ground looping

Sorry for this but,,,,
I'm reading about the differences in tail wheel vs. tri and how hard or not it is to learn to transition.
Why can't you just put a brake in the tail wheel?
This may be the stupidest thing said but I'm just wondering.
You should break as little as you can anyway. So,,,, to slow down, would it be a big deal to ,,, say put a break in the tail wheel, there by shifting the drag to the rear of the mains? You can activate it with a lever on the stick.
How wrong is this?

In theory, it sounds like a good idea. The problem is that the wheel is tiny and there is not much weight on it. If you were able to apply the brake, it would flat-spot the tire quickly and not do much for you in the process since there is little weight to give it any "bite" back there. I was thinking more along the line of an arrester hook

Of course you're right. I was thinking more of the plane I might get, a Bush Super Cub with a large tail wheel.
Although I like the look of any tail wheel plane much better, I always remember my long gone instructor and friend, a pilot who had over 27,000 hrs in every kind of craft except a tail wheel, who said they are the most illogical design of a plane.
I love the RV 7, but I'm afraid should I get any tail wheel, I will end up a wrack. I'm not the best pilot on a conventional 3 wheel!
Just a crazy thought with the brake in the back.
Thank you for the reply, I didn't think I would get any with that thought.

Do yourself a favor.

xpflyr said:

I love the RV 7, but I'm afraid should I get any tail wheel, I will end up a wreck. I'm not the best pilot on a conventional 3 wheel!

Click to expand...

Go get your tail wheel endorsement. You will be a better pilot in ALL airplanes. Basically the tail wheel training teaches you to use you feet before take-off and after touchdown. It's not harder, just different.

My thinking is that if you can't fly a taildragger, sooner or later you are going to run into trouble with a tri-gear. The tri-gear is forgiving, but only to a degree...sooner or later the bad habits will catch up with you and bite you. Securing a tailwheel endorsement was the best and most fun Av Bucks that I have spent yet.

not so bad...

I'm a 200 hour pilot and I just started working on a tailwheel endorsement. I think it's pretty neat actually, and once the plane gets up, it's just a normal plane. It's all well and good to debate tailwheel and nosewheel, but you just don't know until you go do it. I figured I'm probably capable of getting a TW endorsement, so I'm doing it, and if I hate it (I don't) then I don't ever have to fly a taildragger again, but at least I'll know I can. I'm of a mind that if possible, a pilot should strive to be as well rounded as possible. In an effort to take my own advise, I'll eat more pizza.

cj

Tri-gear RV skills

xpflyr said:

I love the RV 7, but I'm afraid should I get any tail wheel, I will end up a wreck. I'm not the best pilot on a conventional 3 wheel!
Just a crazy thought with the brake in the back.
Thank you for the reply, I didn't think I would get any with that thought.

Click to expand...

The first thing you learn in transition training for a nose-gear RV is to taxi with the elevator in the FULL-UP position, same as with a tail dragger. This is done to minimize the weight on the nose gear leg. To be safe, NEVER move the airplane under its own power on the ground without full up elevator.

Van's changed the design of the gear leg and the nose wheel fork to minimize the chances of damage to the nose gear. Before that, there were some folks who nosed over their airplanes on the backside, or in a few cases the nose gear leg folded under, resulting in a prop strike and engine tear-down for either incident.

The take off of the RV-*A airplanes is done with full-up elevator on the initial take-off roll until the nose wheel lifts. At that point in the take off, you reduce the amount of up elevator to keep the nose on the horizon until the main gear leaves the runway. You will have to use the rudders to stay in the middle of the runway, whether the nose gear is down or slightly above the surface.

The same kind of landing technique applies. Get your approach speed NAILED or you will find yourself floating down the runway and possibly having to go around. When the main landing gear touch down, keep the elevator in a slightly UP position, but not so much as to lift off again. Once the airplane is below the stall speed and will not fly, increase the UP elevator gradually to maximum, holding the nose gear off the runway as long as possible. This added wind resistance of the nose-high attitude helps in dynamic braking. At this point, your rudder is the most important control surface to stay on the runway. Hold FULL up elevator during the taxi to the ramp.

You should never try to taxi an RV-*A airplane from grass to concrete or onto a runway that has a STEP UP of more that 1 inch or so. That is how some gear legs have been folded. Pot holes in a grass strip have also been known to "trip" some RV-*A airplanes.

If you are still renting Cessnas or Pipers, try this technique next time you go fly.

If you are not comfortable with flying a tail dagger...then just get an A model. No shame in that.

Thanks for all the replies!
I guess doing it right is always best. No short cuts in flying.
My neighbor and new friend CFI has offered to teach me and I will take him up on it.
I just thought that the idea of a drag in the rear of a tail wheel plane would prevent the rear end from coming around.
Yes, to make it easier to fly a TW but also because it seemed to make sense.
I guess it would have been done by now if it worked!
Oh well, another adventure. And just when I thought I was getting this landing thing down in a conventional landing gear plane (300 hrs) it's back to the drawing board! Thanks all !!!!!

RV landing technique

I've never landed an RV but am considering building an RV-10 so I was interested to read the landing/TO description by n2prise. It sounds very much like a soft-field TO/Landing technique I learned in the C172, but you make it sound like this technique is required on any surface in an RV. It makes me a little concerned about the sturdiness of the nosewheel design if you have to be so gentle with it. People tell me RVs land fine on grass or dirt strips, but you make it sound like maybe not so much. Am I missing something?

New pilot

douglassmt said:

I've never landed an RV but am considering building an RV-10 so I was interested to read the landing/TO description by n2prise. It sounds very much like a soft-field TO/Landing technique I learned in the C172, but you make it sound like this technique is required on any surface in an RV. It makes me a little concerned about the sturdiness of the nosewheel design if you have to be so gentle with it. People tell me RVs land fine on grass or dirt strips, but you make it sound like maybe not so much. Am I missing something?

New pilot

Click to expand...

Yes, ....... You might want to start here....... http://www.vansairforce.com/community/search.php?searchid=5252378

The nosewheel needs TLC.

douglassmt said:

... It sounds very much like a soft-field TO/Landing technique I learned in the C172, but you make it sound like this technique is required on any surface in an RV...

Click to expand...

Doug,

What he described should be used for any plane, NW or TW. Back when I was learning to fly in a NEW C-152 we were taught to protect the nose wheel at all costs. This ment holding the yoke back unless taxiing downwind. When taxiing up wind, we always held the yoke back. All landings were full stall landings and, again, the yoke was held full back until shutdown.

No different than how any RV should be flown, NW or TW.

Early aircraft had tail skids which served the same purpose

...they still ground looped. My 1939 Luscombe 8A came standard with a skid. The tailwheel was listed as an option.

xpflyr said:

Sorry for this but,,,,
I'm reading about the differences in tail wheel vs. tri and how hard or not it is to learn to transition.
Why can't you just put a brake in the tail wheel?
This may be the stupidest thing said but I'm just wondering.
You should break as little as you can anyway. So,,,, to slow down, would it be a big deal to ,,, say put a break in the tail wheel, there by shifting the drag to the rear of the mains? You can activate it with a lever on the stick.
How wrong is this?

Click to expand...

Back in the old days - think www.oldrhinebeck.org - there wasn't a tail wheel, only a wooden skid - and it WAS the brake. Pull the stick into your stomach and dig that skid into the turf to slow you down and stabilize the roll out. The same is true of our non alphabetically post scripted RVs - stick back hard and the tail wheel will act as a brake - OK at least on grass.

Careful about pulling back too hard before all three wheels are on the ground though - otherwise if you have too much speed you'll increase the angle of attack and leap back into the air just in time for a 50 foot stall - See The Compleat Taildragger Pilot by Harvey S. Plourde - and that really is the way he spells complete.

Jim Sharkey
RV6 - Finishing up

When I was still in the "what to build" mode. A RV-4 owner told me, if you can't learn how to properly land a taildragger RV, you probably can't properly land a tricycle one either.

The idea of a brake on the tailwheel, although it actually might help a bit, is simply something that isn't needed. Yes, a taildragger can be ground looped but the hype on this subject has been blown WAY out of proportion. The airport where I am based has a fairly notorious reputation for winds (who'd a guessed with all those windmills up on the hills) and over the past summer there were a couple of incidents with a C-120 and a C-195 but there were also TWO C-172's that had the nose wheels busted clean off so nosedraggers crash too.

When I was a kid learning to fly we started out in J3 Cubs. Not only did you have to deal with the tailwheel and the cog issues but you also couldn't see a darn thing up front but somehow we managed to figure it out. Our mother used to worry about us flying and I would tell her 'Mom, that airplane has been flying since 1946 and never once crashed'

The tailwheel 'hype' is being used to the full extent possible by the insurance companies to extract more cash out of your pockets and it's ironic because the whole 'myth' was started by manufacturers touting the ease of operation and safety of their 'new' nosedragger models back in the 50's and 60's. There never used to be any such thing as a 'tailwheel endorsement' Nobody thought much of it one way or the other.

So I guess my point is - take what you hear with a grain of salt. Flying a tildragger ain't all that big of a deal as some would have you believe.

Tail Wheel

kcabpilot said:

So I guess my point is - take what you hear with a grain of salt. Flying a tildragger ain't all that big of a deal as some would have you believe.

Click to expand...

Oh no! Say it ain't so! Does this mean that I'll have to get rid of my swagger when I walk, my superior uppity attitude, my aviator sunglasses and my great big ol' wristwatch too???

All kidding aside; It isn't that hard and as others have said, you will be a much better trained pilot

Some good stuff here! Thanks,,,,,,,,, I think!

xpflyr said:

Of course you're right. I was thinking more of the plane I might get, a Bush Super Cub with a large tail wheel.
Although I like the look of any tail wheel plane much better, I always remember my long gone instructor and friend, a pilot who had over 27,000 hrs in every kind of craft except a tail wheel, who said they are the most illogical design of a plane.
I love the RV 7, but I'm afraid should I get any tail wheel, I will end up a wrack. I'm not the best pilot on a conventional 3 wheel!
Just a crazy thought with the brake in the back.
Thank you for the reply, I didn't think I would get any with that thought.

Click to expand...

A tailwheel plane actually has some real advantages and is not illogical at all when used correctly. It is far better at dirt strips, keeping the prop out of the ground/dirt. Nothing wrong with a nose wheel either. Buy the one you like. You can learn to fly it easier than you can learn to like a plane you dont really like.

I agree there are some good info here. Some of you made me go into lala land dreaming of what it would have been like to fly in the old days. I'm only 51 so there is no way I could be a part. But to have a plane with a wooden skid, oh my. I remember not to long ago when my tail wheel on my kitfox didn't lock in on touch down, oh my gosh, that was a trip, I was dancing on the rudder full deflection to keep it on the runway(not grass). A little grease later and things were all fine.

But getting back to my thought for writing this. When I went through training and I started with the Cessna and the kitfox. I had to learn tail wheel. I tell ya, I have real good coordination, but the tail wheel did play with my mind, not for long, but it did. I think if you have trouble with coordination, left from right, you might have a time with tail wheel. With the Cessna, you could land and have both feet on the floor and make out ok, well until the cross wind came up anyway. But then again, many pilots won't fly over 5mph of wind. That's when flying becomes fun, ok when the wind gets over 15mph than.

My advice is to get an instructor and plane and find out if it's for you. My orinial advice.

DO NOT DO IT ON YOUR OWN, please.

rv72004 said:

A tailwheel plane actually has some real advantages and is not illogical at all when used correctly. It is far better at dirt strips, keeping the prop out of the ground/dirt. Nothing wrong with a nose wheel either. Buy the one you like. You can learn to fly it easier than you can learn to like a plane you dont really like.

Click to expand...

In a stiff crosswind I'd much rather have a tailwheel even with my meager 75 tailwheel hours. You have the option of setting the mains down at a much higher speed to keep authority in the controls at touchdown. Trying this in a nosedragger is impossible as the nosewheel will contact first in this attitude and wheelbarrow you ALL over the place until the firewall finally collapses.

So, flown well a taildragger has this advantage as well as the ones you note over a nosedragger.

Flying a tail dragger does require greater skill (I'm Proof by getting 200 accident free cessna hours by great luck prior to my rebirth as a actual pilot in the RV), but no more skill than you should demand from yourself in a nose dragger. Some day you'll need that skill in the nose dragger too and you won't have it at hand if you haven't really learned to fly. I believe its hard to really learn to fly in the cessnas because they let you get away with such horrid technique and still walk away without a clue that you stink (Again speaking from my experience).

That said, it only took 10-15 hours to feel reasonably competent in the RV with some prudent wind maximums for the next 20 hours. Check your ego at the door, don't think yourself incapable, and go get a tailwheel endorsement for your safety and enjoyment.

In reading the title of this thread the thought crossed my mind: "ask the man who's done one....".

I was fortunate (I think) to learn to fly in a conventional landing gear aircraft. Nosewheels were for sissies, etc. The aircraft was a 7AC champ and I was 16 years old and dumb enough not to know any better.

Well years later I built my RV-4 and flying and landing it was a non-event.

Well years later I received the blessings of the Almighty and got to fly an AT-6. Now that is as "real" an airplane as it gets and if I can beleive those who know being able to safely land the T6 (especially from the back seat) is qualifying from a skills standpoint (if not a monetary one) to be able to fly safely my Holy Grail of airplanes the P-51.

The difference in the RV and the Champ in the air is the speed, handling - **** just about everything other than both crafts compliance to the same laws of aerodyanmics. On landing the RV is easier - lands about the same speed - since the RV actually has brakes that work most of the time even though you don't need them unless things start to get hairy which, when talking about groundloops is the time right before you perform one.

The key of course is to use your feet - liberally as they say about hot sauce in most Chili recipes destined to win any prize at the fair - a lot, in other words, to "walk the plane down the runway" as needed. If the nose don't stray you will never break a sweat.

The T-6 is another animal. In the air is is surprisingly light on the controls, unless you have the nose pointed down with the throttle, mixture, and prop all pushed to the stops and the airspeeed heads north of 200 mph. Then you can get a workout worthy of any of Mr. Gold's gyms just hauling back on the stick (so that is why everything on the airplane looks like it was modeled off of something you've seen on off road construction equipment...). But come in to land, or enter the pattern and things change. The difference is similar to Oprah a year ago and Oprah of the recent news - there is a substantial difference in weight. We -4 drivers debate how close we can get an RV-4's empty weight to 900 lbs. Anything that rounds to 1000 is considered bad form or some poor guy's attempt to make an RV-8 look-alike on the inside by installing hideous amounts of carpet and such. The T-6 weighs over 4 times as much and if you are keeping up that is 2 TONS. Now recalling high school physics and Sir Isaac's laws and such we all know that force is directly proportional to mass and the square of the velocity you have (considering the T6 lands about 10-15 miles faster and weighs 4 times as much) a heck of a lot of more force to keep pointed in the right way on landing. Also something else about the T-6 - a cursory glance shows it to not exactly to be streamlined. It glides like a brick tied to a bigger brick.

So having hundreds of hours in conventional gear airplanes including a couple hundred in the T6 I was pretty confident I know about how to land without ground-looping. Just when you start to think you know it all.....

The day was gusty, the runway narrow, and the bright skies invited a short flight to turn about 20 gallons of 100 LL into the "sound that gets every aviator to look up". Coming in I was hot. About 10 miles an hour (ASI in T6 is in mph) fast or about 100 mph on final. I'm still coming down like a brick an starting to flair. I always wheel landed the -6 especially at this airport as the runway was only 40' wide (if you could see pavement by the side of the nose in a 3 point attitude you weren't on the runway). I touch down despite the gusts in one of the nicest landings I have ever made. And then something happened. Gust? Not sure. A wing lifted, the plane was flying briefly again. Should have firewalled it and gone around but things were happening fast and you don't get a mulligan. Got it down on the gear again but I'd dropped the right wheel off the runway. Grass was wet, ground was soft following mucho rain nght before. I'm stomping the rudder hard to get it to turn but it won't. I'm drifting, drifting feeling like the Wicked Witch calling out "I'm melting" as the water does its work. Finally the right wing impacts a line of small pine trees that run along a fence to the right of the runway. The airplane will not turn as the wheels skid on the grass and the wing impacts fence posts, ever larger trees, and such. Finally a big post catches the leading edge and the airplane heaves to the right and swaps ends. The left gear collapes and the propeller is now in the barbed wire fence throwing shrapenel all around as chunks of aluminum prop blade succumb to rusty steel fence posts. Mixture to idle Switch OFF, Fuel Off. Someone arrives with a fire extinguiser yelling for me to get out before she catches fire. I do, she doesn't.

There were many lessons learned. Many tears shed as the old girl was hauled back to the hanger where she sits broken and forlorn waiting to be rescued again.

Flying a tailwheeel airplane is great. Nosewheels aren't for sissy's. And you need to stay ahead of your airplane all the time but especially when she weighs two tons and is moving over 60 mph.

The only good thing I can take away from this is that I now have something in common with Chuck Yeager - we have both ground-looped a T6.

You did a great job telling that story rbibb, never lose your sense of humor.

I've got another story - kind of the exact opposite of yours that involves an Ercoupe. Now I wasn't involved, this is all hearsay and maybe it's true, maybe it ain't but here goes.

The place I learned to fly at had a J3, a PA-12, an old 172 and at one time an Ercoupe. So the story goes that the owner, Mark Murvihill was giving a student lessons in the Ercoupe. They were approaching for landing and the student seemed to have a good handle on things so Mark sat in the right seat with his arms folded looking out the right window at the scenery passing by as they came down on final. Well, the landing was a bit harsh and when Mark turned to his student he saw him sitting there with his arms folded looking out the left side window...

It has been my experience in owning and flying several tail-draggers that those with the high wing configuration are considerably more touchy than the RV. I believe that to be so because of the higher CG and the business of putting the wing up into the X-wind a little higher. All lateral movements on the ground are exaggerated, IMHO.

When transitioning most pilots are probably going to be flying a high wing acft as they are more numerous and if one can handle that the RV is a 'piece of cake'.

Jim
RV4

[/QUOTE]...turned to his student he saw him sitting there with his arms folded looking out the left side window...[/QUOTE]

I got it, I got it, No you take it....

Always heard the Ercoupe was designed to be easy to fly what with aileron/rudder linkage and all. Didn't know it could land itself.

Maybe nosewheels are for sissies after all......

Great Story

Richard

Merry Christmas BTW -
Its nice to say that without fear of some PC restrictions on the sentiment.

allbee said:

came up anyway. But then again, many pilots won't fly over 5mph of wind. That's when flying becomes fun, ok when the wind gets over 15mph than.

My advice is to get an instructor and plane and find out if it's for you. My orinial advice.

DO NOT DO IT ON YOUR OWN, please.

Click to expand...

Good advice all around. Don't be scared of the tailwheel. I think the fears of tailwheel airplanes have become something of an urban legend. The US and other countries took hundreds of thousands of young men and women right off the farm so to speak in WWII and trained them to fly high performance airplanes all in tailwheel airplanes. There were accidents sure but the landing fields of Texas and throught the South where most of this happened were not littered with ground-looped airplanes in the effort.

Since so little primary flight instruction is conducted in tailwheel airplanes today and hasn't been since the 150 made the scene the tales of the wicked groundloop have grown in status until the mere mention of a tailwheel makes the unitiated tremble in apprehension. Add in the fact that most modern airplanes require little rudder input save on climb out if you want the ball centered and you have a recipe for a myth growing out of proportion to reality.

Of course the fact those of us "in the club" like thinking we are superior because we can land an airplane going backwards on the runway so we encourage the propogation of such myth.

It is more difficult to land a tailwheel airplane only in the sense it requires you to be ever more alert and on top of things. Of course being alert and on top of things is always a good idea no matter what type of airplane you or your autopilot is flying.

I will make an observation on one thing stated above though. It is true a lot of people don't fly their airplanes much if the wind is blowing over 5 mph or so - expecially if a crosswind. I would humbly suggest you seek out those days with some regularity and make landings in them - preferably in a crosswind. This has got to sound like some old wise acre talking here but the reason is pragmatic.

If you fly any RV you are soon going to be GOING PLACES as the speed differential you will enjoy over whatever typical spam can (high performance singles excepted) is so dramatic that the "two hour" cross-country leg will take you ever farther from your home base. The weather 500 miles from home is more than not going to be different than it was from wherever you left from. If it is blowing hard and not particularly aligned with that single runway at the garden spot AIRNAV told you had the cheapest fuel it will not be the best time to practice your crosswind landing technique.

God I hate reading these holier than thou sounding posts but this started out about ground loops and as my earlier post stated - "ask the man who's done one...."

Richard

rbibb said:

Good advice all around. Don't be scared of the tailwheel.

Click to expand...

I was never scared of the tailwheel. I just didn't like the looks of tailwheel RV6's and Glasairs while sitting on the ground; when I bought my kit back in '96. I thought the nosewheel version just looked a bit sleeker & substantial. That's what made the final decision. The "6" still looks like a toy that needs an R/C transmitter setting nearby in ground shots from slightly above, but actually looks "cool" in the air, as with some air to air with D.R's plane. as an example

I also looked at it from the practical side, as I was never truly thrilled about having to make constant s-turns while getting my aerobatic training in a Pitts S2B. For me, the real & still useful purpose of a tailwheel is for backcountry in planes such as the Aviat Husky, Maules, Beavers, Cub's or Cub clones; along with large diameter tires. Other than those, the tailwheel disappeared from military aircraft, as it wasn't the best solution.

L.Adamson --- RV6A

agree with skyhook

I have to endorse what skyhook posted, I now have 35 hours in my -7 and landing it is a breeze compared to my Pacer. The Pacer keeps me on my toes and always feels somewhat twitchy on the rollout and is a little more difficult for me to keep straight, it does however quit flying and stick once the wheel is all the way back. The RV by comparison seems to have a little float even at lower touchdown speeds which helps me line it up and feel for the runway, the large rudder is very effective in keeping it straight also. You do have to keep the stick back as it does have a tendency to start flying again if you bounce.
Only problem I have found is a little judder as I use the brakes to slow down, not sure yet what this is.
For comparison I only have 240 hours of which 170 or so are in conventional gear aircraft and as most people have commented once you get the proper training is becomes a matter of practice to improve technique. I 3 point land all the time but will be trying wheel landings soon as I understand the RV does them well and it is a useful technique for cross wind landings in gusty conditions.

L.Adamson said:

I was never scared of the tailwheel. I just didn't like the looks of tailwheel RV6's and Glasairs while sitting on the ground; when I bought my kit back in '96. I thought the nosewheel version just looked a bit sleeker & substantial. That's what made the final decision. The "6" still looks like a toy that needs an R/C transmitter setting nearby in ground shots from slightly above, but actually looks "cool" in the air, as with some air to air with D.R's plane. as an example

I also looked at it from the practical side, as I was never truly thrilled about having to make constant s-turns while getting my aerobatic training in a Pitts S2B. For me, the real & still useful purpose of a tailwheel is for backcountry in planes such as the Aviat Husky, Maules, Beavers, Cub's or Cub clones; along with large diameter tires. Other than those, the tailwheel disappeared from military aircraft, as it wasn't the best solution.

L.Adamson --- RV6A

Click to expand...

Well thank God the military isn?t designing and selling aircraft kits. On the practical side, when the engine quits and you?re looking at something other then a mile of smooth concrete to put down on, taildraggers offer the best solution to pole vaulting.

As far as looks go, I always thought Angelina Jolien looked good standing up or laying down...

rbibb said:

.....Maybe nosewheels are for sissies after all.

Click to expand...

Low n Slow said:

... On the practical side, when the engine quits and you?re looking at something other then a mile of smooth concrete to put down on, taildraggers offer the best solution to pole vaulting........

Click to expand...

I'm guessing these pilots are in complete agreement.

View My Video

Spot On!

uk_figs said:

I now have 35 hours in my -7 and landing it is a breeze compared to my Pacer. The Pacer keeps me on my toes and always feels somewhat twitchy on the rollout and is a little more difficult for me to keep straight, it does however quit flying and stick once the wheel is all the way back. The RV by comparison seems to have a little float even at lower touchdown speeds which helps me line it up and feel for the runway, the large rudder is very effective in keeping it straight also. You do have to keep the stick back as it does have a tendency to start flying again if you bounce.
Only problem I have found is a little judder as I use the brakes to slow down, not sure yet what this is.

Totally agree with this. When I bought my -6, I was quite pleased by how nice the ground handling characteristics were. My Pacer is an original PA-20, and still has the narrow gear. When flying the Pacer on a windy day, it is highly advised that you do not turn your attention away from the task at hand!
On the original topic of ground loops, it can happen to anyone no matter what your experience level. The difference is that experience can help you to recognize the early onset, and begin corrective action before things really get out of hand. The key to avoiding ground loops is not tail wheel brakes, tail hooks,etc., it is attention and care in operation. As the gentleman related about his off runway excursion in the T-6, possibly a go-around might have stopped the excursion, and one should never be afraid to take it around for another pass.
As has been repeated in this forum on numerous occasions, if tail draggers give you the willies, then build/buy an A model, and get in the air! These RV's are way too much fun to stay on the ground because you are nervous about flying a tail dragger.
Dave, I am happy to see that I am not the only RV owner lucky enough to have a Pacer in the stable!

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Low n Slow said:

Well thank God the military isn?t designing and selling aircraft kits. On the practical side, when the engine quits and you?re looking at something other then a mile of smooth concrete to put down on, taildraggers offer the best solution to pole vaulting.

As far as looks go, I always thought Angelina Jolien looked good standing up or laying down...

Click to expand...

Looks wise, the P51D (taildragger) will always be my favorite.............airplane wise! I immensely enjoyed flying in one too!

As to getting RV's down in off runway fields, I personally know of three RV taildraggers that have flipped within a 150 mile radius of my local airport area.

And the video of high wing STOL aircraft shown in this thread, certainly shows the benefits of high wings, big wheels, STOL capabilities, and tailwheels... I doubt RV's can do the same..


L.Adamson --- RV6A

grantcarruthers said:

In a stiff crosswind I'd much rather have a tailwheel even with my meager 75 tailwheel hours. You have the option of setting the mains down at a much higher speed to keep authority in the controls at touchdown. Trying this in a nosedragger is impossible as the nosewheel will contact first in this attitude and wheelbarrow you ALL over the place until the firewall finally collapses.

So, flown well a taildragger has this advantage as well as the ones you note over a nosedragger.

Click to expand...

Advantage?

Our runway is 2200' of grass with tall trees on one end. There's no way you'd get stopped with a gusty cross wind using that technique. One second you have a head wind, the next a tail wind. It can be mastered with a 7A but even at that it is a challenge. A good friend with thousands of hours of tail wheel time won't come in here with his 4. He knows better.

Tail draggers might go 2 knots faster, that's the only aerodynamic advantage to the configuration. The rest of it is all cosmetic and appearance driven. As many instructors in the old days would say, you can teach a smart monkey to fly, how come you can't do it right? (That was in the days before the FAA mandated sweet talk with students.) Same can be said for flying the TD. I've been there and done it and am not impressed. I fly for fun, not to prove anything. And my skills are just as sharp doing what I do as any tail dragger pilot doing what he does.

Like I say, you can teach a smart monkey to fly these machines, including the tail dragger.

David-aviator said:

Advantage?

Our runway is 2200' of grass with tall trees on one end. There's no way you'd get stopped with a gusty cross wind using that technique. One second you have a head wind, the next a tail wind. It can be mastered with a 7A but even at that it is a challenge. A good friend with thousands of hours of tail wheel time won't come in here with his 4. He knows better.

Tail draggers might go 2 knots faster, that's the only aerodynamic advantage to the configuration. The rest of it is all cosmetic and appearance driven. As many instructors in the old days would say, you can teach a smart monkey to fly, how come you can't do it right? (That was in the days before the FAA mandated sweet talk with students.) Same can be said for flying the TD. I've been there and done it and am not impressed. I fly for fun, not to prove anything. And my skills are just as sharp doing what I do as any tail dragger pilot doing what he does.

Like I say, you can teach a smart monkey to fly these machines, including the tail dragger.

Click to expand...

Hey, easy with the flames, I said it was AN option, not SOP, just one of ten or so techniques for various situations. And the point is 100% valid as it's a technique you 100% CAN'T use in a nose dragger which was the whole point in comparing/contrasting the advantages of the two configurations.

peace

grantcarruthers said:

Hey, easy with the flames, I said it was AN option, not SOP, just one of ten or so techniques for various situations. And the point is 100% valid as it's a technique you 100% CAN'T use in a nose dragger which was the whole point in comparing/contrasting the advantages of the two configurations.

Click to expand...

Thing is..... once the mains have made contact with the runway...............the nosegear version has the advantage of how the wind is acting on the pivot point of the main gear. The fore is counteracting the aft; while a taildragger has most of the fuselage acting as a weather vane aft of the main gear. I see no advantage of taildraggers in stiff cross winds --- at all.

L.Adamson --- RV6A

One thing for sure, without a tailwheel endorsement you'll never be able to fly the airplanes most pilots only dream about. I have owned or flown a lot of classic, warbird and aerobatic airplanes. In over 1600 tailwheel hours I have only groundlooped once when I pulled the tailwheel lock off a little early in my SNJ and ended up rolling backwards down the runway. Did have the presents of mind to add a little power to stop. I know I can land my 7 in a stiff crosswind, 27kts direct so far, and my brakes will last three times longer than a tricycle RV because I don't need them to turn. Go with what you really like but for me I prfer a tailwheel. Don

yakdriver said:

One thing for sure, without a tailwheel endorsement you'll never be able to fly the airplanes most pilots only dream about...

Click to expand...

This was an issue for me. Before I was tailwheel qualified I used to think of all the airplanes I had no chance of flying. For a few: DC-3, Tiger Moth, Cessna 140, Luscombe, Beech 18, Sopwith Camel, Stearman, AT-6, RV-6, RV-4, RV-3, Polen Special, Cessna 180, any Pitts, Piper Cub, Extra 300, Lockeed Vega, Thorp T-18, Fieseler Storch, U-2 and many many others. I haven't had the opportunity to fly very many of these aircraft, but if it ever comes, I can at least handle the landing gear configuration, and that is a real nice feeling. In a few cases I have been able to fly one of these airplanes and it was satisfying.

Oh, and I would not try any higher crosswinds in an RV-6A than in my RV-6. Both will weathervane and the 6 has a little bit longer arm, but then it has a steerable tailwheel, too!

grantcarruthers said:

Hey, easy with the flames, I said it was AN option, not SOP, just one of ten or so techniques for various situations. And the point is 100% valid as it's a technique you 100% CAN'T use in a nose dragger which was the whole point in comparing/contrasting the advantages of the two configurations.

piece

Click to expand...

No flame intended. Just pointing out it won't work here.

Wheel landings can be done in as short a distance as 3-pointers but it depends on the aircraft. Anything with a soft spring gear is more difficult than something with a firmer oleo gear because the trick is feeling when the gear contacts the surface. Spring geared Citabrias or Cessnas are harder to wheel land than Cubs or Luscombes.

But the idea that wheel landing in a crosswind is safer isn't really true. The only way it would be beneficial would be if you wheeled it on then found that with full rudder deflection you couldn't keep it going straight down the runway, you could then add power and pull back on the stick, increasing the AOA, and immediately be safely separated from the ground. However, in gusty crosswinds a wheel landing puts you in a vulnerable position as speed bleeds off and rudder authority decreases. The wheel landing ground loop is going to catch you when you don't have the option of going around anymore and having the tailwheel on the ground would have probably saved you because of the contact and because you would have more opportunity to use brakes (which are virtually verboten with tail up)

Another thing about ground loops - not always but often they are in the opposite direction of where you veered off to in the first place because you were trying so hard to correct the initial situation. It happens pretty quickly (AMHIK) so there isn't a lot of time to think about it but many times it's better to just let it go off in the initial direction (so long as there's nothing to hit out there) rather than trying a Herculean effort to save it.

Hey, this has been great. I want to thank all who responded with advise and story. Isn't flying something!
Don.

I am a strong advocate of three pointing in a crosswind. Even airplanes I would normally wheel land. When the airplane touches down I want it all done flying. This has worked for me over the years and I haven't bent one yet. One other thing is I will go out and do touch and gos in crosswinds that keep most other pilots grounded. There is no substitute for lots of practice. 25kts doesn't even get my heart rate up. Don

Actually, the idea of a brake on the tail wheel isn't so dumb. Early aircraft did not have a tail wheel, they had a skid and when aviation moved from cow pastures to runways, and particularly paved runways, the ability to use the skid for direction stability went away.

yakdriver said:

I am a strong advocate of three pointing in a crosswind. Even airplanes I would normally wheel land. When the airplane touches down I want it all done flying. This has worked for me over the years and I haven't bent one yet. One other thing is I will go out and do touch and gos in crosswinds that keep most other pilots grounded. There is no substitute for lots of practice. 25kts doesn't even get my heart rate up. Don

Click to expand...

One question from someone who has lots of crosswind experience, but not a huge amount of tailwheel experience. In most places, if the wind is strong it is also gusty. The airspeed indicator can really be jumping around from the changes in wind speed in the gusts. I would have thought that there was a risk of a stall at a bad moment if you were too slow before touchdown, and you hit the back side of a gust - i.e. a change in wind speed that leads to a decrease in airspeed. Based on this concern, I had always throught that it would be better to touch down at a speed well above the stall speed, which sort of implies a wheel landing.

But, I don't yet have any tailwheel experience in more than 10 kts of crosswind. That will change once I get my RV-8 flying again, and start to open up my crosswind envelope.

What has your experience been? Is there a risk of a stall and a nasty wing drop if you try a three point landing in gusty winds?

Silver Fox said:

Actually, the idea of a brake on the tail wheel isn't so dumb. Early aircraft did not have a tail wheel, they had a skid and when aviation moved from cow pastures to runways, and particularly paved runways, the ability to use the skid for direction stability went away.

Click to expand...

I thought it was a good idea. I envisioned one of those hand breaks on the stick. This is of course with a large tail wheel. If you're going to break a little anyway, why not drag the end so there is NO chance of it coming around.
Techniques change and develop all the time. If it makes it safer and easier, why not?

Kevin Horton said:

One question from someone who has lots of crosswind experience, but not a huge amount of tailwheel experience. In most places, if the wind is strong it is also gusty. The airspeed indicator can really be jumping around from the changes in wind speed in the gusts. I would have thought that there was a risk of a stall at a bad moment if you were too slow before touchdown, and you hit the back side of a gust - i.e. a change in wind speed that leads to a decrease in airspeed. Based on this concern, I had always throught that it would be better to touch down at a speed well above the stall speed, which sort of implies a wheel landing.

But, I don't yet have any tailwheel experience in more than 10 kts of crosswind. That will change once I get my RV-8 flying again, and start to open up my crosswind envelope.

What has your experience been? Is there a risk of a stall and a nasty wing drop if you try a three point landing in gusty winds?

Click to expand...

Sorry, thread drift...the great tailwheel debate. In general, I prefer 3-pointers except in significant gust/wind shear conditions due to the possibility of being deposited on the runway rather unexpectedly and abruptly...or getting a balloon at the wrong time. I like the extra speed of a wheel landing in these conditions. But I also see the advantage of getting 3 wheels on the pavement ASAP for stability. Try both, see what works and is safe for you. 3-pointing in a smooth crosswind is not much more difficult than calm wind landing. BTW, for wheel landings, I never understood why anyone would ever advocate pushing the stick forward until the tail quits flying and drops on its own. Save that trick for when it's DEAD calm. I try to fly the tail down at a speed that's slow enough to keep from flying again, but fast enough to still have rudder authority. Here's a good article on the 3-point/wheelie debate:

http://www.avweb.com/news/pilotlounge/182707-1.html

So true,... and some even had a plow!

Silver Fox said:

Actually, the idea of a brake on the tail wheel isn't so dumb. Early aircraft did not have a tail wheel, they had a skid and when aviation moved from cow pastures to runways, and particularly paved runways, the ability to use the skid for direction stability went away.

Click to expand...

... like the Neuport 11. The idea was to dig the spade into the ground and plow a furrow with it. Now that is one heck of a brake.
They did not have enough rudder to be effective at keeping the tail behind them. If you dont believe that, ask the folks that built the replica's and put tail wheels on them. I have been told that many where wrecked in relatively short order.

Tailwheel techniques

At my last biennial, I had an opportunity to take it in a J3 Cub -- an aircraft I had always dreamed about flying as a kid, but never actually did it after I got my license.

I've flown 140's, T-Craft, Champs, and RV's -- all tailwheels. But the time spent in the Cub was the most enlightening tailwheel time I can remember.

What was demonstrated (and I was able to duplicate) was that the effectiveness of your ailerons is directly related to how low to the ground your tailwheel is once the mains are on the runway. In fact, in a crosswind landing, I was able to cause the airplane to roll only by raising and lowering the tail as we taxied down the runway.

This effect is very noticeable in the Cub since the wing-loading is very light. However, I have done the same thing in my RV6. I also keep this in mind when wheel landing: In a cross wind or gusty conditions, I can still wheel land if I keep the tail fairly low, and lower it to three point once both mains are on. In calm conditions, push the stick forward on landing and hold the tail up to bleed airspeed without using the brakes.

There are many techniques out there for landing / taking off in a tailwheel -- I find that most of them are useful in different circumstances. Knowing all of them and when to apply them just gives you more options in varying situations.

Don

Tail wheel brake

Know body ever mentioned an ABS tail wheel brake.

hudgin said:

Know body ever mentioned an ABS tail wheel brake.

Click to expand...

I seriously doubt it would do much good. There is very little weight on the tail wheel, and it has a very small contact patch with the ground, so it wouldn't develop much braking force.

The point of adding a brake would be to have the braking action create a moment that tended to straighten the aircraft out if it wasn't pointing in the same direction it was going. But, except at very low speed, the sideways force created by vertical tail and rudder would greatly exceed anything you would get from a brake on that tiny tire with little weight on it.

Not worth the weight or complication in my opinion.

The ideas are interesting, but it needs to be (re) stated that to land a conventional gear airplane it comes down to one thing - just keep the wheels aligned with the landing surface. I.e., FLY THE PLANE.

As for technique, 95% of the time I wheel land at home (9000' concrete) and push the stick to fly the tail to the next turn off. I can see where I'm going better. I'll set it down before exiting the runway. Not sure what crosswind limit would keep me from doing that, but it's probably my landing limit. ~25-30 kts.

The RV does fair flying the tail with 30-40+ kts across the tail. I could lift the tail on my Cub at almost any time with a little power, and did it all the time. Not everyone may be comfortable with this, but it can be done very safely and effectively.

I'll land 3 pt on short runways. And as Kevin said, landing short with gusts is tricky. I keep extra speed in that case, and that means wheel landing. Never had a single wing drop, but have had the whole plane drop!

These comments are generally directed at conventional gear RVs, which are very responsive on the ground.