[Rant Warning] Tailwheel Training

In article , C J Campbell
wrote:

"EDR" wrote in message
...

As others have posted, the 172 is a forgiving aircraft and allows a
poorly trained student to slip through the system.

Damn, your eyes are brown.

Nope... blue like the sky!

On 18 May 2004 18:09:20 -0700, (Dan
Thomas) wrote:

Oh, man. Have you never flown a Champ or Cub or some other older
design that had lots of adverse yaw, and that might flick over into a
spin if you skidded it around the base-to-final turn? One that
required some serious attention in most maneuvers if you were going to
gain any proficiency in it at all? Even if it's rigged perfectly?
These older designs make the pilot aware of his need for precision,
and once he learns it his flying of all other aircraft improves
enormously.

You sure about that? Adverse yaw has nothing to do with being a
taildragger, it's the ailerons causing that. Put tricycle landing
gear on it and it would still fly the same, requiring just as much
rudder as when it was a taildragger.

Corky Scott

(Teacherjh) wrote in message ...

Oh, man. Have you never flown a Champ or Cub or some other older
design that had lots of adverse yaw, and that might flick over into a
spin if you skidded it around the base-to-final turn?


is this behavior =caused= by the position of the middle wheel, or is it just
coincidence and history that they are taildraggers?

Jose

Taildraggers tend to be older designs, and older designs often
didn't have the benign behaviour of newer designs, which tend to be
nosewheel airplanes. So taildraggers, while the gear has no effect in
the air, are usually harder to fly and require more effort and
understanding. More effort results in a better pilot. And since
takeoff and landing are the most likely places for an accident, and
since they also require the most skill, the taildragger is invaluable
for sharpening those skills.
A comparison could be made to cameras. Fully-automatic cameras
are really easy to use, and can take decent pictures. Fully-manual
cameras require knowledge about light and aperture and shutter speed
and film types and depth of field and so on, but they allow you to get
the impressive special effects impossible with the automatic. The
manual makes you a far better photographer. You either learn all about
photography or you remain a mediocre picture-taker.
Every pilot should get in at least a couple of hours of dual in an
older taildragger.

Dan

"Cub Driver" wrote in message
...

And I won't even make mention of the fact that the guy who had his head
down
in the cockpit trying to read his map when he ran into another airplane
near
Tenino on Sunday was flying a tailwheel airplane. That is just a cheap
shot,
so I won't mention it. Nope, not me. :-)

The Centurion is a taildragger?

Must have been a conversion!

No, but the 170 is a taildragger.

"Michael" wrote in message
om...
EDR wrote
No, I want to weed out the lame instructors!!!

Then the real solution is to require that in order to instruct, you
have to make 10 solo takeoffs and landings in a tailwheel airplane.
BTW, I favor such a requirement. It's not a hardship to anyone who
has any business instructing.

Baloney.

By the time instructors met all the additional requirements that you want to
impose on them the cost of becoming an instructor would triple at the least.
They would be no safer nor would they be better pilots in any measurable
sense. The accident rate would not be improved.

Apparently you have some strange idea that good instruction consists of
developing a macho, anti-authority attitude just waiting to get you or
somebody else killed.

I am beginning to believe that you have no business whatsoever near an
airplane.

The Air Force and Navy, both of whom ostensibly know something about flying,
do all their training in tricycle gear aircraft. Yet they arguably turn out
some of the best pilots in the world.

I have given initial pilot training in Cessna 172s to four Air Force Academy
graduates so far. All of them have been assigned to F-16s. Apparently the
Air Force is happy with my work.

I will tell you one thing about old pilots: I have never flown with a pilot
who had more than 15,000 hours who did not scare me to death. The last one,
a guy who had 17,000 hours and more than 7,000 hour in type (a twin), could
not hold altitude within 200 feet and had no idea how to set up an
instrument approach. He knew it, too.

There comes a time when a pilot goes from 'experienced' to 'washed up.'

In article , C J Campbell
wrote:

I am beginning to believe that you have no business whatsoever near an
airplane.

I am having difficulty discerning whether C J is really indignint about
this issue, or he is just baiting us for more so that others may learn.

Let's look at another aspect...
The taildragger (regardless of make/model) requires that the pilot
raise the nose to land (only slightly for wheel landings).
There are tricycle gear aircraft out there with big engines up front
(PA28-235/6, C182, etc) and under light loading conditions (front two
seats occupied, full fuel) the cg is towards the front of the envelope.
If the pilot doesn't learn to get the nose up on landing, the nose gear
and firewall are going to get damaged.
Normally, with no flaps, the nose will come up as the aircraft is
slowed for landing. Now add flaps and the pitch attitude is lowered
(flatter) and the pilot is lulled into the false belief that the nose
is sufficiently high to land on the mains.
Now you have a wheelbarrowing condition, which if the pilot lands too
fast, doesn't flair soon enough or flairs too high will lead to loss of
control and/or damage.
It's about proper piloting technique, it has nothing to do with ego.
(Although, the theory that it makes women's boobs bigger has marketing
potential. ;-))

"EDR" wrote in message
...
In article , C J Campbell
wrote:

I am beginning to believe that you have no business whatsoever near an
airplane.

I am having difficulty discerning whether C J is really indignint about
this issue, or he is just baiting us for more so that others may learn.

Let's look at another aspect...
The taildragger (regardless of make/model) requires that the pilot
raise the nose to land (only slightly for wheel landings).

Yes, and so does a tricycle gear. Ever heard of ground loops and nose-overs?
I suppose those never happened when everyone learned in tail-draggers.

It's about proper piloting technique, it has nothing to do with ego.

So what equipment is used has noting to do with it, it's how it's taught? So
what's all the blather about requiring tail-dragger instruction?


(Although, the theory that it makes women's boobs bigger has marketing
potential. ;-))

I think the "ego" problem here is someone inserted their foot in their mouth
and is now trying to justify himself.

In article , C J Campbell
wrote:

The Air Force and Navy, both of whom ostensibly know something about flying,
do all their training in tricycle gear aircraft. Yet they arguably turn out
some of the best pilots in the world.

I think their sylabus and standards are little tougher and higher than
that found in the FAA PTS and the way most civilian flight instructors
actually teach.

How many wannabe students do the military weed out in the interview
process, even before the training starts, followed by the washouts that
do meet the standards once training begins.

The civilians pay their money and get through it.
Some take more time, some less. Some are given multiple opportunities
to pass the test. The military decides when to cut its losses and not
spend more money on a losing proposition.

In article , Tom Sixkiller
wrote:

Let's look at another aspect...
The taildragger (regardless of make/model) requires that the pilot
raise the nose to land (only slightly for wheel landings).

Yes, and so does a tricycle gear. Ever heard of ground loops and nose-overs?
I suppose those never happened when everyone learned in tail-draggers.

If you ground loop or nose over a tric, you've really screwed up. You
can ground loop or nose over either one, the taildragger does a better
job of teaching you how not to get in that situation (it the stick/yoke
isn't in you gut, you are heading for a problem).

It's about proper piloting technique, it has nothing to do with ego.

So what equipment is used has noting to do with it, it's how it's taught? So
what's all the blather about requiring tail-dragger instruction?

Again, the taildragger is a better teacher. If you don't do it right
every time, it will bite you.

(Although, the theory that it makes women's boobs bigger has marketing
potential. ;-))

I think the "ego" problem here is someone inserted their foot in their mouth
and is now trying to justify himself.

Why was the wheel moved from the back to the front?
It is more stable and forgiving, and because of those qualities it
allows for more mistakes.