How do you flip a taildragger on landing?

[lownslow]

Don't worry, I'm not about to try it but I am curious about what causes it. It seems like it happens every so often and I tell myself it won't happen to me. That may be true, I'm a careful guy, but I got to thinking it happens often enough that maybe I don't understand WHY it happens and so it COULD happen to me.

Is it as easy as not standing on the brakes or is there more to it?

LnS.

[Scout44]

Most of my time is in light 'draggers. Not an overly detailed answer for you, but in short...

In the cases I'm personally familiar with, yes, standing on the brakes has been an issue.

Also, failing to stop a swing can result in a groundloop. Groundloops don't always end up with the a/c on its back (they sometimes end up vertical once the prop or a wing digs in), but it's certainly possible.

When I'm checking ppl out on a tailwheel a/c, my personal pet peeves are approach habits. Consistent speed control, x-wind technique & eliminating lateral movement over the surface before touchdown, maintaining appropriate control inputs once on the ground, etc.

My experience is limited to high-wing taildraggers, and I haven't flown anything all that short-coupled, so I'm sure others will have experience with low-wing draggers and others that may be more squirrelly.

If you're interested in the subject, there's some decent books out there. "The Compleat (sic) Taildragger Pilot" by Henry Plourde was often referred to me when I first checked out, but it's out of print I think. There's others that will be just as good or better as well.

[ahramin]

I have no experience flipping taildraggers, but if you are worried about it I guess one could defer braking to stop until the tailwheel is firmly held on the ground. Or just control the aircraft and don't brake so hard the plane flips over.

If you are wondering why it happens, a look on youtube seems to support the control the aircraft theory.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WCMQopf_xRY

http://youtu.be/gMKw-5LBiAM

[Cat Driver]

In both videos the runway was to short.

[Colonel Sanders]

If you get on the brakes, or get sideways
and hook a main, over it goes:









Happens all the time.

[cgzro]

Objects fall over when their center of gravity lies above but outside their base, eg you fall over when your center of mass is outside your foot area.

A tail dragger's c of g is very close to and a little behind the main gear, so if the tail comes up too far, say 10 degrees above level give or take, physics takes over. Unless you quickly add power you have no way to stop it once the cg is infront of the mains. Braking , hitting a ditch or hard swerves like a ground loop can cause it.

The reason the wheels are close to the cg is to keep the weight on the tail wheel low. Too much weight and it cannot be lifted at low speeds. Its not uncommon for a 2000lb plane to only have 100lbs on the tail wheel and that weight progressively decreases to zero as the tail comes up to the point you can hold the tail up with one finger when the plane is perfectly balanced on its mains.

My own aircraft weighs 900lbs and has only 60lbs on the tail wheel. In addition the main gear are only 12 inches forward of the most forward c of g.

The same principle applies to a ground loop, ie the c of g gets infront of a wheel. Unlike a nose over braking can 'perhaps' stop a ground loop, but so can power.

In general with a tail dragger power is your best solution. It gives you instant control over the tail which is the source of your problems.

Its funny actually because in high powered tail draggers , power gets you out of trouble on the ground but into trouble in the air. So in the air power back if its doing wierd spinny things you dont like, on the ground power up to get out of wierd spinny things:)

[PilotDAR]

Referring to the two youtube videos, there is a second layer of lesson to be learned, beyond the obvious - over use of brakes will flip a 180/185 over on landing.

Let's assume that the pilot applied a large braking effort, and maintained that braking effort without increasing or decreasing it, until he realized that a call to the insurance agent was necessary.

The plane touches down nicely, obviously full stick back is held, and that's good. With that, the pilot has the added control in pitch, to prevent a noseover. As the plane slows, there is increased weight on the wheels, due to less lift from the slowing wing (though flaps remained extended ), So more weigh, more braking effectiveness = more pitch over force. All the while, that pitch over force is being counteracted by full stick back. That's good, but as the plane slows, the elevator is progressively less effective - to the point where it's doing bugger all to hold the tail down, but the braking is still trying to flip it over - so it goes over. The lesson is that as you slow, you have to lessen the braking effort.

I have watched this done right in front of me three times, and on none of those times was the pilot actually trying for a short landing, he was just trying to get down on an ample runway.

This guy seems to have it worked out well....

[triplese7en]

PilotDAR - oohhh it cut out right before he nosed it over, right?! That was a pretty sweet landing.

[AirFrame]

In both videos the runway was to short.

For a 185? Both videos showed lots of space beyond where the plane nosed over. Both pilots panicked and locked up their brakes, and then didn't ease off on them when they should have.

Or there were other factors that aren't apparent from the videos. But there's no reason a 185 shouldn't be able to make a great short field landing.

[crazy_aviator]

The 185 increased POWER, touched down about 3 point THEN nosed over to UNLOAD the wing, if we could see the end, he would likely have dropped flaps to 0 then pullllled back

[Cat Driver]

For a 185? Both videos showed lots of space beyond where the plane nosed over. Both pilots panicked and locked up their brakes, and then didn't ease off on them when they should have.

Both accidents were so obviously pilot error on steroids..... I thought I would give them an excuse.

[lownslow]

Sounds like since I either operate with no brakes, poor brakes, or the notion that braking is stupid if you stop in the first 500 feet of a 2000-odd foot runway anyways, it sounds like I'm safe for now. The Colonel's mention of catching a tire intrigues me though, is it really as simple as the plane overturning instead of carrying on through a groundloop?

LnS.

[Shiny Side Up]

If you get on the brakes, or get sideways
and hook a main, over it goes:



Happens all the time.

Video of that last picture.



Usually when you see the airplane neatly upside down on the centerline, someone was on the brakes. Lot of smoke off of those tires.

[North Shore]

Almost looks like the parking brake was on? The smoke started pretty much the second that the mains touched...

[Shiny Side Up]

Comment on that one mention that the passenger may have been responsible, either way, the blame would still be on the pilot. Passenger briefing anyone?

[Colonel Sanders]

Passenger briefing

I'll bet the pilot droned on for 30 minutes about
121.5 vs 406 ELTs and the contents of the first
aid kit and the development history and advantages
and disadvantages and operation of A/B/C/D fire
extinguishers, and didn't bother to mention anything
useful.

That's my experience with pax briefings. Waste
time and try really hard not to communicate anything
that they might actually need to know. If by accident
you actually include anything useful in a pax briefing,
make sure it follows 119 useless items so that you
can ensure you've lost their attention by then.

Think of a 2 hr PGI performed by a new class 4 instructor
for a fam flight.

I must ask: is the usual obfuscation unintentional and
simply more incompetence, or is it truly malevolent?

[fleet16b]

If you get on the brakes, or get sideways
and hook a main, over it goes:









Happens all the time.

In the case of that particular Stearman, the pilot landed with the parking brake on .
the whole incident was filmed with a headcam from the pilots view
A real shame as the aircraft had just been restored .

[Colonel Sanders]

I really hate parking brakes. You can't trust them
when you need them, and they will screw you
horribly when you least want them.

Sort of like voluntarily taking as a pax in the
right seat, a psychotic prison yard bully.

I just don't see what the upside is, on either
parking brakes, or psychotic prison yard bullies
in the right seat.

[fleet16b]

There was just such an Incident at Guelph last week.
C-140 with instructor was teaching a pilot tailwheel training.
The two were observed to be c/out landings above normal appraoch speed and landing quite long.
Did a least one aborted landing
Well this caught up with them.
They came in for a landing , landed long and tried to stay on the ground . resulting in heavy braking .
The aircraft left the runway( I suspect due to panic and uneven braking) and entered the soft grass
area.
The combination of heavy braking and soft surface resulted in the aircraft going over on its back .
No injuries but a fair amount of damage to the aircraft.

The Instructor and Taidragger Trainee had a choice of either usinG a C140 or a Cub for training.
IMHO , the Cub would have been the better choice as a first step . I have always felt that the front and back seating arrangment is better than side by side during initial Tailwheel instruction.

[Colonel Sanders]

I have a lot of respect for C120/140 on pavement.
It is a snaky little airplane, and that spring gear is
unforgiving of any rate of descent at touchdown -
it will happily shoot you right back into the air.

landed long

Especially in a taildragger, I tell people that if they
even ask themselves if they should overshoot -
FULL POWER.

You want a perfect approach - at the correct speed -
followed by a perfect flare, followed by a perfect
touchdown, followed by a perfect rollout.

Sure, if you're Bob Hoover, you can salvage a screwed
up approach/landing/whatever, but if you're as good a
pilot as Bob, how did you screw up in the first place?

If you get behind the airplane, FULL POWER and get some
daylight between the mains and the pavement and get
set up again and do it right.

The only time you force a light airplane on the ground
is when it is on fire. Get ahead of the airplane. If you're
behind the airplane, who's in control?


Responding to previous comment:

The Colonel's mention of catching a tire intrigues me though, is it really as simple as the plane overturning instead of carrying on through a groundloop?

People (not me) have managed to cartwheel Pitts during
a groundlooped landing. Admittedly the speeds are probably
a bit higher, but ...

[Colonel Sanders]

One really important thing I wanted to mention:

Look at all of the pictures of the poor, trashed
tailwheel aircraft, upside down.

Notice that their main gear is PERFECT in every
single photo. Aviat says that no Pitts that was
kept straight, ever had it's landing gear damaged.

Think about that for a moment.

Every pilot I meet, spends all his time fishing for
a greaser to baby the landing gear

What a complete waste of time.

You hurt a tailwheel aircraft by not keeping it
straight. I know of a Pitts that put +4G on the
meter, landing on pavement. I know of a Stearman
that put +5G on the meter, landing on grass.
Both airplanes were mechanically perfect afterwards,
because they were kept straight.

[fleet16b]

One of the vintage aircraft I fly currently is Fleet Finch
Unlike most vintage biplanes, the Fleet was designed for flying solo from the front seat.
Down in the states there have been more than a few incidents where the owners have flipped the aircarft
All but one were done while taxiing
Now the Fleet is a really solid aircraft and has a heavy tail so it would take quite the effort to flip it

As a result most of the US owners have modified the rear seat position and are flying them from the rear seat wrongly accusing the aircaft of being nose heavy. Totally unnecessary !!
The aircraft trained 1000's of students during WW2 and there were no reports of it being too nose heavy at all.
I suspect one of the causes would be A) improper brake set up B) taxiing way too fast
There is a reason why one should taxi at "walking speed"

I constantly see taildragger pilots both private and Museum pilots taxiing like they are late for dinner.
Whether its a Cub or a P51 , this is a recipe for disaster . There are pics all over the web that show aircraft resting on their noses as a result of this

[Colonel Sanders]

Taxiing fast is one problem ...

One of the aircraft that I fly is an R-985 Stearman
which is a tad nose-heavy. It loves to raise the
tail on the ground, which is terrifying. Some of
blame you might put on the brakes, but ...

I am very careful when taxiing the R-985 Stearman
to keep the rate of yaw down. I don't like to swing
the nose around fast.

Why is that? Hint: it has a massive metal prop.

Stuff that you can get away with, when you have a
light wooden prop, you simply can't, with a heavy
metal prop.

[fleet16b]

Taxiing fast is one problem ...

One of the aircraft that I fly is an R-985 Stearman
which is a tad nose-heavy. It loves to raise the
tail on the ground, which is terrifying. Some of
blame you might put on the brakes, but ...

I am very careful when taxiing the R-985 Stearman
to keep the rate of yaw down. I don't like to swing
the nose around fast.

Why is that? Hint: it has a massive metal prop.

Stuff that you can get away with, when you have a
light wooden prop, you simply can't, with a heavy
metal prop.

Very good point !!!

[Colonel Sanders]

Pop quiz: You're going to run smoke on
the ground in your Whiz-Bang taildragger.
Instead of stationary, you're going to go
around in a circle. The chicks will go wild
for you after the show.

Do you do the circle:

fast/slow/doesn't matter
right/left/doesn't matter

Hint: think about fast/right and slow/left.