach category A. It was difficult to taxi in high winds
snce it tended to weathervane.
Single engine handlig was a piece of cake. It even climbed on one! It
had an interesting quirk if you got too much rudder in, though. The
balance are ahead of the hinge could be caught by the prop slipstream
and push the rudder against the stop. Not a huge problem since it's only
a bit more rudder than you'd have in anyway. The only way out was to
reduce power a bit and have both guys stick both feet on the high rudder
and push. The only other real gotcha was a runaway prop. It was a
problem common to all airplanes of the period. If you lost all oil it
wouldn't autofeather like a modern twin would. It would go into fine
pitch and rendered the airplane almost impossible to steer in a straight
line. I know someone who had this in a B-25 in the Med and they tried to
shoot the prop off. He ended up ditching and spent the duration in a POW
camp. It had hydraulic everything. Gear, flaps, boosted brakes, cowl
flaps, windshield wipers! There was a great big accumulator behind the
FO that looked like an old toilet header float and the system ran about
1200 psi. The flaps were split and only lowered the stall speed by 4
knots, but did increase the drag considerably so the approach could be
made more steeply. The gear was locked down by a spade that went through
the knee of the gear leg. There was a sepearte lock lover next to the
capatins seat on the floor for this known as the "dog's dick" The up and
down handle was just behind the FO on the bulkhead as was the flap
handle. One of the reasons the FAA won't certify turbine versions is
ecause you can't se the flap and gear handles without looking behind
you. The consider the turbine version to be a new type, ya see.
I realy likd flying it. At the time is was the biggest thing I'd ever
flown. It was impressive to watch a wing that long go up and down at my
whim. I much preferred flying thr Twin Beech though. Crisper to fly and
also much more demanding.


Bertie

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
...

Major bull**** snip ->
>
>
> Bertie
>

I don't know what book you are reading, but you just proved you have never
flown one, to anyone that really has.

What a crock.

[[email protected]]

> "Stealth Pilot" > wrote in message
> > the wings stop an aircraft more effectively than tiny brake pucks.
> > thats why 3 pointing it achieves the shortest landing.
> > the actual landing speed is lower and the wing is generating lotsa
> > induced drag on the backside of the performance curve.
>
> > I dont believe that getting rid of flaps shortens the landing.

On Jul 10, 4:28 pm, "Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe" <The Sea Hawk @See My
Sig.com> wrote:
> My _experience_ has been that brakes slow you down faster than floating
> along the runway waiting for a three point.

Exactly. The problem, Geoff, as many don't see it, is that a
three-point rollout has the wing at a high AOA. The wing does not stop
lifting just because the wheels are on the ground so that traction is
minimal, and aerodynamic braking diminishes by the square of the
airspeed---half the speed, one-quarter of the drag. So a three-point
touchdown does not allow immediate heavy braking, and since the speed
is still high the airplane covers lots of runway before the lift has
dropped to the point that the tires have enough traction for heavy
braking. If we wait for the drag to slow us down, that's what we'll
do: wait. And use up runway.
Raising the tail gets rid of lift and places weight on the
mains. Modulating brakes and elevator slows the airplane quickly right
from the touchdown point, noseover tendency being controlled with the
elevator. Once the airplane is slowed the tail is planted and braking
increased further if necessary, though the loss of elevator
effectiveness determines just how much brake one can use.
Until one tries it he has no idea what it feels like. There was
no way I could stop the 185 in anywhere near the same distance three-
point as I was able to do with the tail-high braking. I'm not talking
the normal wheel landing here; that requires a higher airspeed to
reduce AOA so that the tail is high to start with at touchdown. That
eats up runway. I'm talking minimum speed touchdown, which will be
close to the three-point attitude, if not tailwheel-first, and then
the tail is raised after touchdown to dump the lift.

Dan

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in
:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> Major bull**** snip ->
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>>
>
> I don't know what book you are reading, but you just proved you have
> never flown one, to anyone that really has.

Have I now?


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

wrote in news:85199077-5301-44e1-b3a7-
:

>
>> "Stealth Pilot" > wrote in message
>> > the wings stop an aircraft more effectively than tiny brake pucks.
>> > thats why 3 pointing it achieves the shortest landing.
>> > the actual landing speed is lower and the wing is generating lotsa
>> > induced drag on the backside of the performance curve.
>>
>> > I dont believe that getting rid of flaps shortens the landing.
>
> On Jul 10, 4:28 pm, "Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe" <The Sea Hawk @See My
> Sig.com> wrote:
>> My _experience_ has been that brakes slow you down faster than
floating
>> along the runway waiting for a three point.
>
> Exactly. The problem, Geoff, as many don't see it, is that a
> three-point rollout has the wing at a high AOA. The wing does not stop
> lifting just because the wheels are on the ground so that traction is
> minimal, and aerodynamic braking diminishes by the square of the
> airspeed---half the speed, one-quarter of the drag. So a three-point
> touchdown does not allow immediate heavy braking, and since the speed
> is still high the airplane covers lots of runway before the lift has
> dropped to the point that the tires have enough traction for heavy
> braking. If we wait for the drag to slow us down, that's what we'll
> do: wait. And use up runway.
> Raising the tail gets rid of lift and places weight on the
> mains. Modulating brakes and elevator slows the airplane quickly right
> from the touchdown point, noseover tendency being controlled with the
> elevator. Once the airplane is slowed the tail is planted and braking
> increased further if necessary, though the loss of elevator
> effectiveness determines just how much brake one can use.
> Until one tries it he has no idea what it feels like. There was
> no way I could stop the 185 in anywhere near the same distance three-
> point as I was able to do with the tail-high braking. I'm not talking
> the normal wheel landing here; that requires a higher airspeed to
> reduce AOA so that the tail is high to start with at touchdown. That
> eats up runway. I'm talking minimum speed touchdown, which will be
> close to the three-point attitude, if not tailwheel-first, and then
> the tail is raised after touchdown to dump the lift.

I'm still beting that with no float and max braking you;d still stop a
lot faster three point.


Bertie

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
...
>
> I'm still beting that with no float and max braking you;d still stop a
> lot faster three point.
>
>
> Bertie
>

No you're not, you're just trolling, or attempting it.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in news:VDMdk.20185$%q.8857
@newsfe24.lga:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> I'm still beting that with no float and max braking you;d still stop a
>> lot faster three point.
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>>
>
> No you're not, you're just trolling, or attempting it.
>

Nope.


and you're just acting the asshole, or attempting it.

Bertie

[[email protected]]

On Jul 11, 1:15*pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> wrote in news:85199077-5301-44e1-b3a7-
> :
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >> "Stealth Pilot" > wrote in message
> >> > the wings stop an aircraft more effectively than tiny brake pucks.
> >> > thats why 3 pointing it achieves the shortest landing.
> >> > the actual landing speed is lower and the wing is generating lotsa
> >> > induced drag on the backside of the performance curve.
>
> >> > I dont believe that getting rid of flaps shortens the landing.
>
> > On Jul 10, 4:28 pm, "Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe" <The Sea Hawk @See My
> > Sig.com> wrote:
> >> My _experience_ has been that brakes slow you down faster than
> floating
> >> along the runway waiting for a three point.
>
> > * * * * Exactly. The problem, Geoff, as many don't see it, is that a
> > three-point rollout has the wing at a high AOA. The wing does not stop
> > lifting just because the wheels are on the ground so that traction is
> > minimal, and aerodynamic braking diminishes by the square of the
> > airspeed---half the speed, one-quarter of the drag. So a three-point
> > touchdown does not allow immediate heavy braking, and since the speed
> > is still high the airplane covers lots of runway before the lift has
> > dropped to the point that the tires have enough traction for heavy
> > braking. If we wait for the drag to slow us down, that's what we'll
> > do: wait. And use up runway.
> > * * * Raising the tail gets rid of lift and places weight on the
> > mains. Modulating brakes and elevator slows the airplane quickly right
> > from the touchdown point, noseover tendency being controlled with the
> > elevator. Once the airplane is slowed the tail is planted and braking
> > increased further if necessary, though the loss of elevator
> > effectiveness determines just how much brake one can use.
> > * * * *Until one tries it he has no idea what it feels like. There was
> > no way I could stop the 185 in anywhere near the same distance three-
> > point as I was able to do with the tail-high braking. I'm not talking
> > the normal wheel landing here; that requires a higher airspeed to
> > reduce AOA so that the tail is high to start with at touchdown. That
> > eats up runway. I'm *talking minimum speed touchdown, which will be
> > close to the three-point attitude, if not tailwheel-first, and then
> > the tail is raised after touchdown to dump the lift.
>
> I'm still beting that with no float and max braking you;d still stop a
> lot faster three point.
>
> Bertie

Well, three pointing it means you're going as slowly as you can --
guts football would be to have it hanging by the props and touch down
tail first -- so when it's on the ground it's done flying, and
breaking should be effective. Did the 3's props have a beta setting?
With Reverse pitch the damned thing would probably stop short of the
numbers!

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

wrote in news:47b87223-e8df-49d1-a167-6efa72157885
@c58g2000hsc.googlegroups.com:

>
> Well, three pointing it means you're going as slowly as you can --
> guts football would be to have it hanging by the props and touch down
> tail first -- so when it's on the ground it's done flying, and
> breaking should be effective. Did the 3's props have a beta setting?
> With Reverse pitch the damned thing would probably stop short of the
> numbers!

No, it didn't have beta or reverse. Only the larger piston trikes had that
for the most part.
I'm intrigued by the wheel landing shorter concept, but I'll have to try
it for myself. I'll only have one taildraggr to do it with, bu tI will be
flying out of some very short fields so if there's an advantage I'd use it.


Bertie

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
...
> wrote in news:47b87223-e8df-49d1-a167-6efa72157885
> @c58g2000hsc.googlegroups.com:
>
>>
>> Well, three pointing it means you're going as slowly as you can --
>> guts football would be to have it hanging by the props and touch down
>> tail first -- so when it's on the ground it's done flying, and
>> breaking should be effective. Did the 3's props have a beta setting?
>> With Reverse pitch the damned thing would probably stop short of the
>> numbers!
>
> No, it didn't have beta or reverse. Only the larger piston trikes had that
> for the most part.
> I'm intrigued by the wheel landing shorter concept, but I'll have to try
> it for myself. I'll only have one taildraggr to do it with, bu tI will be
> flying out of some very short fields so if there's an advantage I'd use
> it.
>
>
> Bertie
>

So thrill us with you knowledge. How short can you stop an empty DC-3 on dry
asphalt?

[Marty Shapiro]

Stealth Pilot > wrote in
:

> what were they like to fly? the dak I mean.
> it is one aircraft I'd really love to fly just to see what they were
> like, having read Gann's masterpieces.
> I had an old airline dak pilot as a customer once. he reckoned that
> they were a really sweet aircraft to fly and lifting the tail on
> takeoff was a non event.
> Stealth Pilot
>

Why not fly one and see for yourself?

See http://www.incredible-adventures.com/dc3.html

Or, you can go all the way and get a DC-3 type rating added to your
certificate at http://www.douglasdc3.com/

I'm sure there must be some places closer to you.

(No, I haven't done either of these, but it's fun to think about!)

--
Marty Shapiro
Silicon Rallye Inc.

(remove SPAMNOT to email me)

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in
:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> ...
>> wrote in news:47b87223-e8df-49d1-a167-6efa72157885
>> @c58g2000hsc.googlegroups.com:
>>
>>>
>>> Well, three pointing it means you're going as slowly as you can --
>>> guts football would be to have it hanging by the props and touch
>>> down tail first -- so when it's on the ground it's done flying, and
>>> breaking should be effective. Did the 3's props have a beta setting?
>>> With Reverse pitch the damned thing would probably stop short of the
>>> numbers!
>>
>> No, it didn't have beta or reverse. Only the larger piston trikes had
>> that for the most part.
>> I'm intrigued by the wheel landing shorter concept, but I'll have to
>> try it for myself. I'll only have one taildraggr to do it with, bu tI
>> will be flying out of some very short fields so if there's an
>> advantage I'd use it.
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>>
>
> So thrill us with you knowledge. How short can you stop an empty DC-3
> on dry asphalt?

Why? You'll never fly one, luser boi.

But for anyone else who would like to try it, less than 2,000 feet at
MLW.



Bertie

[Kadaitcha Man[_2_]]

Bertie the Bunyip, ye rank don worm, goodness is poison to your stomach,
ye disputed:

> "Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in
> :
>
>>
>> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> wrote in news:47b87223-e8df-49d1-a167-6efa72157885
>>> @c58g2000hsc.googlegroups.com:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Well, three pointing it means you're going as slowly as you can --
>>>> guts football would be to have it hanging by the props and touch
>>>> down tail first -- so when it's on the ground it's done flying, and
>>>> breaking should be effective. Did the 3's props have a beta setting?
>>>> With Reverse pitch the damned thing would probably stop short of the
>>>> numbers!
>>>
>>> No, it didn't have beta or reverse. Only the larger piston trikes had
>>> that for the most part.
>>> I'm intrigued by the wheel landing shorter concept, but I'll have to
>>> try it for myself. I'll only have one taildraggr to do it with, bu tI
>>> will be flying out of some very short fields so if there's an
>>> advantage I'd use it.
>>>
>>>
>>> Bertie
>>>
>>
>> So thrill us with you knowledge. How short can you stop an empty DC-3
>> on dry asphalt?
>
> Why? You'll never fly one, luser boi.
>
> But for anyone else who would like to try it, less than 2,000 feet at
> MLW.


And much less than that if you come in at a 90 degree angle.

--
Hammer of Thor: February 2007. Pierre Salinger Memorial Hook,
Line & Sinker: September 2005, April 2006, January 2007.
Official Member: Cabal Obsidian Order COOSN-124-07-06660
Official Overseer of Kooks & Trolls in 24hoursupport.helpdesk

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Kadaitcha Man" > wrote in news:eklxir
:

> Bertie the Bunyip, ye rank don worm, goodness is poison to your
stomach,
> ye disputed:
>
>> "Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in
>> :
>>
>>>
>>> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> wrote in news:47b87223-e8df-49d1-a167-
6efa72157885
>>>> @c58g2000hsc.googlegroups.com:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Well, three pointing it means you're going as slowly as you can --
>>>>> guts football would be to have it hanging by the props and touch
>>>>> down tail first -- so when it's on the ground it's done flying,
and
>>>>> breaking should be effective. Did the 3's props have a beta
setting?
>>>>> With Reverse pitch the damned thing would probably stop short of
the
>>>>> numbers!
>>>>
>>>> No, it didn't have beta or reverse. Only the larger piston trikes
had
>>>> that for the most part.
>>>> I'm intrigued by the wheel landing shorter concept, but I'll have
to
>>>> try it for myself. I'll only have one taildraggr to do it with, bu
tI
>>>> will be flying out of some very short fields so if there's an
>>>> advantage I'd use it.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Bertie
>>>>
>>>
>>> So thrill us with you knowledge. How short can you stop an empty DC-
3
>>> on dry asphalt?
>>
>> Why? You'll never fly one, luser boi.
>>
>> But for anyone else who would like to try it, less than 2,000 feet at
>> MLW.
>
>
> And much less than that if you come in at a 90 degree angle.
>
Or if you land directly against the terminal.

Bertie

[mariposas rand mair fheal]

In article >,
Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:

> "Kadaitcha Man" > wrote in news:eklxir
> :
>
> > Bertie the Bunyip, ye rank don worm, goodness is poison to your
> stomach,
> > ye disputed:
> >
> >> "Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in
> >> :
> >>
> >>>
> >>> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> >>> ...
> >>>> wrote in news:47b87223-e8df-49d1-a167-
> 6efa72157885
> >>>> @c58g2000hsc.googlegroups.com:
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Well, three pointing it means you're going as slowly as you can --
> >>>>> guts football would be to have it hanging by the props and touch
> >>>>> down tail first -- so when it's on the ground it's done flying,
> and
> >>>>> breaking should be effective. Did the 3's props have a beta
> setting?
> >>>>> With Reverse pitch the damned thing would probably stop short of
> the
> >>>>> numbers!
> >>>>
> >>>> No, it didn't have beta or reverse. Only the larger piston trikes
> had
> >>>> that for the most part.
> >>>> I'm intrigued by the wheel landing shorter concept, but I'll have
> to
> >>>> try it for myself. I'll only have one taildraggr to do it with, bu
> tI
> >>>> will be flying out of some very short fields so if there's an
> >>>> advantage I'd use it.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Bertie
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> So thrill us with you knowledge. How short can you stop an empty DC-
> 3
> >>> on dry asphalt?
> >>
> >> Why? You'll never fly one, luser boi.
> >>
> >> But for anyone else who would like to try it, less than 2,000 feet at
> >> MLW.
> >
> >
> > And much less than that if you come in at a 90 degree angle.
> >
> Or if you land directly against the terminal.

a terminal terminal approach?

arf meow arf - raggedy ann and andy for president and vice
limp and spineless lint for brains is better yet and nice
then rueing pair of shrub and dick the republican lice
call me desdenova seven seven seven seven seven seven

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

mariposas rand mair fheal > wrote in
:

> In article >,
> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
>> "Kadaitcha Man" > wrote in news:eklxir
>> :
>>
>> > Bertie the Bunyip, ye rank don worm, goodness is poison to your
>> stomach,
>> > ye disputed:
>> >
>> >> "Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in
>> >> :
>> >>
>> >>>
>> >>> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
>> >>> ...
>> >>>> wrote in news:47b87223-e8df-49d1-a167-
>> 6efa72157885
>> >>>> @c58g2000hsc.googlegroups.com:
>> >>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Well, three pointing it means you're going as slowly as you can
--
>> >>>>> guts football would be to have it hanging by the props and
touch
>> >>>>> down tail first -- so when it's on the ground it's done flying,
>> and
>> >>>>> breaking should be effective. Did the 3's props have a beta
>> setting?
>> >>>>> With Reverse pitch the damned thing would probably stop short
of
>> the
>> >>>>> numbers!
>> >>>>
>> >>>> No, it didn't have beta or reverse. Only the larger piston
trikes
>> had
>> >>>> that for the most part.
>> >>>> I'm intrigued by the wheel landing shorter concept, but I'll
have
>> to
>> >>>> try it for myself. I'll only have one taildraggr to do it with,
bu
>> tI
>> >>>> will be flying out of some very short fields so if there's an
>> >>>> advantage I'd use it.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Bertie
>> >>>>
>> >>>
>> >>> So thrill us with you knowledge. How short can you stop an empty
DC-
>> 3
>> >>> on dry asphalt?
>> >>
>> >> Why? You'll never fly one, luser boi.
>> >>
>> >> But for anyone else who would like to try it, less than 2,000 feet
at
>> >> MLW.
>> >
>> >
>> > And much less than that if you come in at a 90 degree angle.
>> >
>> Or if you land directly against the terminal.
>
> a terminal terminal approach?


Still beats flying SW


Bertie

[JanBen Hëlmüt]

On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 09:10:51 +0200, Bertie the Bunyip wrote
(in article >):

> "Kadaitcha Man" > wrote in news:eklxir
> :
>
>> Bertie the Bunyip, ye rank don worm, goodness is poison to your
> stomach,
>> ye disputed:
>>
>>> "Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in
>>> :
>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> wrote in news:47b87223-e8df-49d1-a167-
> 6efa72157885
>>>>> @c58g2000hsc.googlegroups.com:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Well, three pointing it means you're going as slowly as you can --
>>>>>> guts football would be to have it hanging by the props and touch
>>>>>> down tail first -- so when it's on the ground it's done flying,
> and
>>>>>> breaking should be effective. Did the 3's props have a beta
> setting?
>>>>>> With Reverse pitch the damned thing would probably stop short of
> the
>>>>>> numbers!
>>>>>
>>>>> No, it didn't have beta or reverse. Only the larger piston trikes
> had
>>>>> that for the most part.
>>>>> I'm intrigued by the wheel landing shorter concept, but I'll have
> to
>>>>> try it for myself. I'll only have one taildraggr to do it with, bu
> tI
>>>>> will be flying out of some very short fields so if there's an
>>>>> advantage I'd use it.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Bertie
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So thrill us with you knowledge. How short can you stop an empty DC-
> 3
>>>> on dry asphalt?
>>>
>>> Why? You'll never fly one, luser boi.
>>>
>>> But for anyone else who would like to try it, less than 2,000 feet at
>>> MLW.
>>
>>
>> And much less than that if you come in at a 90 degree angle.
>>
> Or if you land directly against the terminal.
>
> Bertie
>

WTF, am i in kiddie land?

-- ‹-- ‹-- ‹-- ‹-- ‹-- ‹-- ‹-- ‹-- ‹
Brutality Personified

http://www.asshelmets.com/

http://thetrolls.net/phpbb/

http://www.trollvalhalla.com/

[More_Flaps]

On Jul 12, 6:03*am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> wrote in news:47b87223-e8df-49d1-a167-6efa72157885
> @c58g2000hsc.googlegroups.com:
>
>
>
> > Well, three pointing it means you're going as slowly as you can --
> > guts football would be to have it hanging by the props and touch down
> > tail first -- so when it's on the ground it's done flying, and
> > breaking should be effective. Did the 3's props have a beta setting?
> > With Reverse pitch the damned thing would probably stop short of the
> > numbers!
>
> No, it didn't have beta or reverse. Only the larger piston trikes had that
> for the most part.
> I'm intrigued by the *wheel landing shorter concept, but I'll have to try
> it for myself. I'll only have one taildraggr to do it with, bu tI will be
> flying out of some very short fields so if there's an advantage I'd use it.

[Stealth Pilot[_2_]]

On Fri, 11 Jul 2008 09:46:09 -0500, "Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net>
wrote:

>
>"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
...
>
>Major bull**** snip ->
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>>
>
>I don't know what book you are reading, but you just proved you have never
>flown one, to anyone that really has.
>
>What a crock.
>

pray tell. what have you ever flown maxie?????

Stealth Pilot

[Stealth Pilot[_2_]]

On Fri, 11 Jul 2008 11:20:42 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip >
wrote:


>>
>> what were they like to fly? the dak I mean.
>
>Aaargh! Only Brits call it a Dak.
>
Ok I'll call it a Gooney Bird.

on the ground handling were they sensitive to tyre pressures?

I've only ever sat in a gooney bird pilot's seat once. I was just
amazed at how little space they had up front.


>reduce power a bit and have both guys stick both feet on the high rudder
>and push. The only other real gotcha was a runaway prop. It was a
>problem common to all airplanes of the period. If you lost all oil it
>wouldn't autofeather like a modern twin would. It would go into fine

a friend of mine who used to post as "V1...oops" had that happen to
him on takeoff out of Sydney. you can see the accident write up in the
ATSB case logs. its the DC3 that ditched into Sydney harbour.
he thinks the investigations were done by absolute pricks.

thanks for the notes. I think I need to start buying lottery tickets
again...

Stealth Pilot

[Stealth Pilot[_2_]]

On Fri, 11 Jul 2008 22:36:42 GMT, Marty Shapiro
> wrote:

>Stealth Pilot > wrote in
:
>
>> what were they like to fly? the dak I mean.
>> it is one aircraft I'd really love to fly just to see what they were
>> like, having read Gann's masterpieces.
>> I had an old airline dak pilot as a customer once. he reckoned that
>> they were a really sweet aircraft to fly and lifting the tail on
>> takeoff was a non event.
>> Stealth Pilot
>>
>
>Why not fly one and see for yourself?
>
>See http://www.incredible-adventures.com/dc3.html
>
>Or, you can go all the way and get a DC-3 type rating added to your
>certificate at http://www.douglasdc3.com/
>
>I'm sure there must be some places closer to you.
>
>(No, I haven't done either of these, but it's fun to think about!)

$aus6,000 to fill the tanks with avgas!
thats an enthusiasts aeroplane.

the bugger is that in not being an american citizen it isnt available
to me. or is it....

marty that's very interesting. thats blown the next few nights :-)
Stealth Pilot

[Stealth Pilot[_2_]]

On Fri, 11 Jul 2008 08:18:38 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

>
>> "Stealth Pilot" > wrote in message
>> > the wings stop an aircraft more effectively than tiny brake pucks.
>> > thats why 3 pointing it achieves the shortest landing.
>> > the actual landing speed is lower and the wing is generating lotsa
>> > induced drag on the backside of the performance curve.
>>
>> > I dont believe that getting rid of flaps shortens the landing.
>
>On Jul 10, 4:28 pm, "Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe" <The Sea Hawk @See My
>Sig.com> wrote:
>> My _experience_ has been that brakes slow you down faster than floating
>> along the runway waiting for a three point.
>
> Exactly. The problem, Geoff, as many don't see it, is that a
>three-point rollout has the wing at a high AOA. The wing does not stop
>lifting just because the wheels are on the ground so that traction is
>minimal, and aerodynamic braking diminishes by the square of the
>airspeed---half the speed, one-quarter of the drag. So a three-point
>touchdown does not allow immediate heavy braking, and since the speed
>is still high the airplane covers lots of runway before the lift has
>dropped to the point that the tires have enough traction for heavy
>braking. If we wait for the drag to slow us down, that's what we'll
>do: wait. And use up runway.
> Raising the tail gets rid of lift and places weight on the
>mains. Modulating brakes and elevator slows the airplane quickly right
>from the touchdown point, noseover tendency being controlled with the
>elevator. Once the airplane is slowed the tail is planted and braking
>increased further if necessary, though the loss of elevator
>effectiveness determines just how much brake one can use.
> Until one tries it he has no idea what it feels like. There was
>no way I could stop the 185 in anywhere near the same distance three-
>point as I was able to do with the tail-high braking. I'm not talking
>the normal wheel landing here; that requires a higher airspeed to
>reduce AOA so that the tail is high to start with at touchdown. That
>eats up runway. I'm talking minimum speed touchdown, which will be
>close to the three-point attitude, if not tailwheel-first, and then
>the tail is raised after touchdown to dump the lift.
>
> Dan

that's called a tail low wheeler.

[[email protected]]

On Jul 12, 3:10*am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> "Kadaitcha Man" > wrote in news:eklxir
> :
>
>
>
> > Bertie the Bunyip, ye rank don worm, goodness is poison to your
> stomach,
> > ye disputed:
>
> >> "Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in
> :
>
> >>> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>>> wrote in news:47b87223-e8df-49d1-a167-
> 6efa72157885
> >>>> @c58g2000hsc.googlegroups.com:
>
> >>>>> Well, three pointing it means you're going as slowly as you can --
> >>>>> guts football would be to have it hanging by the props and touch
> >>>>> down tail first -- so when it's on the ground it's done flying,
> and
> >>>>> breaking should be effective. Did the 3's props have a beta
> setting?
> >>>>> With Reverse pitch the damned thing would probably stop short of
> the
> >>>>> numbers!
>
> >>>> No, it didn't have beta or reverse. Only the larger piston trikes
> had
> >>>> that for the most part.
> >>>> I'm intrigued by the *wheel landing shorter concept, but I'll have
> to
> >>>> try it for myself. I'll only have one taildraggr to do it with, bu
> tI
> >>>> will be flying out of some very short fields so if there's an
> >>>> advantage I'd use it.
>
> >>>> Bertie
>
> >>> So thrill us with you knowledge. How short can you stop an empty DC-
> 3
> >>> on dry asphalt?
>
> >> Why? You'll never fly one, luser boi.
>
> >> But for anyone else who would like to try it, less than 2,000 feet at
> >> MLW.
>
> > And much less than that if you come in at a 90 degree angle.
>
> Or if you land directly against the terminal.
>
> Bertie

I think a routine preplanned short field successful landing is one
where the airplane can be reused. Unplanned ones are successful if no
one is badly hurt.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Stealth Pilot > wrote in
:

> On Fri, 11 Jul 2008 11:20:42 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip >
> wrote:
>
>
>>>
>>> what were they like to fly? the dak I mean.
>>
>>Aaargh! Only Brits call it a Dak.
>>
> Ok I'll call it a Gooney Bird.
>

Better!

The Dakota name was only used on the ones built for the Brits AFAIK and
I don't think any of those are still flying in any case. Almost all the
ones flying are war built C-47s, some converted to DC-3 spec. The
differences up front between types are small, though.


> on the ground handling were they sensitive to tyre pressures?

No idea! Hopefully thye kept the pressures correct! But I wouldn't
think so. It was a sensitive airplane.
>
> I've only ever sat in a gooney bird pilot's seat once. I was just
> amazed at how little space they had up front.

It was OK. About the same as you have in a 737, anyway!
>
>
>>reduce power a bit and have both guys stick both feet on the high
rudder
>>and push. The only other real gotcha was a runaway prop. It was a
>>problem common to all airplanes of the period. If you lost all oil it
>>wouldn't autofeather like a modern twin would. It would go into fine
>
> a friend of mine who used to post as "V1...oops" had that happen to
> him on takeoff out of Sydney. you can see the accident write up in the
> ATSB case logs. its the DC3 that ditched into Sydney harbour.
> he thinks the investigations were done by absolute pricks.

I'll have a look.
>
> thanks for the notes. I think I need to start buying lottery tickets
> again...

Heh heh. Would be a lot of fun to have. You'd need to win a lot to keep
it flying, though. About 90 USG/hour..

Bertie
>

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Stealth Pilot > wrote in
:

> On Fri, 11 Jul 2008 08:18:38 -0700 (PDT),
> wrote:
>
>>
>>> "Stealth Pilot" > wrote in message
>>> > the wings stop an aircraft more effectively than tiny brake pucks.
>>> > thats why 3 pointing it achieves the shortest landing.
>>> > the actual landing speed is lower and the wing is generating lotsa
>>> > induced drag on the backside of the performance curve.
>>>
>>> > I dont believe that getting rid of flaps shortens the landing.
>>
>>On Jul 10, 4:28 pm, "Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe" <The Sea Hawk @See My
>>Sig.com> wrote:
>>> My _experience_ has been that brakes slow you down faster than
floating
>>> along the runway waiting for a three point.
>>
>> Exactly. The problem, Geoff, as many don't see it, is that a
>>three-point rollout has the wing at a high AOA. The wing does not stop
>>lifting just because the wheels are on the ground so that traction is
>>minimal, and aerodynamic braking diminishes by the square of the
>>airspeed---half the speed, one-quarter of the drag. So a three-point
>>touchdown does not allow immediate heavy braking, and since the speed
>>is still high the airplane covers lots of runway before the lift has
>>dropped to the point that the tires have enough traction for heavy
>>braking. If we wait for the drag to slow us down, that's what we'll
>>do: wait. And use up runway.
>> Raising the tail gets rid of lift and places weight on the
>>mains. Modulating brakes and elevator slows the airplane quickly right
>>from the touchdown point, noseover tendency being controlled with the
>>elevator. Once the airplane is slowed the tail is planted and braking
>>increased further if necessary, though the loss of elevator
>>effectiveness determines just how much brake one can use.
>> Until one tries it he has no idea what it feels like. There was
>>no way I could stop the 185 in anywhere near the same distance three-
>>point as I was able to do with the tail-high braking. I'm not talking
>>the normal wheel landing here; that requires a higher airspeed to
>>reduce AOA so that the tail is high to start with at touchdown. That
>>eats up runway. I'm talking minimum speed touchdown, which will be
>>close to the three-point attitude, if not tailwheel-first, and then
>>the tail is raised after touchdown to dump the lift.
>>
>> Dan
>
> that's called a tail low wheeler.
>

Those are the only kind I usually do. I've always felt the other kind ae
not the best technique..


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

wrote in news:9d5fff30-a958-4e21-b98d-767e85f45756
@k37g2000hsf.googlegroups.com:

> On Jul 12, 3:10*am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> "Kadaitcha Man" > wrote in news:eklxir
>> :
>>
>>
>>
>> > Bertie the Bunyip, ye rank don worm, goodness is poison to your
>> stomach,
>> > ye disputed:
>>
>> >> "Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in
>> :
>>
>> >>> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >>>> wrote in news:47b87223-e8df-49d1-a167-
>> 6efa72157885
>> >>>> @c58g2000hsc.googlegroups.com:
>>
>> >>>>> Well, three pointing it means you're going as slowly as you can
--
>> >>>>> guts football would be to have it hanging by the props and
touch
>> >>>>> down tail first -- so when it's on the ground it's done flying,
>> and
>> >>>>> breaking should be effective. Did the 3's props have a beta
>> setting?
>> >>>>> With Reverse pitch the damned thing would probably stop short
of
>> the
>> >>>>> numbers!
>>
>> >>>> No, it didn't have beta or reverse. Only the larger piston
trikes
>> had
>> >>>> that for the most part.
>> >>>> I'm intrigued by the *wheel landing shorter concept, but I'll
have
>> to
>> >>>> try it for myself. I'll only have one taildraggr to do it with,
bu
>> tI
>> >>>> will be flying out of some very short fields so if there's an
>> >>>> advantage I'd use it.
>>
>> >>>> Bertie
>>
>> >>> So thrill us with you knowledge. How short can you stop an empty
DC-
>> 3
>> >>> on dry asphalt?
>>
>> >> Why? You'll never fly one, luser boi.
>>
>> >> But for anyone else who would like to try it, less than 2,000 feet
at
>> >> MLW.
>>
>> > And much less than that if you come in at a 90 degree angle.
>>
>> Or if you land directly against the terminal.
>>
>> Bertie
>
> I think a routine preplanned short field successful landing is one
> where the airplane can be reused. Unplanned ones are successful if no
> one is badly hurt.


Or in Maxie's case, if they happen before he wakes up.

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

JanBen Hëlmüt > wrote in
lenet.be:

> On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 09:10:51 +0200, Bertie the Bunyip wrote
> (in article >):
>
>> "Kadaitcha Man" > wrote in news:eklxir
>> :
>>
>>> Bertie the Bunyip, ye rank don worm, goodness is poison to your
>> stomach,
>>> ye disputed:
>>>
>>>> "Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in
>>>> :
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
>>>>> ...
>>>>>> wrote in news:47b87223-e8df-49d1-a167-
>> 6efa72157885
>>>>>> @c58g2000hsc.googlegroups.com:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Well, three pointing it means you're going as slowly as you can
--
>>>>>>> guts football would be to have it hanging by the props and touch
>>>>>>> down tail first -- so when it's on the ground it's done flying,
>> and
>>>>>>> breaking should be effective. Did the 3's props have a beta
>> setting?
>>>>>>> With Reverse pitch the damned thing would probably stop short of
>> the
>>>>>>> numbers!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, it didn't have beta or reverse. Only the larger piston trikes
>> had
>>>>>> that for the most part.
>>>>>> I'm intrigued by the wheel landing shorter concept, but I'll
have
>> to
>>>>>> try it for myself. I'll only have one taildraggr to do it with,
bu
>> tI
>>>>>> will be flying out of some very short fields so if there's an
>>>>>> advantage I'd use it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Bertie
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> So thrill us with you knowledge. How short can you stop an empty
DC-
>> 3
>>>>> on dry asphalt?
>>>>
>>>> Why? You'll never fly one, luser boi.
>>>>
>>>> But for anyone else who would like to try it, less than 2,000 feet
at
>>>> MLW.
>>>
>>>
>>> And much less than that if you come in at a 90 degree angle.
>>>
>> Or if you land directly against the terminal.
>>
>> Bertie
>>
>
> WTF, am i in kiddie land?


Would you like to be?



Bertie

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
...
>
> Why? You'll never fly one, luser boi.
>
> But for anyone else who would like to try it, less than 2,000 feet at
> MLW.
>
>

Yeah right! Guess again lamer.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in news:km4ek.20327$%q.18054
@newsfe24.lga:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> Why? You'll never fly one, luser boi.
>>
>> But for anyone else who would like to try it, less than 2,000 feet at
>> MLW.
>>
>>
>
> Yeah right! Guess again lamer.


OK, how short can YOU land a DC-3?


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in news:zR6ek.20346$%q.3170
@newsfe24.lga:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> OK, how short can YOU land a DC-3?
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>
> Na, not yet. Let's see your next guess.
>
>
>
>

You can't land anything.


Bertie

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
...
>
> OK, how short can YOU land a DC-3?
>
>
> Bertie

Na, not yet. Let's see your next guess.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in news:IW6ek.20350$%q.15729
@newsfe24.lga:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> .. .
>> "Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in news:zR6ek.20346$%q.3170
>> @newsfe24.lga:
>>
>>>
>>> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>>
>>>> OK, how short can YOU land a DC-3?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Bertie
>>>
>>> Na, not yet. Let's see your next guess.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> You can't land anything.
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>
> Sure.
>
>
>

Good, admitting you're a useless **** is the first step.

Bertie

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
.. .
> "Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in news:zR6ek.20346$%q.3170
> @newsfe24.lga:
>
>>
>> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> OK, how short can YOU land a DC-3?
>>>
>>>
>>> Bertie
>>
>> Na, not yet. Let's see your next guess.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> You can't land anything.
>
>
> Bertie

Sure.

[Cubdriver]

On Mon, 7 Jul 2008 05:43:30 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

>Other than the 'holier than thou' aspects of taildraggers and their
>pilots, what are their real advantages?

Primarily, that making wheelies in a taildragger is flying (or anyhow
landing) as we always imagined it would be before we learned to fly.

Short takeoffs and landings are much shorter and easier in a
taildragger, especially if the field leaves something to be desired in
the way of smoothness.

Blue skies! -- Dan Ford

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

[Cubdriver]

On Mon, 7 Jul 2008 12:03:07 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

> If proficient, you can brake *harder* with the
>taildragger, depending.

Not with the Legend Cub, evidently. I'm told that 13 percent of the
Lima Charlies built to date have been nosed over.

Blue skies! -- Dan Ford

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

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Cubdriver <usenet AT danford DOT net> wrote in
:

> On Mon, 7 Jul 2008 12:03:07 -0700 (PDT),
> wrote:
>
>> If proficient, you can brake *harder* with the
>>taildragger, depending.
>
> Not with the Legend Cub, evidently. I'm told that 13 percent of the
> Lima Charlies built to date have been nosed over.

A considerably lower percentage than the orifinal cubs!

Give them time, though.


Bertie

[Cubdriver]

On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 20:10:47 +0800, Stealth Pilot
> wrote:

>
>$aus6,000 to fill the tanks with avgas!

There used to be a DC-3 at Hampton Airfield. Its alternate airport was
in Massachusetts. Whenever he took off, the owner used Runway 20
regardless of which way the wind was blowing because he didn't want to
spend the extra money to take off to the north and have to circle back
to the south.

Blue skies! -- Dan Ford

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

[Marty Shapiro]

Stealth Pilot > wrote in
:

> On Fri, 11 Jul 2008 22:36:42 GMT, Marty Shapiro
> > wrote:
>
>>Stealth Pilot > wrote in
:
>>
>>> what were they like to fly? the dak I mean.
>>> it is one aircraft I'd really love to fly just to see what they were
>>> like, having read Gann's masterpieces.
>>> I had an old airline dak pilot as a customer once. he reckoned that
>>> they were a really sweet aircraft to fly and lifting the tail on
>>> takeoff was a non event.
>>> Stealth Pilot
>>>
>>
>>Why not fly one and see for yourself?
>>
>>See http://www.incredible-adventures.com/dc3.html
>>
>>Or, you can go all the way and get a DC-3 type rating added to your
>>certificate at http://www.douglasdc3.com/
>>
>>I'm sure there must be some places closer to you.
>>
>>(No, I haven't done either of these, but it's fun to think about!)
>
> $aus6,000 to fill the tanks with avgas!
> thats an enthusiasts aeroplane.
>
> the bugger is that in not being an american citizen it isnt available
> to me. or is it....
>
> marty that's very interesting. thats blown the next few nights :-)
> Stealth Pilot

Stealth -

I believe it is now possible for a non-US citizen to get flight
training in the U.S., but there is a bunch of TSA BS you've got to go
through. The flight schools will know the drill and what it required.
There is an article on how a US company trained Mexican Air Force pilots
for DC-3 operations at
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa5342/is_200002/ai_n21451823

A quick Google search turned up 3 places in Australia which have DC-
3s. They need to get DC-3 pilots from somewhere and might know of a place
there which will let you purchase a DC-3 lesson.

http://www.onedge.com.au/adventures/product.php?productid=16199
http://virginblue.godo.com.au/activity/SJCH102/gift
http://www.shortstop.com.au/gooney.html

Enjoy.

--
Marty Shapiro
Silicon Rallye Inc.

(remove SPAMNOT to email me)

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

More_Flaps > wrote in
:

> On Jul 12, 6:03*am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> wrote in news:47b87223-e8df-49d1-a167-6efa72157885
>> @c58g2000hsc.googlegroups.com:
>>
>>
>>
>> > Well, three pointing it means you're going as slowly as you can --
>> > guts football would be to have it hanging by the props and touch
>> > down tail first -- so when it's on the ground it's done flying, and
>> > breaking should be effective. Did the 3's props have a beta
>> > setting? With Reverse pitch the damned thing would probably stop
>> > short of the numbers!
>>
>> No, it didn't have beta or reverse. Only the larger piston trikes had
>> tha
> t
>> for the most part.
>> I'm intrigued by the *wheel landing shorter concept, but I'll have to
>> t
> ry
>> it for myself. I'll only have one taildraggr to do it with, bu tI
>> will be flying out of some very short fields so if there's an
>> advantage I'd use i
> t.
>>
>
> It's true, you push the stick forward and stomp on the brakes. Much
> more downforce for braking than a 3 point

Maybe, but if the braking you have is sufficient to get the airplane's
tail up in the three point attitude, then the co-efficient of braking is
enough to rotate the airplane around the main wheels in either case. If
this is so, then thee is no more braking available anywa.
In the wheel landing scenario, there is more of the airplane on the
wrong side of the deceleration vector than there is in the three point
attitude. Simply put, you tip the airplane forward enough and the thing
will nose over by itself. And you're not too far from that tipping point
in a nose low attitude even with the aircraft static with many
taildraggers. This limits the amount of brake you may apply nose low
since the only thing acting against your braking is the horizontal stab
and whatever tiny bit of work gravty is accomplishing over deceleration.
In the 3 point attitude this vector is altered considerably, and more
brake can be applied than in the nose low scenario, providing the Cf is
enough and the brakes themselves are powerful enough, to raise the tail
from three point. In my experience, it usually is. If the surface is
slimy, like wet grass, applying more downforce will only increase the Cf
appreciably if you are managing to dig a few ruts!
This is the way I see it, but the proof is in the pudding. I'll just
have to try t at the next opportunity and decide for myself.

Bertie

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
...
>
> Maybe, but if the braking you have is sufficient to get the airplane's
> tail up in the three point attitude, then the co-efficient of braking is
> enough to rotate the airplane around the main wheels in either case. If
> this is so, then thee is no more braking available anywa.
> In the wheel landing scenario, there is more of the airplane on the
> wrong side of the deceleration vector than there is in the three point
> attitude. Simply put, you tip the airplane forward enough and the thing
> will nose over by itself. And you're not too far from that tipping point
> in a nose low attitude even with the aircraft static with many
> taildraggers. This limits the amount of brake you may apply nose low
> since the only thing acting against your braking is the horizontal stab
> and whatever tiny bit of work gravty is accomplishing over deceleration.
> In the 3 point attitude this vector is altered considerably, and more
> brake can be applied than in the nose low scenario, providing the Cf is
> enough and the brakes themselves are powerful enough, to raise the tail
> from three point. In my experience, it usually is. If the surface is
> slimy, like wet grass, applying more downforce will only increase the Cf
> appreciably if you are managing to dig a few ruts!
> This is the way I see it, but the proof is in the pudding. I'll just
> have to try t at the next opportunity and decide for myself.
>
> Bertie

You're totally full of ****.

[[email protected]]

On Jul 13, 11:07 pm, "Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote:
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in 8.18...
>
>
>
>
>
> > Maybe, but if the braking you have is sufficient to get the airplane's
> > tail up in the three point attitude, then the co-efficient of braking is
> > enough to rotate the airplane around the main wheels in either case. If
> > this is so, then thee is no more braking available anywa.
> > In the wheel landing scenario, there is more of the airplane on the
> > wrong side of the deceleration vector than there is in the three point
> > attitude. Simply put, you tip the airplane forward enough and the thing
> > will nose over by itself. And you're not too far from that tipping point
> > in a nose low attitude even with the aircraft static with many
> > taildraggers. This limits the amount of brake you may apply nose low
> > since the only thing acting against your braking is the horizontal stab
> > and whatever tiny bit of work gravty is accomplishing over deceleration.
> > In the 3 point attitude this vector is altered considerably, and more
> > brake can be applied than in the nose low scenario, providing the Cf is
> > enough and the brakes themselves are powerful enough, to raise the tail
> > from three point. In my experience, it usually is. If the surface is
> > slimy, like wet grass, applying more downforce will only increase the Cf
> > appreciably if you are managing to dig a few ruts!
> > This is the way I see it, but the proof is in the pudding. I'll just
> > have to try t at the next opportunity and decide for myself.
>
> > Bertie
>
> You're totally full of ****.

And you repeatedly demonstrate yourself to be a moron. At least MX
provides humor for the rest of us, you're a waste of bandwidth.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in news:pqzek.13942$Fj5.2750
@newsfe23.lga:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> Maybe, but if the braking you have is sufficient to get the
airplane's
>> tail up in the three point attitude, then the co-efficient of braking
is
>> enough to rotate the airplane around the main wheels in either case.
If
>> this is so, then thee is no more braking available anywa.
>> In the wheel landing scenario, there is more of the airplane on the
>> wrong side of the deceleration vector than there is in the three
point
>> attitude. Simply put, you tip the airplane forward enough and the
thing
>> will nose over by itself. And you're not too far from that tipping
point
>> in a nose low attitude even with the aircraft static with many
>> taildraggers. This limits the amount of brake you may apply nose low
>> since the only thing acting against your braking is the horizontal
stab
>> and whatever tiny bit of work gravty is accomplishing over
deceleration.
>> In the 3 point attitude this vector is altered considerably, and more
>> brake can be applied than in the nose low scenario, providing the Cf
is
>> enough and the brakes themselves are powerful enough, to raise the
tail
>> from three point. In my experience, it usually is. If the surface is
>> slimy, like wet grass, applying more downforce will only increase the
Cf
>> appreciably if you are managing to dig a few ruts!
>> This is the way I see it, but the proof is in the pudding. I'll just
>> have to try t at the next opportunity and decide for myself.
>>
>> Bertie
>
> You're totally full of ****.
>
>

Oh do tell us whow you do it, wannabe boi.



Bwawahwhahwhahwhahhwhahwhahwhahwhahwha!


Bertie
>

[Maxwell[_2_]]

> wrote in message
...
>
> And you repeatedly demonstrate yourself to be a moron. At least MX
> provides humor for the rest of us, you're a waste of bandwidth.

Sorry Robert, but if you find Mx entertaining, your are clearly the clueless
moron,,,or just another Burtie sock.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in
:

>
> > wrote in message
> ..
> .
>>
>> And you repeatedly demonstrate yourself to be a moron. At least MX
>> provides humor for the rest of us, you're a waste of bandwidth.
>
> Sorry Robert, but if you find Mx entertaining, your are clearly the
> clueless moron,,,or just another Burtie sock.
>
>
>
>
>

Well, we al find you entertaining, anyway!

Anthony has nowhere near your level of idiocy....



Bertie

[Maxwell[_2_]]

In article >, Bertie the
Bunyip says...

> "Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in
> :
>
> >
> > > wrote in message
> > ..
> > .
> >>
> >> And you repeatedly demonstrate yourself to be a moron. At least MX
> >> provides humor for the rest of us, you're a waste of bandwidth.
> >
> > Sorry Robert, but if you find Mx entertaining, your are clearly the
> > clueless moron,,,or just another Burtie sock.
>
> Well, we all find you entertaining, anyway!

At least those of us with an appreciation for Vogon poetry do

--

"Tis an ill wind that blows no minds"

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

Maxwell <luv2^fly99@live.^com> wrote in
:

> In article >, Bertie the
> Bunyip says...
>
>> "Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in
>> :
>>
>> >
>> > > wrote in message
>> >
>> > m.. .
>> >>
>> >> And you repeatedly demonstrate yourself to be a moron. At least MX
>> >> provides humor for the rest of us, you're a waste of bandwidth.
>> >
>> > Sorry Robert, but if you find Mx entertaining, your are clearly the
>> > clueless moron,,,or just another Burtie sock.
>>
>> Well, we all find you entertaining, anyway!
>
> At least those of us with an appreciation for Vogon poetry do
>

True... Now I'm depressed.



Bertie

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
...
> Maxwell <luv2^fly99@live.^com> wrote in
> :
>
>> In article >, Bertie the
>> Bunyip says...
>>
>>> "Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in
>>> :
>>>
>>> >
>>> > > wrote in message
>>> >
>>> > m.. .
>>> >>
>>> >> And you repeatedly demonstrate yourself to be a moron. At least MX
>>> >> provides humor for the rest of us, you're a waste of bandwidth.
>>> >
>>> > Sorry Robert, but if you find Mx entertaining, your are clearly the
>>> > clueless moron,,,or just another Burtie sock.
>>>
>>> Well, we all find you entertaining, anyway!
>>
>> At least those of us with an appreciation for Vogon poetry do
>>
>
> True... Now I'm depressed.
>
>
>
> Bertie

You were born depressed.

[[email protected]]

On Jul 14, 7:46*am, "Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote:
> > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>
>
> > And you repeatedly demonstrate yourself to be a moron. At least MX
> > provides humor for the rest of us, you're a waste of bandwidth.
>
> Sorry Robert, but if you find Mx entertaining, your are clearly the clueless
> moron,,,or just another Burtie sock.

Here's an instructive experiment for you, although you are unlikely to
do it, in that it might corrupt your opinion of yourself. Take a dozen
of typical MX postings, and a dozen of yours, and in as objective a
way as you can judge which are more intelligent or entertaining.

The most literate, although idiotic, sentence you've actually written
in a while is the one in which you characterize me a clueless moron.
Good going, keep it up, and with effort you'll reach Mx's level of
contribution of entertainment to the newsgroup. I know it'll be
difficult for you, but keep trying.

You might want to check to see if your health insurance cover mental
disorders.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in news:d9Jek.20353$oY2.12908
@newsfe21.lga:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Maxwell <luv2^fly99@live.^com> wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> In article >, Bertie the
>>> Bunyip says...
>>>
>>>> "Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in
>>>> :
>>>>
>>>> >
>>>> > > wrote in message
>>>> > news:ca2c5f4c-45b8-47a1-95c3-64caf332da1b@
79g2000hsk.googlegroups.co
>>>> > m.. .
>>>> >>
>>>> >> And you repeatedly demonstrate yourself to be a moron. At least
MX
>>>> >> provides humor for the rest of us, you're a waste of bandwidth.
>>>> >
>>>> > Sorry Robert, but if you find Mx entertaining, your are clearly
the
>>>> > clueless moron,,,or just another Burtie sock.
>>>>
>>>> Well, we all find you entertaining, anyway!
>>>
>>> At least those of us with an appreciation for Vogon poetry do
>>>
>>
>> True... Now I'm depressed.
>>
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>
> You were born depressed.

Oh ouch.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

wrote in
:

> On Jul 14, 7:46*am, "Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote:
>> > wrote in message
>>
>> news:ca2c5f4c-45b8-47a1-95c3-64caf332da1b@
79g2000hsk.googlegroups.com.
>> ..
>>
>>
>>
>> > And you repeatedly demonstrate yourself to be a moron. At least MX
>> > provides humor for the rest of us, you're a waste of bandwidth.
>>
>> Sorry Robert, but if you find Mx entertaining, your are clearly the
>> cluel
> ess
>> moron,,,or just another Burtie sock.
>
> Here's an instructive experiment for you, although you are unlikely to
> do it, in that it might corrupt your opinion of yourself. Take a dozen
> of typical MX postings, and a dozen of yours, and in as objective a
> way as you can judge which are more intelligent or entertaining.
>
> The most literate, although idiotic, sentence you've actually written
> in a while is the one in which you characterize me a clueless moron.
> Good going, keep it up, and with effort you'll reach Mx's level of
> contribution of entertainment to the newsgroup. I know it'll be
> difficult for you, but keep trying.
>
> You might want to check to see if your health insurance cover mental
> disorders.
>

I think he;s a hoot!

You don't find k00ks of this quality every day of the week, ya know.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

gregvk > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote in news:g5ik79$p5l$2
> @blackhelicopter.databasix.com:
>
>> wrote in
>> news:c10f174f-35be-43f8-9f11-c392f6045853
@j22g2000hsf.googlegroups.com:
>>
>>> On Jul 14, 7:46*am, "Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote:
>>>> > wrote in message
>>>>
>>>> news:ca2c5f4c-45b8-47a1-95c3-64caf332da1b@
>> 79g2000hsk.googlegroups.com.
>>>> ..
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> > And you repeatedly demonstrate yourself to be a moron. At least
MX
>>>> > provides humor for the rest of us, you're a waste of bandwidth.
>>>>
>>>> Sorry Robert, but if you find Mx entertaining, your are clearly the
>>>> cluel
>>> ess
>>>> moron,,,or just another Burtie sock.
>>>
>>> Here's an instructive experiment for you, although you are unlikely
to
>>> do it, in that it might corrupt your opinion of yourself. Take a
dozen
>>> of typical MX postings, and a dozen of yours, and in as objective a
>>> way as you can judge which are more intelligent or entertaining.
>>>
>>> The most literate, although idiotic, sentence you've actually
written
>>> in a while is the one in which you characterize me a clueless moron.
>>> Good going, keep it up, and with effort you'll reach Mx's level of
>>> contribution of entertainment to the newsgroup. I know it'll be
>>> difficult for you, but keep trying.
>>>
>>> You might want to check to see if your health insurance cover mental
>>> disorders.
>>>
>>
>> I think he;s a hoot!
>>
>> You don't find k00ks of this quality every day of the week, ya know.
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>
> Don't you ever peruse AUK? There are some loony-toonies in there that
> are every bit as nutty as Maxwell.
>

Oh yeah, but they're fairly oversubscribed. I was really only referring
to the ones I find anyway..
He'll never be another Chuckles, for instance, but Maxie has his own
charm.


Bertie

[Maxwell[_2_]]

> wrote in message
...
On Jul 14, 7:46 am, "Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote:
> > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>
>
> > And you repeatedly demonstrate yourself to be a moron. At least MX
> > provides humor for the rest of us, you're a waste of bandwidth.
>
> Sorry Robert, but if you find Mx entertaining, your are clearly the
> clueless
> moron,,,or just another Burtie sock.

Here's an instructive experiment for you, although you are unlikely to
do it, in that it might corrupt your opinion of yourself. Take a dozen
of typical MX postings, and a dozen of yours, and in as objective a
way as you can judge which are more intelligent or entertaining.

The most literate, although idiotic, sentence you've actually written
in a while is the one in which you characterize me a clueless moron.
Good going, keep it up, and with effort you'll reach Mx's level of
contribution of entertainment to the newsgroup. I know it'll be
difficult for you, but keep trying.

You might want to check to see if your health insurance cover mental
disorders.

-------------------------------------------------

Take a deep breath and count to 10. You get over it dumb ass.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in news:SU9fk.20614$%q.963
@newsfe24.lga:

>
> > wrote in message
> news:c10f174f-35be-43f8-9f11-c392f6045853
@j22g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> On Jul 14, 7:46 am, "Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote:
>> > wrote in message
>>
>> news:ca2c5f4c-45b8-47a1-95c3-64caf332da1b@
79g2000hsk.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>> > And you repeatedly demonstrate yourself to be a moron. At least MX
>> > provides humor for the rest of us, you're a waste of bandwidth.
>>
>> Sorry Robert, but if you find Mx entertaining, your are clearly the
>> clueless
>> moron,,,or just another Burtie sock.
>
> Here's an instructive experiment for you, although you are unlikely to
> do it, in that it might corrupt your opinion of yourself. Take a dozen
> of typical MX postings, and a dozen of yours, and in as objective a
> way as you can judge which are more intelligent or entertaining.
>
> The most literate, although idiotic, sentence you've actually written
> in a while is the one in which you characterize me a clueless moron.
> Good going, keep it up, and with effort you'll reach Mx's level of
> contribution of entertainment to the newsgroup. I know it'll be
> difficult for you, but keep trying.
>
> You might want to check to see if your health insurance cover mental
> disorders.
>
> -------------------------------------------------
>
> Take a deep breath and count to 10. You get over it dumb ass.
>
>
Get over what? You being a fjukktard?




Bertie