[Rant Warning] Tailwheel Training

Not in a 1962 Cessna 172C! Yoke in your gut was the only way I could keep
from landing flat. It was a rather annoying trait in that airplane. Luckily,
on my checkride, a 250 lb. FAA inspector rode along in the backseat so my
soft field landings were finally what they should be ;-).

Deb

--
1946 Luscombe 8A (His)
1948 Luscombe 8E (Hers)
1954 Cessna 195B, restoring (Ours)
Jasper, Ga. (JZP)

Holy smokes!, Finally someone who understands the fun of landing my wife's
C-172B. Even both her first 2 instructors (both high hour tail wheel
indorsement instructors) had trouble with "plunking" down like a pancake on the
runway. After taking it to Oshkosh with the rear seat out and camping gear
packed to the ceiling I "greased" every landing. From then on we keep a 60 lb
bag of sand in the baggage compartment and everyone's happy. Still have to use
the 'yoke in the gut' trick but it now will land on the mains.

Jim

"Dylan Smith" wrote in message
...

Personally, if there was one additional requirement that I think new
CFIs should meet before teaching is a long solo cross country of a good
1000NM. That way they are likely to have had to have made real world
weather decisions, have probably had to fly in mountainous terrain and
so forth. And my requirement would be to do it by mag compass, chart and
clock so they internalize the fundamentals of navigation too.


How do you fly 1000 miles on the Isle of Mann? :-)

Anyway, maybe you could take away the chart. Make them really internalize
those 'fundamentals.' In fact, let's lose the clock, too. And the compass.
Pure fluff. Get rid of it. Then, to make sure he really learns something,
let's put a blindfold on him and stop up his ears. And make him fly while
being pecked by chickens. With his feet and hands tied together. That'll
make a man of him. :-)

"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...

"EDR" wrote in message
...
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).


If the yoke is in your gut in most Cessnas, you are heading for a
destroyed
tiedown ring and possibly a tail cone replacement.

If that isn't one of the worst statements ever posted to this newsgroup I
don't know what is.

"Dave Stadt" wrote in message
.com...

"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...

"EDR" wrote in message
...
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).


If the yoke is in your gut in most Cessnas, you are heading for a
destroyed
tiedown ring and possibly a tail cone replacement.

If that isn't one of the worst statements ever posted to this newsgroup I
don't know what is.

Yeah, well, we replace half a dozen tiedown rings a year, thanks to the
idiotic advice of people like you. I ought to send you the bill.

"Bob Moore" wrote in message
. 6...
"C J Campbell" wrote

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.

Well CJ, here's one 69 year old pilot that thinks that you're full
of ****! I logged my 20,000th hour about 12 years ago and I spent
this past Friday out teaching spins to a Private Pilot who wanted
some advanced instruction. As a bonus, I threw in a few "to-the-
stops" flap 40 slips in his C-172.


Yup...you scared him to death.

Not all taildraggers are landed with the tail low either: The P-51
Mustang was often wheeled on, although some guys three pointed them.

The DC-3 is most often wheel landed.

Corky Scott

The RV series (or at least the 6) seems easier to wheel on than
3-point, especially if there's any kind of wind. I learned wheel
landings and had them figured out long before "3-point" (which is
actually 1-2 point; the tailwheel tends to hit just before the mains,
and then you bounce a bit).

"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...

"Dave Stadt" wrote in message
.com...

"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...

"EDR" wrote in message
...
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).


If the yoke is in your gut in most Cessnas, you are heading for a
destroyed
tiedown ring and possibly a tail cone replacement.

If that isn't one of the worst statements ever posted to this newsgroup
I
don't know what is.

Yeah, well, we replace half a dozen tiedown rings a year, thanks to the
idiotic advice of people like you. I ought to send you the bill.

If you can't land a Cessna with the yoke all the way back you have serious
problems. Sounds like a training issue to me. Send me the bill if you
like.

On 18 May 2004 07:20:58 -0700, (Dan
Thomas) wrote:

We run three 172s, a 182RG and a Citabria, and that Citabria is
the most popular airplane among both students and instructors. It's
worth as many dollars as any of the 172s, but the insurance costs no
more than a 172. The students that start in it are more competent when
they finish the PPL than those who do it all in a 172, and that's in
all areas except basic instrument flying, since it has a rather basic
panel. The student has to maintain control of an unruly airplane and
has to be able to read a map, use a wet compass and and a watch. No
fancy radios to do all the work for him, no self-landing gear. And the
student spends no more time learning all this than he does in the 172.
He goes on to the 172 and 182 with sharp flying skills and is a much
better pilot in the end.
We just bought another Citabria, and they can't wait until it's
ready to go.
As far as another poster's rant about EAA types: As with any group
of people, you have the black sheep that seem bent on giving the rest
a bad name. We could paint all private pilots with the same brush, as
this poster did with the homebuilders, since there are enough weekend
warriors that will tangle with thunderstorms and winds and unairworthy
airplanes, and who will buzz friend's houses and ultimately kill
themselves and a couple of friends. But that wouldn't be fair, would
it? You only hear about the few brainless EAAers, not the thousands of
earnest guys/gals building and flying airplanes that are light-years
ahead of anything Wichita sells.

IMHO one of the best responses in this thread, so far. As a low-time
VFR pilot, I tend to avoid commenting much on "flying" issues. As
someone who has been repeatedly painted with the "all mechanics are
idiot parts-changers" brush, I am truly tickled ****e-less by some of
the former world-famous flight instructor's responses.

After spending many years riding along with freight dogs (having
somebody to talk to helps keep 'em awake/alive) and manipulating the
controls-opposed to "flying", I was handed the opportunity to get my
PPL.

Honestly, after living at the airport and seeing more
airline-by-gosh-bound right-seat-indentured-servant instructors than I
can recall, I wasn't too keen on the idea. Of this group, I was only
exposed to one that behaved anything like a professional instructor.
After working next door to professional pilots with a median
experience greater than a random-picked half-dozen ABGBRSISIs
combined, the idea of learning to fly from an "instructor" that is
basically going through the motions while building hours didn't have a
lot of appeal.

I received my initial primary flight instruction in a classic
conventional gear no-flap no-gyro "unruly airplane" with no electrical
system, mechanical heel brakes, and a 65 hp Continental that preferred
to run on three cylinders while occasionally spitting oil on the
windshield. My primary instructor was a kid that had spent six of the
last eight years hauling checks (the other two years were spent
relief/missionary flying in Africa).

I was quickly forced to learn coordinated turns, how to fly with my
head outside of the cockpit (nuthin much to look at inside), the power
of a properly performed slip, spin recovery, proper airspeed/attitude
management to the basic power-off minimal-energy spot landing, and
that brakes don't really need to be used for anything but taxiing. I
also became quite proficient at precautionary/engine out landings.

There is absolutely positively no physical/mechanical reason that
these things cannot be taught/learned in a modern tricycle gear
trainer, but there is also no way that a "classic" airplane can be
flown properly and safely without learning them.

Possessing advanced and detailed systems knowledge of virtually every
common single-engine GA aircraft, combined with the solid foundation
in basic flying skills made transitioning to other aircraft stone
simple. The first time I ever flew a Bonanza (K35 fitted with a
*******-ized TW Smith engine and a BAC constant-speed propeller), I
felt it was the "easiest" flying/landing single in the world. Seven
years and a couple dozen aircraft models of varying brands later, I
still pretty much feel the same way.

CJ doesn't seem to want to admit it, but I've been exposed to about
the same percentage of pilots lacking what he would consider to be
essential basic VFR piloting skills as certificated mechanics that
lack what I would consider to be essential basic troubleshooting
skills.

That doesn't mean that he can't properly teach someone how to fly in a
tri-gear plane any more than it means that I can't properly maintain
it.

Although he feels that conventional gear aircraft experience is
unnecessay (FWIW I tend to agree), it does not mean that it has no
inherent value in learning to fly.

I don't feel that navigation needs to be performed with a sextant and
a chronometer, but I also feel that the hand-held GPS is a pile on the
ass that is basic map-based VFR navigation.

YMMV;

TC

"Dave Stadt" wrote in message
. ..

"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...

"Dave Stadt" wrote in message
.com...

"C J Campbell" wrote in
message
...
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).


If the yoke is in your gut in most Cessnas, you are heading for a
destroyed
tiedown ring and possibly a tail cone replacement.

If that isn't one of the worst statements ever posted to this
newsgroup
I
don't know what is.

Yeah, well, we replace half a dozen tiedown rings a year, thanks to the
idiotic advice of people like you. I ought to send you the bill.

If you can't land a Cessna with the yoke all the way back you have serious
problems. Sounds like a training issue to me. Send me the bill if you
like.

Personally, I think the manufacturer probably has a better idea of how the
airplane should be flown than a bunch of Usenet know-it-alls. You pitch for
airspeed, not for position of the yoke. If you can't control your airspeed,
you have serious problems.

You have just convinced me that flying taildraggers not only does not make
you a better pilot, it makes you worse to the point of being destructive.
The Cessna 172 was not meant to be landed like a tailwheel aircraft.
Attempts to do that are both dangerous and wasteful.

Not only that, I am increasingly disturbed by tailwheel pilots' obsession
with landing as the only measure of the quality of a pilot. It really tells
me something -- like, they don't know how to do anything else. I hope you
will excuse me now. It is obvious that I have disturbed a bunch of religious
fanatics.

On Wed, 19 May 2004 13:21:03 -0500, "Bill Denton"
wrote:

I think it's probably a safe bet that most of the ardent advocates of
tailwheel training drive cars and trucks with automatic transmissions.

Well, I'm not an ardent advocate, though I did learn in a taildragger
and I continue to fly one.

And I have always driven a standard transmission.


all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
The Piper Cub Forum www.pipercubforum.com
Viva Bush! blog www.vivabush.org