Check outs

[crazy_cancuk]

Hey Guys

What is the requirements for completeing a check out? And what is involved getting a tail dragger check out?

Thanks Canuck

 

[Laser]

Please provide more information; your question is really too abstract. It all depends upon (1) your prior experience, (2) your general proficiency, and (3) the characteristics of the aircraft you wish to check out on.

Re tailwheel conversion: assuming that you''re current on nosewheels and have a competent instructor, a reasonably thorough checkout should take between 5-10 hours dual. For further reference, see the following on-line articles:
http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/182705-1.html
http://www.avweb.com/news/avtraining/183265-1.html
http://www.harvsair.com/taildragger.html

 

[crazy_cancuk]

Ok,

Who can preform checkouts, any check out.
My prior experience is basicly nil, I have my Priates with about 72hrs., all on 172, and 152''s. I currently hold no endorcements on my lic. As far as the tail dragger part goes it is a Cub that fellow AME student is planning on bringing up next yr. I was just wondering what it would take for me to be able to fly the plane.

 

[5x5]

Anyone can give you a checkout - there is no official TC mandated format. You''re basically going to have to conform to whatever the person/company that is going to rent you their airplane requires. If you don''t like the terms, go somewhere else.

Swingline is right though, a reputable school will likely take 5 - 10 hours. Of course dependant on a person''s skill.

I''d certainly be leery about trying to shortcut this with a private owner unless they have good instructional skills as the differences in geometry and handling characteristics of a taildragger are significant. While not something to fear, certainly be respectful.

Once you''ve done it you will find that there are a lot of really fun planes out there with the little wheel on the other end.

 

[crazy_cancuk]

Perfect....

 

[Charles W.]

A few more hints.

If you are doing it at a flight school ask for the instructors background and actual flight experience on tailwheel airplanes. If the instructors experience is only instructing on them and no experience outside of a flight school you may be receiving poor tailwheel instruction due to his / her lack of practical experience.

Ask to see the training syllabus and note what type of landing instruction they feel is most important, if they concentrate on three point full stall landings and do not teach wheel landings as the preferred method, go somewhere else because they don''t really understand tailwheel airplane flying characteristics.

Best bet is find an aerial application pilot or an experienced bush pilot to teach you if the school only has instructor pilots on the payroll.

There that should get me some flack.... however I am not knocking all instructors, I am merely pointing out that to be a good instructor on any airplane you first must understand how to fly the airplane.

Chas W.

 

[crazy_cancuk]

That is a good point, I never even thought about that one.


Thanks.

Chris

 

[Laser]

----------------
On 4/1/2003 8:29:43 AM Charles W. wrote:
If you are doing it at a flight school, ask for the instructor''s background and actual flight experience on tailwheel airplanes. If the instructors experience is only instructing on them and no experience outside of a flight school, you may be receiving poor tailwheel instruction due to his / her lack of practical experience.... if they concentrate on three point full stall landings and do not teach wheel landings as the preferred method, go somewhere else because they don''t really understand tailwheel airplane flying characteristics.
----------------​

Excellent advice. I''m not sure that I agree that ''wheel landings'' are the preferred method for light airplanes, but certainly you should be proficient in both types of landings (and make whichever one you feel more comfortable with, in any given condition).

On a similar note, beware of schools that don''t provide instruction in x-wind conditions. Tailwheel aircraft are not more x-wind limited than nosewheels (if anything, they are usually better able to handle x-winds because of the larger rudder surfaces), but many instructors seem to be unaware of this.

 

[Charles W.]

Hi Swingline:

I am courious about your comment on the wheel landing not being the preferred or rather safer landing technique for small airplanes.

I do not recall flying any tailwheel airplane that the wheel landing did not give the best control results.

Not to get into an argument but what small airplane have you found that the wheel landing was not preferrable for directional control?

Like I said I sure as hell have not flown all the various machine out there, but am really interested in what one that would give problems with a wheel landing.

And most important why it would not be better to wheel it on.

Chas W..

 

[Laser]

----------------
On 4/14/2003 2:46:45 PM Charles W. wrote:
I do not recall flying any tailwheel airplane that the wheel landing did not give the best control results.
----------------​

Hello Charles,

Ha! I knew that you would want to discuss this!

I agree that a ''wheel'' landing will provide extra airspeed, which should result in greater control. Some people say that this makes it preferable, and perhaps even essential, in very strong crosswinds [see e.g. http://yarchive.net/air/taildrag_land.html].

On the other hand, the extra airspeed translates into an increased landing roll. A full-stall landing will result in a shorter landing distance for most single engine tailwheel airplanes (I understand that this is NOT true for twins like the DC3 or Beech 18, though I''ve never flown them so I don''t know). Especially if you touch down tailwheel first (nothing extreme, of course; the tailwheel''s not all that strong), you can make some pretty short landings, which can occasionally be important.

I am not a hightimer, so my opinions aren''t worth much. However, it''s significant that at the CHAA there is no consensus amongst the (very experienced) instructors as to which method is preferable in the Harvard.

I agree with those who say that there is no ''correct'', all-purpose answer. You can see some the various arguments for and against the ''wheel landing'' at http://www.taildraggers.com/Documentation.aspx [click on "The Great Debate"].

 

[Laser]

A quicky reference for our friend Canuck:
http://bakeng.duce.home.mindspring.com/tailwheel.htm

 

[Charles W.]

Hi again swingline:

There are some things in flying airplanes that are fairly straight forard one of which is the wheel landing is the safest method of controlling the airplane especially in a x/wind.

I did a quick read on the three point landing thing you suggested in your last post.

Having read the piece, I find his explanation to be sort of correct, although rather fuzzy as to how to change from the stabalized approach to the flare. Also I do not agree with his description regarding looking way ahead. He also suggests a rather high flare start at fifty feet.

Anyhow back to wheel landings and speed control v/s distance to stop.

A really proficient tailwheel pilot can flare at a low airspeed and wheel it on and as soon as wheel contact is made apply heavy braking by lowering the nose to exert more weight on the wheels which in turn allows for heavier braking resulting in a short distance from wheel contact to full stop.

However.... a skilled tailwheel pilot can also three point very cloes to his / her desired touchdown point, you canno't however brake very hard in the three point attitude at touch down due to the risk of locking up the wheels due to the wing still providing lift in that attitude.

Three point landings are O.K. on grass due to the fact that directional control is better on grass than a paved runway.

I generally wheel most everything on when using a runway and three point on grass, unless the x/wind is a problem.

By the way just to make it easier for you to understand why I prefeer to wheel em on I gusee it is because I have been flying tailwheel airplanes since 1953 and have learned there is a safe easy way and a less safe easy way to fly the things.

I would be happy to demonstrate the methods that I use and teach if you are ever out my way.

As to the Beech 18 I never tried to three point the things although I have several thousand hours on them.

The DC3 on the other hand three points real easy but I would not three point one with passengers because of the weird attitude.

Good discussion, to bad more instructors do not get involved.

Chas...W.

 

[wilbur]

A frequent discussion among those who fly taildraggers. I''ve got about 1500 hours taildragger in a variety of light stuff. A bunch of it towing gliders which multiplies the landings per hour somewhat. There is certainly one airplane that lands 3 point a lot better than on the wheels; the L-19. The gear is very soft and springy and if you don''t wheel it on very smoothly you tend to get a big bounce.

After hearing many, many disucssions on this topic, combined with my own experience and reading I have come to some generalizations regarding light taildraggers.

1. It is easier and better to 3 point in most conditions.

2. Wheelies are more difficult to learn and consistently do well.

3. It is easier to wheel land than 3 point in strong, gusting x-winds, or when runway visibility or depth perception are reduced, notwithstanding my second point.

I think the arguement about which method is best stems largely from the fact that both can be better or worse, easier or more difficult, depending on the circumstance. A competent taildragger pilot should be able to do both, and to recognize which is better at the time.

For Crazy Canuck, assuming you are current and of average aptitude or better, I would view a 5 hour check out as adequate for flying a taildragger in light winds only. I think another 5 in some good x-winds would be a prudent decision, and I agree with the other''s recommendation that the person teaching you be well experienced themselves. Make sure you do some reading, and that your check pilot talks to you about the geometry and handling characteristics of taildraggers.

 

[Charles W.]

Hi Wilbur:

Good comments.

I have not flown the L19 is the gear softer than the Cessna 140?

Yeh, some of the spring gear types do require more attention when wheeling them on. But as you said a good tailwheel pilot can do which ever landing they choose at any time.

Its all about competence.

As an aside I did the Texas Taildragger conversion on my 1976 Cessna Aerobat and was not suprised to find that it really is more demanding than a C 140 in yaw on the runway due to how far foward the gear is placed and that it is also slanted foward.

But...it makes for a good tail wheel trainer.

The bottom line is none of these airplanes are all that hard to fly as long as you understand what you are doing.

Hope to have my Advanced Flight Training business up and running as soon as I finish my overseas contracts. ( maybe by July )

And now that I have decided not to aquire a FTU-OC it makes it even more attractive.... just imagine the joy of not being told how to teach by T.C.


Chas W....Retired Mercenary

 

[wilbur]

The gear on the L-19 is softer then any other I''ve seen. It was designed for battle field liason, observation, and forward air controlling and saw service in both the Korean and Vietnam wars. It had to be able to operate from very rough unprepared surfaces, hence, the gear is VERY soft. In gusty x-winds it can really rock back and forth with the wing tips going up and down several feet. You can also botch a landing with the gear soaking up a jolt that would knock your fillings out in anything else. It''s other notable feature are the large flaps that extend 60 degrees. In a 20kt wind - down and stopped over a 50'' obstacle in 245 feet.