Tail wheel check out question.

[robertsailor1]

Yup a dieing breed for sure you old tail wheel guys, LOL

If I were you I would offer check outs in the Cub. There is still a group of pilots out there that want to learn to fly tail wheel but no one is really doing a very good sell job. As a pilot if you have any interest in aerobatics you'll need to be trained in tail wheels plus it just makes you a better pilot.
When I taught aerobatics and tail wheel flying a good chunk of time was just teaching tail wheel and these days its really hard to find a real good instructor. When I was shopping for my wife I was only interested in a real experienced instructor that specialized in tail wheels and those guys are few and far between. So, seems to me if you offered the training and the word slowly spread you might become a big fish in a very little lake, lets face it having some Cub time in your logs is just cool.

[Cat Driver]

If nothing else I now must finish building my Cub.....because I am paying rent on a hangar for just that one purpose.

If there is enough interest in off airport flying in a Cub I will probably offer that training.

So what do all you guys think I should charge for a home built cub, dual only?

[Big Pistons Forever]

When checking out pilots that have never flown a tail wheel airplane what importance do you put on teaching wheel landings?

To lead on the answer to the above question I teach wheel landings first and consider the wheel landing to be the most important skill in landing a tail wheel airplane. ( Except for maybe one or two types that are difficult to wheel land. )

I do the opposite. I start with 3 point and finish up the training with wheel landings. My personal experience is that students find it easier as the landing starts with the same flare they are used to on your typical cessna/piper trainer but then the hold off in the flare is continued until the 3 point attitude is reached. I found that students new to tail draggers, especially relatively low time ones found the level wheel landing attitude unnatural and the check forward on touch down counter intuitive. The result was that when I tried to start with wheel landings, students already a little uneasy with the new aircraft type, screwed up the initial flare as they tried to adjust to the differences. On the other hand once they were comfortable with the 3 point the "scaryness" of tail dragging was by that time overcome, and the transistion was easy.

Personally I don't see this as a "right way/wrong way" discussion just personal perference. The bottom line is that the students keep it straight and understand when each type of landing could/should be used and can competently execute both. I usually 3 point the lighter taildraggers as I find it easier and I am all about the easier

[Cat Driver]

For sure we all find different things to be easier or harder, I am more comfortable with wheel landings than three pointing them. Part of the reason could be the types of airplanes I have the most time on as some airplanes tend to be wheeled on rather than three pointed and around twelve thousand hours in DC3's and Beech 18's may have skewed my preferences.

The bottom line is each type of landing has its place and you should be proficient in both wheel landings and three point landings in tail wheel airplanes.

As to my reason for teaching wheel landings first it is because they generally already know how to land in a nose up attitude, and before I take them flying they already know what it looks like running down the runway with the tail in the air because I make sure they know how to do it before we ever start the actual flying part.

[Shiny Side Up]

I'm sure in your case it is difficult. The school in Boundry Bay where my wife is learning on an older Citabria has about 15+ instructors and to my knowledge only one of them is current in tail wheel.

Was difficult. Took a lot of badgering old guys to part with the knowledge. You got to be at the right place at the right time and usually someone has to be in the right mood. Nevermind the ammount of work and usually a bit of cash out of your pocket. Beyond that, its no small feat to get to a point where you might be considered to have enough experience to teach others. My question would be how accessible is the Citabria? Do you pay more for her to take training on it than you would say a Katana? How easy is it to get the experienced instructor's time?

As far as I know, in Alberta currently there are two tailwheel aircraft available for training, and one of those is pretty heavily restricted in who has access to it. Given that there are roughly 80 new CPL holders that the province produces per year, that's not enough airplanes to go around. Your only other option is to somehow aquire some sort of ownership of one - usually not an option for most new students.

Anyhow, the point of the matter is that it simply isn't correct that people aren't interested or that they're lazy.

A few years ago I was going to offer tail wheel check outs in my Cub, but now I very much doubt if it would be worth bothering about.

You might be suprised.

[robertsailor1]

You make some good points. I think the Citabria is available, no problem but there is only one guy who can teach in it and he is picky who he teaches so that might be the bottle neck. Its not that cheap considering its an older model (1969) I think the dual is around $190.00+ can't be picky when there is no other choice. Also keep in mind that this is not a check out but is basic flying lessons. OK now to show you I am really Father Time..whats a Kantana??

[Shiny Side Up]

Katana, Da-20, Eclipse or whatever they call the little plastic Diamond two seater these days. I do like the name Kantana though. $190/hour dual sounds incredibly cheap though, even for an old Citabria, I wish that was around here.

[robertsailor1]

Taxes on top of that hourly rate. Hey that little Kantana is a cool little number, impressive performance!
My wife was taking flying lessons on a 7AC Champ in the USA and was paying $85.00 dual and the school looked after her hotel bill.

[AEROBAT]

So what do all you guys think I should charge for a home built cub, dual only?

It is hard to guess without knowing how much insurance will ding you. That O-235 you have in your Cub will burn between 6 and 7 US GPH doing circuits.

$200/hour dual should work OK. Why don't you use the 150 taildragger as well?

[Shiny Side Up]

Taxes on top of that hourly rate. Hey that little Kantana is a cool little number, impressive performance!

They are actually pretty fun little beasts. Too bad they didn't make a tailwheel version.

My wife was taking flying lessons on a 7AC Champ in the USA and was paying $85.00 dual and the school looked after her hotel bill.

Different world down there when it comes to general aviation. Being a flight instructor isn't considered a bad thing, people want flight schools in their town and the government actually encourages all sorts of aviatin'.

[Cat Driver]

It is hard to guess without knowing how much insurance will ding you. That O-235 you have in your Cub will burn between 6 and 7 US GPH doing circuits.

It will depend on what I decide to do with it, the cheapest way is just insure it with my name only on the policy and no solo.

The other option is to sell shares and the named owners will be on the policy.

$200/hour dual should work OK. Why don't you use the 150 taildragger as well?

I no longer own the Aerobat and wouldn't even think about asking the new owner to rent it.

At two hundred an hour it would make it worth while for me to teach in it mainly because I would not have to spend all that money that a commercial operation costs.

And best of all I would not have to deal with TC on any level.

[cgzro]

I think it just depends on how well the type tracks along on two wheels and at what speed you need to be doing to make that happen. Not all planes are that easy to 2 point.

The J3, Champ, Decathlon, Citabria that I have flown are a piece of cake, pick a wheel and fly down the runway on it, no issue, set the other wheel down, then keep pushing forward until the tail drops, its not very hard. Tire pressure plays a big role, a J3 with soft tires is kind of tricky but its so slow its easy to correct as it wallows around.

However something like a Pitts/Extra where you are traveling at AutoBahn speeds to keep the tail up is a whole other kettle of fish. I need about 95Mph in my Pitts to have good solid control on the mains and from about 95 to about 75 when the tail drops its quite squirily. Tire pressure again makes a big difference. So I don't do 2 points in the T very often, occasionally I'll do a tail low 2 pointer then lift the tail up, track down the runway a bit prior to taking off, but when I do a full stop, its a 3 pointer. I believe the POH's recommend 3 point landings in the different Pitts models but I can't be 100% certain.

As a side note, I've observed the same warplane landed on the same runway by two different pilots, one wheel lands and the other three points and the three pointer always stops by the intersection while the two pointer goes wizzing through albeit in that sexy 2 point attitude.

[Cat Driver]

The Pitts is the only airplane I have flown that is easier to three point for sure.

How short you can land using the wheel landing is a matter of the type of airplane and your own skill on type. Landing on a hard surface using the wheel landing allows firm braking as you are loading the wheels with forward elevator pressure. I could never get the DC3 stopped in the same distance three pointing as I could wheel landing the thing.

I have flown a few airplanes that definitely are squirrey to try and three point, the most three point unfriendly in the stuff I have flown was the Turbo Goose and the Anson Mk. 5.

[gaamin]

I'm sure in your case it is difficult. The school in Boundry Bay where my wife is learning on an older Citabria has about 15+ instructors and to my knowledge only one of them is current in tail wheel.

Obviously there is very little interest in tail wheel airplanes anymore or more instructors would get checked out in them.
A few years ago I was going to offer tail wheel check outs in my Cub, but now I very much doubt if it would be worth bothering about.

It would. Over a year ago I had pushed for our school to get a Citabria or similar aircraft to provide tailwheel, upset recovery and basic aerobatic training. In that process I had first scanned our consumer base, and there was a substantial demand for that kind of training. About 20 people replied (written replies, not just verbal ones) that they would at least be interested in furthering their skills with tailwheel training, more than half of them would want upset training / basic aerobatic training. Some student pilots were even interested in doing the bulk of their training in such a fun aircraft.

We still don't have such an aircraft, but we have the people who want to fly it. Being closer to the practice area also makes it more interesting to pilots who are past tailwheel training stage and want something more.

The vast majority of these people are private pilots (or pilots-to-be) with no intention of becoming commercial pilot. But that is normal considering the average people who fly where I work.

I agree that both wheel and three point landing should be taught. I also agree that which should/can be taught first depends much on who is doing the transition.

Someone who flies tailwheel will get the flare height right and that will help him when he/she flies another aircraft. To help judging that, Harv Penner at the school where I did my PPL and CPL had said that for many pilots the best way to start tailwheel (we were using Citabrias) would be a couple hours doing just taxiing in various winds on various surfaces. Not only does it give a good feel/idea of how to handle the plane on the ground, but it also sets good references in terms of peripheral vision/height above the ground that will be useful when the time comes to land it, wheel or 3-point. A bit different from the back, but still, good taxiing practice can't hurt.

[cgzro]

How short you can land using the wheel landing is a matter of the type of airplane and your own skill on type. Landing on a hard surface using the wheel landing allows firm braking as you are loading the wheels with forward elevator pressure. I could never get the DC3 stopped in the same distance three pointing as I could wheel landing the thing

It sure is beautiful watching a DC3 2 point. Also if I'm not mistaken is there some issue with the twin beyond certain AOA's so that a 2 pointer is safer for both take-off and landing? Somebody was telling me that engine failure with the tail low was dangerous hence a two point take-off and 2 point landing was recommended for better control in an engine failure.

Oh, if memory serves, the Sukhoi 26 and 29 and 31's are not supposed to be 2 pointed as I believe the propellor does not have the ground clearance in a 2 point attitude. I think there are a couple of 29 owners on this list that could comment.

[Cat Driver]

It sure is beautiful watching a DC3 2 point. Also if I'm not mistaken is there some issue with the twin beyond certain AOA's so that a 2 pointer is safer for both take-off and landing? Somebody was telling me that engine failure with the tail low was dangerous hence a two point take-off and 2 point landing was recommended for better control in an engine failure.

I have about twenty five hundred hours on the DC3 on wheel skis mostly off airport flying, we generally touched down in the half wheel landing half three point landing attitude so as to contact the surface at a speed that reduced impact shock if we could not read the surface properly yet have enough speed to reject the landing and go around before it pounded the fu.k out of the airplane.

An engine failure at a critical speed in ground effect was the least of my worries as I never land or take off without my hand on the throttles.....the other pilot monitors the power on take off just to make sure we do not exceed the maximum manifold pressure. If an engine failed you are fuc.ed anyhow so there is always enough rudder to control it as you close the throttles and pray.

Some of the places we flew the DC3 were truly breath taking, one was a road to a drill site where we landed up hill turned to the left and went down hill and at the end of the landing we went up hill to the parking area.... real tricky landing with cross winds because the usable part of the road was not much wider than the gear width.

[tractor driver]

All tail-wheel specific training differences and little sublties are benifitial, and in imho required.
We haven't done initial tail wheel lately @ our company, (C-185, DHC-2, DHC-3T, AT802) so I've just been doing a few occaisional for friends.
When a tailwheel pilot gets to us, I get to sit in the back of the 802 and enjoy the progress. Our loaded landings a quite fast, with a fair amount of inertia, requiring reverse / beta, thus 3 point with tailwheel firmly on the ground to ensure directional stability. Empty landings optional wheel / 3 point.
If you get a training facility on the go, give me a call, we can send you some buisness.
g

[Cat Driver]

I am not quite sure what I will do with the Cub when I finish it, a lot depends on when we get the Jetranger and how busy I will be with that end of the business.

I doubt that I will sell the Cub and more than likely I will end up doing some teaching on it.

What is the stall speed of the 802 with a load on and what airspeed do you approach it at?

Your mention of beta / reverse reminds me of the wildest ride I ever had checking out one of the company pilots on the Turbo Goose, he was a high time Twin Otter pilot and as soon as the wheels touched he went right into reverse and one engine got ahead of the other and we went for a real ride off the runway into the grass and back on the runway and on to the grass on the other side......almost as frightening as bringing home a dose of clap.

[tractor driver]

Hahaha!! Well said, If the 802 isn't razor blade straight on a loaded touch down, the same adventure with the same association of "bad words" is the result. A nudge to the positive (out of beta), snaps the plane back on track, very effective if there's the room, and I have a throttle in the back.
Approach with a "clean" wing is 105 Kts, with the VG's, 95. Loaded stall is 100 flaps up, degrading to 85-ish, with 30 down @ 16,000 lbs landing weight. Short coupled taildragger, 1600 hp, not the most demanding out there compared to some of the machines I've had the pleasure of experiencing, but definately requires appropriate attention and honesty.
Nothing like cruising in the cub with the window down, but still a lot of fun.
Cheers!
g

[Cat Driver]

Thanks for the quick reply.

If I ever decide to buy myself a play toy It solid be one of the first machines I flew for a living.

A Stearman.

[robertsailor1]

Now your talking about one of my past favorite toys...wonderful aircraft. I flew it from Winnipeg to Edmonton in January..long story!!

[cgzro]

Now the Stearman, there is a plane that looks like it was made to 2 point!

[robertsailor1]

Either way actually. The angle of attack is such that you can pull off almost full stall 3 point landings unlike some of the small Bipes that will always hit tail wheel first if you attempt full stall arrivals.
Its also an excellent plane to wheel land. Unlike other aircraft I've owned I had no favorite way to land it, probably just how I felt at the moment.

I remember "back when" taking the Snow birds out early one morning during an airshow day and let them all take a whack at flying it. Everyone of them fell out the bottom of aileron rolls, jets make you lazy. No doubt with a little time they would all have done well but it was a wonderful basic trainer that really taught students well.

[tractor driver]

Couldn't agree more. Spent some time with John Mohr in his machine, the 220 Jacobs more than fit the bill! Great fun to feel the airflow changes of the open cockpit during stalls and other maneuvers.

[robertsailor1]

Did his have a Jacobs? Mine was a Cont which was the most popular engine 225 hp, a few had Lyc but I was never aware of any with Jacobs...but then I don't know everything for sure.
If you flew with John you were flying with one of the top aviators in the world. Some of the guys that many folks consider to be the best in the business consider him a one of a kind. I've never seen a pilot manage energy like he does. I used to think I could fly my Stearman to a reasonably good level until I watched him. You were fortunate to have flown with him.