Two-way radio, your first flight is solo...

So why are all aerobatic aircraft taildraggers anyway? How come no one makes a tricycle gear version of the pitts?

How come no one makes a tricycle gear version of the pitts?

The Colonel is probably "gathering himself" before he presents his reply to this!

Interesting reading... and just a follow up question, I suppose I log the time as dual? (Even though it's with an instructor)

Colonel Sanders wrote:
If you insist on risking the airframe with someone who
is not an instructor, it might help the both of you very
much to read these:

http://www.pittspecials.com/articles/Tailwheel.htm
http://www.pittspecials.com/articles/Wheel_landings.htm
http://www.pittspecials.com/articles/AdverseYaw.htm
http://www.pittspecials.com/articles/Type.htm

Won't cost you a dime. Might save the aircraft. Not
many tailwheel aircraft left, and the sole cause is crappy
instruction.

Hi Colonel,

Read the articles, thanks.

I have never trained a pilot with no tailwheel time, only checkouts for guys with at least some experience. Based on my own very first tailwheel checkout with much initial zigging and zagging on the takeoff and landing, I have always been kind of glad that I have not done any initial training on others. I have always thought that it required nerves of steel.

Anyways, I have always felt that wheel landings were easier and required much less skill than three-pointers and assumed that this was the case for everyone but I was surprised to read that this is not the case according to your info. Do initial students really have that much more difficulty for wheel landings?

James, from the AIM

1.5 Definitions of Flight Experience
1) The following definitions apply:
(a) dual is the flight time during which a person is receiving
flight instruction from a person qualified in accordance
with the CARs.

CARs

425.21 Qualifications of Flight Instructors

(1) A person who acts as a flight instructor shall be the holder of a pilot permit or pilot licence for the category, class and type of aircraft, as appropriate, on which the flight training is conducted.

I suppose I log the time as dual?

James, if you are licensed to fly the plane as PIC, I expect that you can log the flying that way, ieven if there is an instructor right seat to you. However, as long as you log the time to show that you flew the plane, I would not get too hung up on calling yourself PIC. I know it's satisfying and everything, but there is now shame, and indeed pride in a pilot log which shows that you sought and received more "mentored" flying.

I have logged more than 650 hours of flying as dual or a second pilot, and I'm proud of it. Much of that was very valuable mentoring, and I'm proud of that! Don't worry about how you log it, just keep the record... Anyone who cares to read your log book will appreciate your honesty about how and what you flew, and that you went for more mentoring after being licensed.

Another way to look at not getting training from someone qualified to train you is you will have to self teach......

PilotDAR wrote:I have logged more than 650 hours of flying as dual or a second pilot, and I'm proud of it. Much of that was very valuable mentoring, and I'm proud of that! Don't worry about how you log it, just keep the record... Anyone who cares to read your log book will appreciate your honesty about how and what you flew, and that you went for more mentoring after being licensed.

I must say that beyond the usual license requirements, any dual to get is usually a pleasure because its always towards something you really want to do. The opportunity to learn and try something new in an airplane is always to be relished. It might have something to do with the fact that my last few hours of dual in the book have all been in taildragging radials that were made in the 40's.

Shiny Side Up wrote:It might have something to do with the fact that my last few hours of dual in the book have all been in taildragging radials that were made in the 40's.

Lucky guy.

This is one of the only threads that I feel I can contribute to since all of my time is in the radial engined biplanes mentioned above (Stearmans and Wacos) except the required Cessna time to get the license in the first place.

As usual I find myself agreeing with the good Colonel and Cat Driver on most points, and PilotDAR is spot on as well with regards to no 2 airplanes being the same (except keeping the damn thing straight) and the value of good, solid, dual instruction.

Citabrias and Decathlons, in my unrealistic opinion, terrible trainers just for the fact that I think they're too easy. Really, they're like a 172 with the wheel on the back. You don't really even need to S-turn the thing (I've got 2 whole hours in a Super D so I know all there is to know --but you get my point). Kind of like the Chipmunk, too. Great airplanes, but terrible trainers because you can pretty much do whatever you want.

The best thing I ever did was spend some time with Budd Davisson down in Scottsdale with his Pitts S-2A. He's expensive, but well worth it. I logged 10.2 hours of circuits with that guy in about 4 days in "the worst weather in years" -- his words, (it rained a bit, but the wind wasn't the same for 2 circuits in a row so it made it fun). Budd has a very specific way of teaching/flying his airplane, which is cool, but the main point is that the Pitts is such an honest airplane that it shows you everything you're doing, resulting in a massive blow to one's self esteem and leaving you with an even bigger inferiority complex. But when I finally did a full circuit without Budd making fun of me or groaning into the intercom, it felt better than my first solo.

I'd imagine Cat would be similar, without having met the guy in person.

For 2 airplanes that an annoyingly large amount of people can't tell apart, the Stearman and Waco UPF-7 really are completely different. The Stearman 3-points really nice, but the Waco... not so much. Love them both, highly recommended.

I don't even know what I'm trying to add here but it's too bad that using a Pitts for a training aircraft is too unrealistic because I think the quality of pilots that would result would be MUCH higher. The Stearman does all the same things (in terms of in the circuit) just at half the speed.

Derp.

I'd imagine Cat would be similar, without having met the guy in person.

Thank you!!

I have been teaching advanced flying for a very long time and understand exactly what it is like to be a student trying to master a new type or learn flying on the edge of the envelope, one thing for sure I never raise my voice nor do I ever make comments that will cause the student to feel bad.

Teaching is more than just demonstrating how good you can do it and expecting the student to be able to fly to the same level of skill.....hell if they could they would not need you to teach them.

But for sure I want the student to fly at the same level of skill as I teach by the time they are done.

And no two people learn at the same pace.

Beefitarian wrote:

Hi ggcc, how's it going?

Great Beef, thanks for asking.... We are going to need "A few good (tail dragger) men" when I get those AN2's over here....

.
So why are all aerobatic aircraft taildraggers anyway? How come no one makes a tricycle gear version of the pitts?

because the purpose is fun and tail draggers are 10000 times more fun! also some acro planes have such big props and power that they could not be trikes anyway.

GGCC wrote: when I get those AN2's over here....

I saw that one was for sale.

why are all aerobatic aircraft taildraggers anyway?

Prop clearance. You want to use a large diameter
prop to convert horsepower to thrust. Take a look
at the ground clearance on this SU-26:


You want to try wheel landing that?

Do initial students really have that much more difficulty for wheel landings?

In my experience, it is easier for people to land slower,
land 3-pt, and only have to concentrate on keeping it
straight with their feet, with the stick back all the way.

Obviously this is higly type dependent. I would never
dream of 3-pt'ing the Beech 18, for example. But the
R-985 Stearman does a lovely wheel landing. Or you
could 3-pt the Stearman, if you wanted to. Either one
works on that type. Same thing with the Harvard - you
can wheel it or 3-pt it, according to your personal preference.
I personally like a tail-low wheel landing on a stock
Harvard, but that's just my personal preference.
Wheel landing a Pitts is complely unnecessary and
totally insane, but great fun if you have over 4000
feet of funway.

it's too bad that using a Pitts for a training aircraft is too unrealistic because I think the quality of pilots that would result would be MUCH higher

Heh. That is completely insane, but I really like the way
that you think

The big problem with the Pitts (or Christen Eagle, or
Stearman, or Harvard from the back seat, etc) is that
you are blind forward when you land. Many people
find that really disconcerting.

You can teach people footwork - I stole the "wind game"
from Budd Davisson - but blind out the front is a whole
different league, I find.

I would rather teach people tailwheel first on a cub/champ/
t-craft/citabria/decathlon, then crank it up with something
twitchy and blind after they have mastered a gentle, slow
taildragger with forward visibility.

Right now, I am teaching a sharp young pilot to land the
Pitts - he just bought an S1S and it is killing him not to
fly it. But he is doing very well, learning to land the S-2B
(I just changed the worn-out tailwheel tire this evening)
because he has 150 hrs in a Citabria.

In the motorcycle world, we have a saying:

I doesn't matter what you ride, as long as you ride

which I think applies to taildraggers. If you ride
a 250cc motorcycle in traffic, you could step up
to a gixxer thou pretty quickly. But if you had
never ridden a motorcycle before, a GSX-R 1000
would probably not be a good starter bike.

Wheel landing a Pitts is complely unnecessary and
totally insane, but great fun if you have over 4000

2800 feet if you brake hard but its quite a ride... agree its unnecessary.. But its fun!

BTW, CS, Your suggestion to touch one wheel before the other completely changed my opinion about wheel landing the Pitts without a crosswind. Takes a very twitchy 100mph bounce and makes it much more manageable.

touch one wheel before the other completely changed my opinion about wheel landing the Pitts

Thanks Peter ... this information is guarded like the crown
jewels for some reason, but the key to a good wheel landing
is to sideslip, even if there is no crosswind.

This allows one main tire to touch first. Doesn't matter which
one. If you don't have a greaser touchdown, instead of the
tail flopping down - which is what happens when you touch
both mains - you can get the other main coming down, with
just a little forward stick. This allows you to not increase the
AOA and thus keep lift down, and not bounce back up into the
sky.

This sounds much more complicated than it is. Just sideslip at
the last moment, and your wheel landings will start working
much, much better.

There are 3 common ways to land the Pitts:

1) Conventional downwind. Power idle abeam runway threshold,
continuous descending U to slant final, 10 to 20 degrees. Wings
level over the threshold, touch down. Budd Davisson.

2) Don't descend on base. Turn final at 1000 AGL. Sideslip at
least 10,000 fpm - might be 20,000 fpm, I dunno - to keep
runway in sight, while you fly the extended runway centerline.
I find the flare terrifying. Gerry Younger

3) The few, the proud, the completely insane. Wide open
throttle in the descent. Go for at least 200 mph, try to get
ATC to ask for a slowdown for the kerosene burners in front.
Maintain at least 190 mph until very short final. Throttle all
the way back. 3-blade constant speed prop goes flat and
throws you forward into the shoulder harnesses. If you
time it right, you are at 120 mph and plop the mains onto
the numbers. Tail up in the air, sail down the runway. 4000
feet of runway is recommended. Sean Tucker, Skip Stewart.

I doesn't matter what you ride, as long as you ride

True... but we can all agree that if whoever taught you how to ride motorcycles didn't stress the dangers of ham-fisting the front brake at slow speed, then jumping from your XR100 to a new Goldwing or Gixxer could likely be a rather educational experience! Bikes all ride the same at speed (to a point) and so do airplanes (work with me here), it's the whole parking/landing bit that seems to get people!

I know what you're saying though, and I agree. Learning on a Citabria from someone like yourself is one thing, but learning on a Citabria from someone with those cute epaulettes is another thing altogether, and it's entirely possible that some bad habits will remain or actually even be taught, unfortunately.

Just goes back to the salient point that you get what you pay for.

FWIW, I did my my tailwheel training in a Christen Eagle, from Zero (tailwheel) Hours to being safe (just not pretty). I don't know many pilots that have had the tower ask " Is everything okay?" after one of their landings.

Not an experience I would recommend. After a few years of flying the Eagle, I was able to put in a number of hours in a PA-12 (think Super Cub), and I found it to be a pussycat. Not so much for the other pilot in the plane, a retired gentleman that had about 50 hours on a Fleet Canuck from 20 years ago.

On the Eagle, I did not find the light touch on the controls to be a problem, but the lack of forward visibility was difficult.

Regarding the different feel in steering a tailwheel, I found it useful to think of driving a forklift at 60 mph. When you go straight, not a problem, when you make a turn, there can be REAL problem, depending on how aggressive you are in the turn.

Colonel Sanders wrote:

touch one wheel before the other completely changed my opinion about wheel landing the Pitts

Thanks Peter ... this information is guarded like the crown
jewels for some reason, but the key to a good wheel landing
is to sideslip, even if there is no crosswind.

I think this can be said for wheel landing any taildragger, no? The problem I find with most people doing a nose to tail conversion is that they don't have a good ability to slip the airplane in the first place so they have trouble with this idea.

Yes, the touch one wheel first works well in the other tail draggers I fly but the Fleet Finch, Tigermoth, Decathlon , Citabria, j3, scout etc are so easy to land on two wheels at the same time its not necessary, but i suppose if you were having trouble the one wheel trick would help. In the case of the Pitts I think its almost mandatory when there is no xwind.

That was the angle I was getting at, the slip onto the runway is useful as a starting point if someone is having trouble with the wheel landing.

On the Eagle, I did not find the light touch on the controls to be a problem, but the lack of forward visibility was difficult.

That is exactly the experience I have with
almost everyone. You can teach the feet,
but blind out the front is a big hurdle for a
lot of folks.

Let's face it, how many people would be
comfortable driving down the highway at
80 mph with the hood blown up, covering
the windshield? You really have to be insane.

That's very much a pre-WWII configuration.
By the end of WWII, the writing was on the
wall - props were on the way out, and jets
with nosewheels took over (P-80, T-33,
F-86, century series, etc).

Not many people have experience at flying
WWII aircraft. Those that do, actually have
no problem landing a Pitts / Eagle. The
opposite is true, as well.

Rick Volker recommends to the WWII warbird
crowd that they get an inexpensive Pitts S1S
and fly the pants off it, to develop the stick and
rudder skill they need to fly their million dollar
WWII warbird.

GZRO and Colonel,

Just 'cause I'm curious, having not flown the Pitts, and experienced its poor forward visibility on the runway, is it significantly less good than the Tiger Moth from the back seat?