Benefits of learning gliding as powered aircraft pilot?

[goingnowherefast]

What does p factor and the slip stream have to do with gliders?

The 2 big reason you need lots of rudder in a glider are you are often in the bottom end of the speed range, and the aileron drag has a much longer lever to act on the fuselage (long wings, short fuselage).

I'll put it this way. People who learnt to fly on 152/172 usually get away with poor rudder handling skills because they didn't need them. The aircraft has enough directional stability. Every type of glider I've flown will quickly show any mis-use of the rudder and forces you to use them properly.

Now hop back into your 172 and those forces are still there, but aren't near as prevalent. You are more focused on right rudder in the climb, and okay with the bit of aileron drag induced yaw. Now if you bring your glider skills into the 172, you will deal with that aileron drag much better.

The glider pilot flying the 172 will also be much more aware of how to use the rudder at lower airspeeds. After all, in a glider, you probably spend 40% of the time flying 5kts above the stall. You are feeling the glider's reactions to every control movement as you burble just above the stall. There's also no silly engine to distract you from playing with (and exploiting) the aerodynamics you are learning about first hand.

[photofly]

I don't think your definition of adverse yaw is quite correct

He means differential aileron drag, the same effect that causes an adverse yawing moment when the ailerons are used in flight. "Stick into the wind when landing in a crosswind."

[AuxBatOn]

The sideslip mechanics are much more complex than a single aircraft mode. It is an interraction between directional stability, spiral stability, dihedral effect, sideforces, aerodynamics. The aileron deflection into the wind during a sideslip is actually representative of dihedral effect, not adverse yaw.

[photofly]

Going back to this, which seems unobjectionable and correct to me...

The need to understand, control and exploit adverse yaw every flight seems to make a tail dragger pilot better in the slow flight regime and less likely to pick up a wing with an aileron.

We should note hat the venerable C172 has differential aileron travel and Frise ailerons both of which minimize aileron-induced yaw effects and reduce the amount of rudder input needed. The 172 was designed with the postwar era general aviation mindset of makiing airplanes as easy to fly as possible, the same thought processes giving us the interconnected rudder/aileron linkage in the Bonanza and the Ercoupe with no rudder pedals at all.

By contrast most tailwheel aircraft designs predate that era. Leaving aside the tail-wheel specific issue of directional control on the ground, it might be equally accurate to say that pilots of aircraft of older design learn better aircraft control.

As an example, the Grumman American AA5B (first flight 1970) has a POH that instructs the pilot that ailerons should be used to maintain a wings level attitude through a stall and recovery.

[AuxBatOn]

Like I said, adverse yaw is not exclusive to tail draggers. Where the roll control surfaces are laterally also has a massive effect on how much adverse yaw you'll get, as well as the airspeed (dynamic pressure)you are flying at. I think the statement he made applies to pretty much any airplane without advanced flight controls.

[photofly]

Can you name some powered airplanes of that nature that you have in mind that aren't taildraggers?

[lownslow]

Can you name some powered airplanes of that nature that you have in mind that aren't taildraggers?

Probably this:

[photofly]

Piper tripacer perhaps. Not many types though.

[xsbank]

You guys are getting silly. Glider flying is fun and teaches you a lot of skills that atrophy in a large heavy aircraft. Just accept that.

. and I suggest you fly everything you get a chance to; recognize that you never stop learning or honing your skills and that even if you have a large paycheque and a Porsche, there's a bunch of stuff you don't know and stuff you're not good at yet.

If you think you know it all, its time for some introspection and to reexamine what your real responsibility is.

[fixedpitch]

If tailwheel airplanes produce such superior pilots then why doesn't the military still use them? Last time I checked the RCAF had some reasonably competent pilots and there hasn't been a tailwheel trainer in the air force's inventory since the early 1960s IIRC.

[AuxBatOn]

. and I suggest you fly everything you get a chance to;

I think that's the key. Not flying a particular type of aircraft but a diversity of aircraft. I have weeks in my logbook where I flew 8 different types (from modern jets, to old jets, to gliders, to tailwheel to big wing) in 5 days. These are the times I learned the most.

[Cat Driver]

If tailwheel airplanes produce such superior pilots then why doesn't the military still use them?

Well lets look at this objectively.

There are several tail wheel airplanes that are or were used commercially in aviation.

The most demanding of those that I have flown a lot was the Grumman Turbo Goose, it was very, very demanding on take off and landing.

How many commercial pilots are there out there with no tail wheel experience that could just jump in the Turbo Goose and fly it without losing control.

I have not met many.

And even those I would not take the risk of giving them the Turbo Goose to self checkout on.

[cgzro]

Its not really complicated and nothing controversial here. Ailerons cause yaw and its very pronounced in gliders (all the time) and tail draggers (in takeoff/landing where you need it to stay straight) therefore you will be better equipped to deal with it if you experience it a lot.

Im not making a general remark about pilot skil just using a singe data point about which I have some experience especially sitting while experienced pilots go full opposite aileron on a wing drop in planes that will spin beautifully if you do that. I believe current glider and td pilots are less likely to do that under stress but my sample size is only a few dozen and perhaps Ive just been unlucky but the glider kids and tow pilots Ive flown with dont make this mistake. Does that make them better, for this specific issue yes but of course there are a million other issues not least of which is judgement which has little to do with ac type.

Anyway fly a variety of types and seek out new conditions seems wise and gliders Im sure would be helpful.

PS- P factor etc have nothing to do with gliders of course but I was emphasizing how common characteristics of all propellor driven planes can be more pronounced in a td and require more skill.

[fixedpitch]

Quote:

If tailwheel airplanes produce such superior pilots then why doesn't the military still use them?


Well lets look at this objectively.

There are several tail wheel airplanes that are or were used commercially in aviation.

It's a serious question. The RCAF clearly doesn't see a lot of value in tailwheel training. In fact, I don't think any modern western air force uses them. It just seems curious given the assumption here among some folks that tailwheel training produces superior pilots. I would imagine that the military would want the very best in pilot skills.

[Rockie]

There's no doubt in my mind that tail wheel training produces superior tail wheel pilots.

[Cat Driver]

It just seems curious given the assumption here among some folks that tailwheel training produces superior pilots.

I personally believe that being competent in flying tail wheel airplanes makes for a better pilot.

My opinion is based on decades of advanced flight training of every conceivable level of pilots time and type rated experience.

Everyone of course will have their own opinion which is their right to have.

[fixedpitch]

I personally believe that being competent in flying tail wheel airplanes makes for a better pilot.

Yes I get that but it still begs the question why doesn't the military use tail wheel trainers. Obviously they don't see a significant value in it. I am going to assume that the air force abandoned the tail wheel trainer because of high accident rates among students (especially given the WW2 experience where accident rates were appalling) and most modern air forces use tricycle gear airplanes anyway.

If anyone has some historical perspective please share.

[xsbank]

The military has access to full-motion simulators which are capable of providing any control situation that you might ever have to use a basic trainer for.

This is a specious argument - the military has specific goals and requirements which it trains to.

Nobody is telling you to fly a glider - it is an experience that every pilot will benefit from but one thing it can't do is open up a closed mind.

[JasonE]

I started flying tailwheel this year out of interest, then transitioned into gliders. I'm really enjoying both, and I believe have made me a much better pilot. Really got me to realize how lazy my feet were during my first few hundred hours of flying. Highly recommend trying both to any pilot.

[cgzro]

[quote] If tailwheel airplanes produce such superior pilots then why doesn't the military still use them? Last time I checked the RCAF had some reasonably competent pilots and there hasn't been a tailwheel trainer in the air force's inventory since the early 1960s IIRC. [/quote]

The military teaches aerobatics which is a great way to learn about all the nasty things that happen at extreme angles/speeds deflections. Also highly recommended.

[Meatservo]

I think everyone can agree that understanding the physics and other principles that govern the behaviour of aeroplanes is important to becoming a good pilot. I think we can also agree that the more one immerses oneself into putting this knowledge into practice, the more innate the knowledge becomes- that is, instead of being a set of memorized "rules", it becomes part of our suite of instinctive reflexes and responses. I think we can all further agree that different types of aeroplanes are capable of demonstrating to a greater or lesser degree, different aspects of these principles. That is, for instance, the effects of things like crosswinds, directional stability and torque are the same on all aeroplanes, but their magnitude is more noticeable in a taildragger. Also for instance, the effects of things like control balance, co-ordinated flight, and energy management are applicable to all aeroplanes, but maybe more noticeable in a sailplane. There are things a swept-wing jet can teach you that are applicable to other aeroplanes, but are most noticeable on the jets themselves. And so on.

Any type of plane has things to teach you. I don't know what the definition is of a "better" pilot- I suppose it would be a pilot who,for whatever reason, is less likely to get into trouble, doing what he does, than someone else who also does what he does. Maybe if you ever flew only the one kind of aeroplane, then a variety of experience isn't relevant. You can be a "good" pilot on that kind of plane. But since every kind of plane is subtly different within a finite range of possible characteristics, it stands to reason that the more kinds of plane you fly, the more adaptable you become. A beaver with a boat tied to the side flies a lot like a Baron with an engine feathered. Get a large, old, turboprop hydroplaning or skidding on ice in a crosswind, and you might find yourself tap-dancing and doing strange things with the power levers the way . does in his old turbo-Goose. Managing a long descent in your streamlined jet with its long skinny wings and speed-brakes, trying to get onto final at the right speed, configuration and height without having to bring the power levers back up might remind some people of their experiences in a sailplane at weekends. Performing a late, low-energy go-around in a heavy transport category plane brings to mind trying to coax a cranky old piston-Otter over the trees on a hot, still summer day. People take pride in being able to manage this sort of thing. Sure, any of those aeroplanes will eventually teach you that stuff all on their own. Aeroplanes all share certain basic similarities. But I call a pilot a "better" pilot when he or she is able to easily adapt to changing circumstances, without getting stressed out or relying on excuses. If I were pressed for a definition of what makes a "better" pilot, that is.

[xsbank]

Good one, Meat! You're making me happy!

[Cat Driver]

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

This to me is beautiful.

http://www.antillesseaplanes.com/gallery.htm

They are old airplanes re designed for sure, but they perform like rocket ships.


Not only are they demanding on the runway but they will porpoise in a heartbeat, mastering the beasts is really fun.

[AuxBatOn]

Can you name some powered airplanes of that nature that you have in mind that aren't taildraggers?

Some taildraggers also have roll-yaw coordination device, like the Maule. While the abscence of these device guarantee some adverse yaw, it's magnitude cannot be guaranteed to be greater than an augmented aircraft (with diff ailerons/frise/interconnect). So, large adverse yaw is not exclusive to taildragger or unaugmented aircraft.

What will make you have a hard time coordinating the aircraft is when sideforces generated by sideslip are small (this is how you feel you are uncoordinated). I find that pilots respond better to tactile feel and the lack thereof will make the task more difficult. In general, an airplane with a small side area will exhibit small sideforces which will make coordination difficult. If you add a big directional control surface with a lot of control power (making directional control sensitive), with ailerons that are far from the center of gravity, generating adversw yaw, it will make it that much more difficult.

[trey kule]

There's no doubt in my mind that tail wheel training produces superior tail wheel pilots.

100% in agreement.

It also appears to foster a sense of superiority in self evaluated flying ability.

Tailwheel. Gliders . Great experiences. But lets knock off the I am a better pilot because of it crap.
Some planes fly different. Broad experience is great.

I really like gliders. With that little piece of wool on the windscreen I can do a perfectly co ordinated turn at least 10% of the time. Amazing I never balled up a taildragger. Maybe it was because no one told me it was a big deal t fly one.

it is five decades since I climbed in a glider as an a air cadet. And pretty much everyone knew how to fly taildraggers. But for some reason there were still accidents....go figure.

It seems it is only in the last so many years that learning how to fly a tailwheel plane somehow makes one a super superior pilot, and the only route to learning how to control adverse yaw.

And of course, all planes fly exactly like taildraggers...

Btw...IIRC.. Chipmonks were in the military until 1970 or 71.