[Rant Warning] Tailwheel Training

EDR wrote:

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.

Then someone who buys such an aircraft should learn to keep the nose up in that
plane. That's nowhere near enough justification for requiring training in
conventional gear for anyone.

George Patterson
I childproofed my house, but they *still* get in.

EDR wrote:

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 my aircraft, you're about to have a big problem
(unless you're already on the ground). When the wings stall (as they're about to),
the mains will drop faster than the tail. The results can be anywhere from a very
hard landing to a seesaw as the mains bounce, bringing the tail down, which bounces,
bringing the mains down, which bounce ..... "and awaaayyy we go!"

You need to learn the proper attitude for whatever aircraft you fly. Learning to land
a Cessna 170 will not improve your landings in a 182. Learning to land a 182 will.

George Patterson
I childproofed my house, but they *still* get in.

"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.

"EDR" wrote in message
...
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.

Then you think wrong. The Air Force guys use the same Cessna Pilot Center
syllabus and PTS standards as the rest of our students.


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.

I have not had one wash out yet. In fact, none of our instructors have had
one wash out.

On Wed, 19 May 2004 15:48:33 GMT, EDR wrote:

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.

Right. And the people who own or fly in those airplanes are taught
not to land nose down. Doesn't seem like you have to take taildragger
lessons to know this.

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

There's one note of hilarity in here that I'm surprised no one has picked up
on...

I think it's probably a safe bet that most of the ardent advocates of
tailwheel training drive cars and trucks with automatic transmissions. Even
though a manual transmission teaches you more about power management,
traction control, and stuff like that than an automatic would. (Of course,
you could also learn all of that stuff from "Dukes Of Hazard" reruns.)

But from what I've read on this thread, I think tailwheel training probably
falls into the same category as does a lot of the other training I see
discussed he it's not going to hurt you, but it may not be totally
necessary.

In article , G.R. Patterson III wrote:
You need to learn the proper attitude for whatever aircraft you fly. Learning to land
a Cessna 170 will not improve your landings in a 182. Learning to land a 182 will.

Having flown both, I'd have to disagree with that. The landing technique
to three-point a C170 works great in a C182. Airspeeds are different,
but that's it really.

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

In article , C J Campbell wrote:
If the yoke is in your gut in most Cessnas, you are heading for a destroyed
tiedown ring and possibly a tail cone replacement.

Not in a C150, 152, 172, 182 it isn't. You have to yank the yoke
back quickly to cause the tail to strike. If you smoothly apply back
pressure as you flare, you won't strike the tail - in fact you'll make a
nice touchdown on the main wheels.

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

In article , Dan Thomas wrote:
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.

Actually, many of these older aircraft aren't really much harder at all.
Some are, many aren't. Our C140 for example was easy and pleasant to
fly, with light control forces and a good strong rudder. It required a
lot more finesse on landing than a nosewheel plane of course, and I
think that improved my finesse when flying any aircraft. But it just
wasn't difficult to fly, just a bit different.

I think that was reflected by our insurance rates - we had at one time a
zero-hours student on the insurance, and the extra cost compared to a
C150 of the same hull value was IIRC only about $50/year. I never had a
nasty moment (although I did botch some landings) in the C140, and that
included landing in a 20 knot direct crosswind (which I have on video).
My aircraft insurance for a $20,000 hull value and $1M liability
insurance was significantly cheaper than the insurance on my Ford F150,
worth $8000 at the time (and I have no accidents/tickets).

The Auster on the other hand...actually, in the air, it flies a lot like
a C172 with a stick instead of a yoke (and climbs a lot better, it
weighs about 500lbs less and has an O-320) - very little adverse yaw
etc. is an absolute bear to land nicely. Partly because you can't see
anything forwards in the three point attitude, partly because it has a
free castoring tailwheel, and partly because the cable operated heel
brakes are virtually impossible to use at the same time as making rudder
inputs (heel brakes suck, I'm sorry). Mitigating this though is the
approach speed of 50 mph so stuff happens slowly. Should new instructors
have to fly something like this? I wouldn't insist on it, but it's a
nice-to-have in the increasing the depth of experience department.

I think taildragger training is a nice to have but not essential. What
is essential is teaching proper technique, and many certificate mill
instructors who have little experience outside of flying the traffic
pattern are a bit lacking in that area, and it shows in the old wives'
tales they tend to repeat.

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.

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

"C J Campbell" wrote in message ...
"Robert M. Gary" wrote in message
om...
"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...
There is absolutely
no reason to learn to fly a tailwheel aircraft unless you plan on owning
one
or have some other special need, such as bush piloting or you are a CFI
who
wants to instruct in them.

My tailwheel background certainly makes me a much better Mooney pilot.
It certainly makes me a better CFI. I'm able to let students take the
172 further towards the weeds with confidence that I can control it.
Non-tailwheel CFIs have to jump in there right away and the students
takes 3 times longer to learn foot work.

It is not your tailwheel background that lets you do that. It is your
experience, pure and simple.

I disagree. I think its my tailwheel experience. I had almost 100
hours in my book (and my private) before I sat in a nosewheel GA
plane.

-Robert