If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#81
|
|||
|
|||
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 whole-heartedly agree with this statement. I got my tailwheel endorsement in my husband's Luscombe 8A. I flew it 70 hours before I bought my own 8E. I tried to fly Lester like his 8A and it didn't work! Once I understood that my airplane had it's own set of peculiar characteristics, things settled down. I do believe that tailwheel training does help a pilot understand the meaning of straight. Flying the Luscombes improved my landings in my C-172. Deb -- 1946 Luscombe 8A (His) 1948 Luscombe 8E (Hers) 1954 Cessna 195B, restoring (Ours) Jasper, Ga. (JZP) |
#82
|
|||
|
|||
"C J Campbell"
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 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) "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). |
#83
|
|||
|
|||
"C J Campbell" wrote
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. Oh no! CJ, please don't mention this at a Luscombe fly-in! There is a standing joke in the Luscombe community; if you want to have your airplane ground-looped, let a military pilot fly it. They don't seem to do well in our birds... ;-). All kidding aside, I'm sure you're a fine instructor. Deb -- 1946 Luscombe 8A (His) 1948 Luscombe 8E (Hers) 1954 Cessna 195B, restoring (Ours) Jasper, Ga. (JZP) |
#84
|
|||
|
|||
"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. Bob Moore |
#85
|
|||
|
|||
I think it's probably a safe bet that most of the ardent advocates of tailwheel training drive cars and trucks with automatic transmissions. Interestingly, in NY (at least when I got my licence, %& years ago) if you took the test in an automatic, you were legal in a manual. However, if you took the test in a manual, you were restricted to a manual transmission. Go figure. Jose -- (for Email, make the obvious changes in my address) |
#86
|
|||
|
|||
"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. Bob Moore Well, you can be the exception then. I don't know when we could get together to fly, though. |
#87
|
|||
|
|||
"Dylan Smith" wrote in message:
"And my requirement would be to do it by mag compass, chart and clock so they internalize the fundamentals of navigation too." I think every pilot should have one cross-country with just a compass, chart and clock. I did mine when my husband checked me out in his 8A. It was different. I'd been flying a C-172 with a DG, VOR and GPS. Now, I have an 8E with a handheld GPS, but I still keep my eyeball on my compass heading. You never know when that sucker will die! I've also had hood time in his non-electrical 8A. I flew a two hour cross country using the needle/ball, airspeed, VSI and compass. His airplane is rather slow (about 90 mph). It was a way to pass the time over country I'd seen before. Deb -- 1946 Luscombe 8A (His) 1948 Luscombe 8E (Hers) 1954 Cessna 195B, restoring (Ours) Jasper, Ga. (JZP) ... 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" |
#88
|
|||
|
|||
EDR wrote
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. A "little tougher"? HA! With less than 100 hours in my logbook, the final test in the T-28 formation flying course in addition to the routine stuff, consisted of the check pilot (in his own T-28) leading four student flown T-28s through a five plane, echelon right barrel roll. I was unlucky enough to be number five. With 115 hours in the book, I planted that thing on the deck of the USS Antietam in the Gulf just off Pensacola. 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 Cessna 172 course that CJ talks about is simply a "weed-em-out" before they get to flight training program that the AF uses. 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. All true! All that it takes for a civilian to obtain a pilot certificate is money and time. I once refused to "check-out" a new Private Pilot in a C-172. He had simply "worn-down" his instructor and examiner. I then called the examiner and "chewed-out" his butt. Bob Moore |
#89
|
|||
|
|||
Non-tailwheel CFIs have to jump in there right away and the students
takes 3 times longer to learn foot work. Nonsense. |
#90
|
|||
|
|||
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
AOPA Stall/Spin Study -- Stowell's Review (8,000 words) | Rich Stowell | Aerobatics | 28 | January 2nd 09 02:26 PM |
WINGS: When do the clocks start ticking? | Andrew Gideon | Piloting | 6 | February 3rd 04 03:01 PM |
"I Want To FLY!"-(Youth) My store to raise funds for flying lessons | Curtl33 | General Aviation | 7 | January 9th 04 11:35 PM |
PC flight simulators | Bjørnar Bolsøy | Military Aviation | 178 | December 14th 03 12:14 PM |
AOPA Stall/Spin Study -- Stowell's Review (8,000 words) | Rich Stowell | Piloting | 25 | September 11th 03 01:27 PM |