First Taildragger Lesson

[kabz]

(Looks at Tiger_Moth hiding in the corner with bewildered expression...)
Poor old TM. Cheer up kid, just go out and fly, then you won't need to keep dreaming...

Anyway, I thought I'd just share my first experience of flying an aircraft with an engine, that's not a Cessna 152/172, and that has a tailwheel instead of a nosewheel. I have **bad** history of PIO landings in those Cessna things and just haven't been able to get the bit after the flare right. EVER!

Citabria. Ally spaceframe, covered in fabric and dope. I think the wings may be wood framed, also covered in fabric & dope. Lightweight, 150 hp engine. Manual flaps, not used in this first lesson. Fittings a bit rusty. Bits of peeling paint, hangar rash etc. Overall cute aircraft though.

Configuation is tandem, with stick in the middle and big widely spaced rudder pedals and throttle, trim and carb heat all on the left side. Minimal instruments. No gyros, just altimeter, rpm, p&t, compass. Basic radios, but ADF stickered INOP.

Taxiing is the first hard bit. Not much effect from rudder/'steerable' tailwheel. Had to use differential braking to avoid cars(!) on taxiway.

Runup was fine, but biggish 200 rpm drop on mag check. Sounds ok though, so we'll live with it. We do a fast taxi down the runway at about 1/4 power until the tail comes up, with some forward stick pressure. This is quite a sensation, and takes various permutations of rudder pressures to keep it straight. This behaviour at this point is making me think that this might not be such a great idea after all. About 1/2 way down the runway I ask for full power, then push the throttle steadily forward and we come off the ground nicely and crab into the slight crosswind.

Flying around, my impression is that this plane is just light years ahead of a 152/172. Roll response is great. It just loves being coordinated. Visibility is great. Flying turns with stick rudder and throttle feels really natural. The low windshield and big sidewindows allow you to reference the horizon for good attitude flying, and the lack of VSI, Artificial Horizon, HSI **force** you to reference the horizon for good attitude flying. In particular, steep turns with a crisp roll in, and pulling a little G is well cool. This plane is about 20x as much fun to fly as a 172.

After a bunch of flying around, in which the power-on stall was the only slight letdown, we head back for a few TnGs. First one is bouncy, bouncy. Second one is bouncy bouncy, power, bouncy bouncy. Third time is the charm however, and as I flare, my instructor says "Ok keep pulling back". I remember my glider flying and just gently pull the stick back at a speed just enough to keep the ground at the same position (i.e. below me). Then, as I run out of stick travel, the tailwheel just nudges the ground and we are smoothly rolling along the runway.

Simple as that !!

First good landing in the taildragger, and hopefully not the last.

Hope this post wasn't too long, and I promise I won't follow it with "How long to solo ?", "Where to rent Citabrias ?", "Do you like the Citabria ?", and "Which is the worst Citabria ?". Sorry TM.

Hope I've made one point though, which is that maybe the crappy visibility in the Cessnas, and having a yoke instead of a stick, takes something away from flying which might impede some people learning to fly.

FWIW, it's actually cheaper by a small margin for me to learn in this, rather than a 172. $94 / hour incl. instruction.

[FNG]

I had similar fun doing it in an L 4 Cub. It was odd to be back at that pre-solo phase where everything fell apart once I got into the flare. Once I got the hang of it I couldn't stop grinning. I wish I had learned to fly in a Cub.
As Kabz says, cheer up TM, go and learn to fly in whatever you want to.

ps: kabz, presumably a citabria is more fun to fly (ignoring the landing bit for the moment) because it was not designed simply for efficient A to B straight and level, which is presumably what Cessna had in mind with the C150 etc. My point is that (although I prefer tailwheels)it's not just the wheel arrangement that makes for a more interesting ride. Its a pity that things like Fireflies and Pups are too expensive for most flying clubs to run as basic trainers.

[This message has been edited by FNG (edited 28 April 2001).]

[DB6]

Taildragger flying is brilliant, and for some reason much more satisfying than nosewheel stuff. I can recommend a good book, The Compleat Taildragger Pilot, by Harvey S.Plourde; lots of good info.
Cheers DB6

[kabz]

FNG, The funny thing is that there shouldn't be anything different between rolling a 172 onto the runway and rolling a Citabria on. Just that the 172 will be on the nosewheel once it slows down enough. The attitude at touchdown should be a full stall, right. In a perfect world anyone who can land a 172 perfectly should be able to do the same in the Citabria... Let me know if I'm missing something here.

On flying, the Citabria is quite light and significantly more powerful than a 172, so that helps the fun aspect. It is probably impractical for schools that don't have hangars as it is fabric covered, and I guess that requires a bunch more TLC than a metal skinned aircraft.

Hopefully, some aerobatics are lurking in the not too-distant future...

[FNG]

kabz, I don't know anything about landing a 172, but certainly don't disagree with the principle of what you say. I've often heard instructors suggest that learning how to land a taildragger may improve the quality of one's trike landings, and I think that I have found that to be true in my case (just have to be careful not to biff the tail bumper on the Pups or Bulldog I fly when triking)

[foxmoth]

kabz
No an aircraft should not be FULLY STALLED on landing, with the wing drop you can get on some aircraft at this stage (ever stalled an Emeraude) you could really find yourself in trouble. If you get to the light buffet you are TO SLOW and need to do something about it, also, have a look at the stall att. next time you try one, I think if you do that and then imagine it at 5' you might think again at being fully stalled on landing.

[FNG]

Trevor Thom: "A normal landing is similar to a power-off stall, with touch-down just prior to the moment of stall"

I'm sure that kabz was not suggesting stalling out above the runway. He was talking about the art of persuading the aircraft to stop flying just as you reach the ground in a suitable attitude (in other words, landing).

Ye olde aviation joke: there are 3 rules for perfect landings, only, no-one knows what they are (copyright O Lielenthal 1887)

[kabz]

Thanks FNG, I'm sure most people learning to fly will have heard something like the following "Keep pulling back, it's not done flying!". i.e. let the aircraft land, nose-up, with the stick full back.

It won't be fully stalled, but should (?) be mushing gently onto the runway... Right?

[Tricky Woo]

Right.

[foxmoth]

kabz statement was that the aircraft ATTITUDE was a fully stalled one, as I pointed out, this is NOT the case - you would end up much to nose high.
He (she?) also said that because of this landing a trycicle gear and a tailwheel is the same - not so - it may work on a flight sim, but in real life there are some differences - the 172 will be a much lower attitude, if you try and hold off as much as a taildragger you risk banging the tail, landing a taildragger the same as a 172 you will do the reverse and probably bounce.
Having said that, if you fly taildraggers you will usually be ok going to nosewheel, going the other way will take a lot longer.

[chicken6]

Yes foxmoth, but you said "...if you do that and then imagine it at 5' you might think again..."

Who lands at 5'? Not me...The science of landing 'properly' is to pull to and through the stall at the same instant that your wheels touch (either all three at once for a tailwheel, or just the mains in a C172). I like to hear the stall warning start at the same time as the rumbling from the wheels. This requires stalling at about 1", not 1'.

The art and finesse of landing like this is to do it gradually and choose your spot. Just recently I have seen a few of my students twitch the c/c back to try and pull through the stall from too high a speed (flying Cessnas) but the Cessna wing doesn't stall in an instant like they think it does, so up we go in the classic balloon scenario. From what I can remember Tomahawks will stall if pulled quickly, the small Grummans I've flown definitely do, haven't flown a Citabria but have heard good things about all parts of it (tailwheel, aerobatic, fabric and a stick are good starts!).

Kabz, when you were flying gliders, did you feel it stall just before the touchdown? I've watched for years here but haven't flown them but they seem to spend a long time floating just above the ground, and I can't tell if they stall or fly it onto the deck. It seems to me that waiting for the stall would make the tail dig in and catapult the pilot into the ground....

------------------
Confident, cocky, lazy, dead.

[kabz]

**Danger -- long post**

foxmoth is kind of right if we are being **really** pedantic. If you get the flare right, then even though the stall warning horn is going off, the plane is still in mushing flight and will descend gently onto the runway.

I still think the attitude is the same between the two types. A 172 should be just as nosehigh as a taildragger when landing, considering that the wing, tailplane etc. will be doing the **same thing** in both types. Remember the definition of a 'texas taildragger', a nosewheel cessna with a tailwheel conversion... Same aircraft, same landing, different rollout...

My first instructor wouldn't let me solo until I could do this everytime in a 172, but I never could get it exactly right everytime. Something about keeping coming back on the yoke and not being able to see exactly where I was relative to the ground. I always seemed to land a bit too fast, with the yoke still having some travel left. If you do this regularly, you will occasionally let the nosewheel hit too early or bounce, and the dreaded 172 shimmy and/or PIO may well result. One of by fellow students did exactly this and broke the gear off in an off-runway excursion via a taxi sign...

Citabria has much better visibility, and it is easier to hold in the flare for just this reason. Ideally it should grease itself onto the ground, just as full back stick travel is reached, and the pilot just can't keep it off the ground anymore. Note that this is the same as for a 172 !!

Glider is a different story. Just flare it, and fly onto the ground gently. Make sure to pull full airbrakes if not already pulled. The main wheel is usually about under CG, so it will just roll along the ground. You need some speed to steer on the ground with the rudder and keep the wings level during rollout. I like to let it come down to about 45 kts in the flare, 10 kts above stall, but have landed at 60 kts with full brakes when necessary to get down and get the wheel brake working.



[This message has been edited by kabz (edited 30 April 2001).]

[foxmoth]

It also depends on the aircraft.
Citabria , Jodel, Cap10 and some other tailwheel aircraft land with a much flatter attitude than say a Moth and are not far off the correct attitude of a 172, though you CAN land the 172 in a fairly flat attitude and get away with a good landing. Other nosewheel aircraft (especially some of the faster ones) have a much flatter attitude.

[Mr moto]

We could call it a three-pointer and leave it at that!

If it isn't actually stalled at touchdown, the control inputs would lead it to stall if there were height available to stall from.

So, if the throttle is closed and the main wheels are within an inch or two of the ground, the tailwheel will touch down first and because the angle of attack can't increase the aircraft will settle onto the ground. If you were to high, there may be a slight bounce but the aircraft does not have sufficient speed to fly.

Or you may run out of control authority.

This is what happens in a glider. Its not stalled at touchdown; its just reached the lowest speed with which it can fly straight and level.

[Skippymon]

Chicken 6, you said, "Who lands at 5'? Not me...The science of landing 'properly' is to pull to and through the stall at
the same instant that your wheels touch (either all three at once for a tailwheel, or just the
mains in a C172). I like to hear the stall warning start at the same time as the rumbling from the
wheels. This requires stalling at about 1", not 1'."
If you approach in a warrior at 65 kts and land just as the stall warner blares, you touch down at about 54kts and still could have flown the hold off until the speed reduced to around 46kts, maybee even lower due to ground effect. Of course, this takes considerable effort and there are many of us who allow the aircraft to touch down somewhere anound 55 kts. This is particularly the case in less than ideal conditions, ie gusting crosswind or short runway. I had the oppourtunity to do some intense landing practise on a warrior over a period of months and really honed my landings until I could reliably grease the main wheels on well into the stall warner sound. One thing I learnt that instructors don;t always say is that rate at which you have to oull back on the control column as the hold off progresses, increases due to the reduced airspeed and thus control effectivness. Ideally I noticed that the columm should not stop moving rearwards from the start of the flare at 20feet or so (depending on configuration and descent rate) until the end of the hold off at touchdwon. I have flown with some pilots who don't seem to make any effort to hold off, mearly cutting the power and arresting the rate of descent and allowing a touchdown at a higher airspeed.

Just a few thoughts on the matter, hope not too waffly!

Skips

[Tricky Woo]

Come on you lot, we all agree. Getting the damn thing down on the ground on all three wheels, at or just above the stall is a GOOD THING. However, anyone who's ever been within a mile of a taildragger in a cross-wind knows that the real fun starts AFTER the landing.

Tap dancing anyone?

[kabz]

Personally, having got it down, it wasn't much harder to keep straight in the landing rollout than a glider... maybe I have good habits. It was not as bad as I had expected. Rudder is plenty effective.

Takeoff, however, was a ***different matter***. At least one veered wildly to the left, once all the power was added... Good accurate aileron correction into the wind is also needed, otherwise you will easily be on one wheel in a crosswind...

[300hrWannaB]

Oh come ON.. The float and the flare are much the same whether it's a spamcan or a proper plane. There's more difference between a high wing 172 that sort of collides with the earth at low vertical speed, and a low wing plane that needs to be persuaded out of ground effect at the place you originally had in mind. PRACTICE IS THE KEY, END OF STORY.

Tap dancing is the art of tailwheelers. Especially at low speed/low power, and a gusting cross wind. Throw in dodgy brakes as well if you like. PS Tiger Moths didn't have brakes at all in original specification. That makes the eyes water!

Having flown half my hours on T/W, the instructor was wetting himself at my efforts in trying to keep a wheelbarrow spamcan straight on the taxiway.

[foxmoth]

if you had half your time on TW why on earth wheelbarrow a trike? Should be no problem landing it properly on the mains if you are TW trained.

[Mr moto]

300hrWB
Please. It may be much the same but it is crucially different.
There is a range of speeds which will produce an acceptable landing with a training, sorry, nose wheel aircraft.
There is only one speed which will give you a good three-pointer.
Before anyone jumps on me for using the word speed instead of angle of attack, the discussion is 'all things being equal'.

You are of course right and may have hit the nail on the head regarding the difference between tail-dragger tyros and nosies.

'Practice is the key'. But Perfection is the goal!

Happy landings.