[Rant Warning] Tailwheel Training

"Newps" wrote in message ...
"Dan Thomas" wrote in message
om...


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.

Huh? Once in the air a plane is a plane. Maybe yours isn't rigged right.

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. In 12 years here I've seen these taildraggers cure a lot
of sloppiness. We've used them to demonstrate the skidding-turn spin,
thereby showing the student what eventually awaits him if he gets
stupid at low altitude. Some guys get their PPL in a 172 or Warrior
and then go buy an old 140 or Champ or Tri-Pacer and get into trouble
almost immediately.
We also use the Citabria for emergency maneuvers training (basic
aerobatics) to show the control inputs required to get an airplane
upright again if control is lost in extreme turbulence or wake
turbulence. Try THAT in a 172.
A plane is not a plane. That idea has killed way to many
uninitated folks.

Dan

In article ,
Dylan Smith wrote:

I'm intrigued...what was it and what made it so difficult to taxi?

B-24. It has a castoring nosewheel that wants to turn with the
slightest provacation, expander-tube brakes (slow to react), and a CG
very close to the main gear...get rough on the brakes and you could
bounce the nose off the ground.


The expander tube brakes work off of an open hydraulic system...there is
a slight delay when you press the brake pedal until you get some braking
action..just enough delay that until you get used to them you think "I
need more brake" and mash the pedal a little farther. About then you
find out you now have way to much brake, the nose dives and she lurches
to whichever side you've applied brake to..repeat until your eyes water.
G The airplane can make you look like a spastic idiot in a very short
time...but once you get the hang of it there is a great deal of
satisfaction in being able to smoothly taxi and park her. We used to
joke that if you had the skills to get it to the runway you could
probably fly it. G

By contrast the B-17 was very easy to taxi...she was however a wee bit
more challenging to land in a crosswind than the B-24.

--
Dale L. Falk

There is nothing - absolutely nothing - half so much worth doing
as simply messing around with airplanes.

http://home.gci.net/~sncdfalk/flying.html

"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.

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



--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

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

I will put it plain. EDR's post was way off base. It was offensive. It
was
stupid. It contained a bunch of flat-out generalizations and old wives
tales
that at best are only slightly dangerous and at worst evidence of
serious
hatred. EDR owes an apology to flight instructors.

No, I don't.
I found out yesterday that the one 182 that was damaged badly, was
flown by the owner.
I also spoke with one of the instructors who has flown with him.
That checkout instructor told me point blank that the 182 was too much
airplane for that pilot and that he has been trying everything he can
think of to get the pilot's crosswind landings to be what they should.

Well... why did he sign him off if he didn't think the guy could handle
the airplane?
Probably because a) the airplane is on leaseback to the club, and b)
the guy owns the airplane. (Did I mention the owner is a lawyer?)
This is an old time instructor, too. But there is obviously a conflict
of interest.

Again, I go back to the original instructor and the examiner. Why was
this student allowed to take PPL flight test if he could not handle the
airplane to the PPL standards?

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

And on this instance you generalize about all instructors and techniques?
Tailwheel training?

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.

Michael

"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.

And it will provide...what?

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!


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

On Tue, 18 May 2004 19:12:44 -0800, Dale wrote:

once you get the hang of it there is a great deal of
satisfaction in being able to smoothly taxi and park her.

I think you have just hit upon the factor that makes taildragger
pilots so pleased with themselves.

I reckon I spent a thousand dollars just learning how to taxi the Cub.
But once I'd soloed in the sucker, no other airplane seemed genuine to
me. I even got a recreational rather than a private cert so I wouldn't
have to transition to the 172.

Since then I've flown the Husky, Great Lakes, and Super Cub, not to
mention the occasional Colt and 172, and still the only smoke that
satisfies is the J-3 Piper Cub. It's the Lucky Strike of light
aircraft.

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

Greg Esres wrote in message . ..
bad technique gets handed down from certificate mill
instructor to the next certificate mill instructor

There's another possible culprit...flying is so expensive that lots of
people simply don't want to spend the money to learn to fly well.

I also suspect that Part 141 instruction lends itself to turning out
pilots with marginal stick and rudder skills.

I've noticed that "conversion training" into an RV-6 has drastically
improved both my aircraft handling and my situational awareness
(especially in the pattern). It no longer feels like I'm flying
around in a little bubble with the airplane about half a step in front
of me, like it used to in the 150's. The RV is much less forgiving
than the Cessna was, and really makes you be careful.