Old Cub Driver Needs Advice

My First Post folks , please bear with me, been lurking for a while finally got brave enough to attempt this.

Many hours and years have slid by the belly since I last flew a Cub and now I have the dubious honor of checking a friend and his Dad out in his new purchase. 150 HP standard configuration small wheels,
This a/c is presently on wheels , they have skis and floats, it will be operated from the Calgary , Alberta area at 3650' ASL and above.

My only recent taildragger time has been in a Bellanca Citabria,lots of Beaver, Otter ,DC3 on Wheels and Skiis Etc etc.all my taildragger experience has been back in the 70/80's
Many years ago 64/65 I operated a 150HP cub on 25 " Goodyears on the Alaska Southeast Panhandle and in Northern BC it was great fun and my first commercial job.

I've been corrupted with big iron since, and always missed the bush, it will be a real treat to fly the cub again

I plan on doing about five hours or so by myself to get back in the groove before I make a complete ass of myself with these guys

I would like to ask for your recommendations on a checkout ie:

Specific to a Super Cub

So please let fly with your thoughts and recommendations

Doug

Hi Doug,
I don't know about checkout advice, but you're going to have fun remembering how to use your feet when you fly. Welcome back to a rudder airplane. Polish those teeth, you'll be grinning alot.
SB

Do your friends have taildragger experience? I would recommend that they learn to fly thier slow flight by feel, as the pitot has a tendency to freeze up. I learned to fly in a 12 right after I got my license in a 150, I did the tailwheel checkout, then got turned loose, and had to learn. Can't think of a better plane to teach a guy to fly. THat plane taught me well. Over the next couple summers I got around 200 hours in it. It was very forgiving, I would not recommend really anything other than practice (can hardly find a funner airplane to practice in...) Have fun

Bill

Here is the checkout I use:

1. Thoruough preflight discussion
2. Find the level flight picture
3. Demonstrate that pitch=airspeed and power=alititude - many people still don't understand this.
4. MCA flight in various configurations. Notice I did not say SLOW flight. Slow flight is a number on the airspeed indicator, MCA (minimum controllable airspeed) is state of flight.
5. Stalls in various configurations, especially cross controlled and at moose speeds.
6. Coordination rolls (somtimes inproperly called "dutch rolls" ) to work on coordination.
7. Steep turns - you can find out a lot about a pilot in MCA and Steep turns. I use the angle braces and just lay them on the horizon.
8. Glides and power off approaches
9. 3 point landings
10. Wheel landings - inisist on it!!!!
11. Slips to landing wheel and 3 point.
12. Short field landings, with slips, in both wheel and 3 point.
13. Power off accuracy landings

Just my thoughts and the things I use.

sj

I would go fly with someone, preferably an instructor with some current tailwheel time. Granted it should come back kinda like riding a bike but why risk tearing up a good Cub since you haven't flown a tail dragger in 20 plus years.

When I bought my first airplane (PA16 Clipper) with two other guys, the only guy with a pilots license got real upset cause the insurance required him to get a i hr. checkout in it with an instructor. Our instructor was the National Aerobatic champion that wasn't charging us a dime. My point is sometimes people let a little ego get in the way. You can always learn something and I bet it will make you more comfortable on that first take-off and landing. Just my 2 cents. Good luck and have fun. I'd love to see the smile on your face when you get back from that first flight.

sj is right on with MCA and steep turns......that will rate the pilot. Then copius amounts of various TO's and LDNG's.

just keep the dirty side down and fly it till it is tied down.

This isn't Super Cub specific, but when starting a new taildragger guy, I always say, "get your head out of the panel and out the window". Trying to get them to feel the airplane?

What do say Steve?

Wilbur

Airbuster:

If flying off hard surface, keep your tires max inflated. That will allow the tire to skid (grab less) if you touch down with a side load. Also will be less 'grab' during wheel spinup on a normal touchdown.

Best advice is to find a grass runway to play on. Will allow you to let the student go farther with the aircraft when they fight directional control.

Suggest you also teach 3-point landings before wheel ones. When they master the slow stuff, teach them to transition from tail low flare to wheel landings. Most students are taught wheel landings with much too excessive airspeed.


Steve:

Let's go flying someday. Bet I can prove to you that item # 3 is not the way the wing flies.... even a Cub wing. Is downright dangerous in a highly loaded wing.

I'm sure most of you guys have heard this one re: pitch= airspeed

The instructor drilled this home to the student, who on taking the active for takeoff held the stick full back without adding power. The instructor says "What the hell you doing?" Student says "Trying to get up enough airspeed to takeoff". :lol:

It's a compromise but sj's item 3 is the correct way to teach students I believe.

cubdrvr said:

It's a compromise but sj's item 3 is the correct way to teach students I believe.

Click to expand...

It's a common belief, but there are many NTSB fatal accident reports that prove it wrong.

Maneuvering in critical situations involve high stress. If primary learning is flawed, improper aircraft control can bring fatal results.

The wing keeps (altitude) the aircraft in the air... the power pulls (airspeed) the wing through the air. The use of pitch to control the wing most directly effects lift. Airspeed change is a secondary affect from the change in drag, the result of AOA changes.

If you maintain level flight with pitch... a glidepath or climb angle should be maintained the same way. The aircraft (wing) does not know if it's level, climbing or descending. Bet you fly the ILS glideslope with small pitch changes, with power and flaps set to maintain a target airspeed. Flying a visual glidepath would be no different. A glidepath (flown perfectly) is nothing more than a constant rate descent (with small variations for groundspeed changes). Constant rate descents are most easily flown with pitch. That's the way the FAA, the airlines, Flight Safety and SimuFlite teach it. All million dollar flight management systems and autopilots also control altitude, glidepath rate climbs and rate descents with pitch... even the ones equipped with auto-throttles.

Clearly any physics major will tell you that the relationship between pitch, power, and airspeed is one of significant interelation, and any pilot who has flown a lot knows this. HOWEVER, when my student is low on final, the thing I want drilled into his head is that the throttle, not the elevator is going to cure the problem, and then when he is going too fast, the elevator (with an appropropriate power reduction) is going to solve the problem.

Too many people pull the power to slow down without pitching, and too many people pull up (and die) on final instead of adding power.

Wilbur, I agree. Get your eyes outside and outside only. Learn the SOUND of 2400rpm, etc, and the feel of the airspeed.

sj

P.S. Pretty good article on the subject from the FAA site:
http://www1.faa.gov/avr/afs/news/archive/Jan_Feb2003/Approach.htm

Bet you fly the ILS glideslope with small pitch changes, with power and flaps set to maintain a target airspeed.

Click to expand...

Maybe I do it wrong, but I've always flown the GS with pitch set for the target airspeed and power to regulate the descent. Anybody else?

Hi Doug

I'm not an instructor. Steve and Hydro have an interesting conversation going here and I am still trying to absorb their different methods. I am not sure how I would teach it but there are two areas that are quite important in my book. Airspeed and coordination. With your Beaver experience you probably feel as I do that they are both forgiving AC right up to that point they bite you. Due to the fact that the cub does not have differential ailerons it needs more rudder input in the turn than most AC. Adverse yaw is a little more pronounced. Number 6 on Steve's list is excellent. Lack of airspeed and lack of coordination is not a good situation in any aircraft, it just seems like it is easier to arrive at this scenario than other AC. Steve I have always remembered them as Dutch Rolls. I thought I read that in "Stick and Rudder". Curious. Be sure and debrief us Doug. Just opinions here and look fwd to more discussions by the flight instructors. Can I use this thread for a BFR???

Mark

steve said:

Clearly any physics major will tell you that the relationship between pitch, power, and airspeed is one of significant interelation, and any pilot who has flown a lot knows this. HOWEVER, when my student is low on final, the thing I want drilled into his head is that the throttle, not the elevator is going to cure the problem, and then when he is going too fast, the elevator (with an appropropriate power reduction) is going to solve the problem.

Too many people pull the power to slow down without pitching, and too many people pull up (and die) on final instead of adding power.

Click to expand...

Actually Steve, I was a physics major in college before changing to Business.

As for being low and depending on the throttle, don't try that technique in a Lake Amphibian... or a Lear Jet for that matter. It will just mean you will hit the water/ground going faster. Even when initiating a go-around, the pitch must be increased to result in the proper climb airspeed attained by the power increase that is made simultaneously.

People who pull up and die on final were never taught from the beginning how the wing flies. When you are slow at less than 50' agl, you don't push forward either, unless you want to flare risking an accelerated stall when you contact the runway. Try that in a highly loaded wing and you might gain 3 kts airspeed while tripling your rate of descent... hardly the desired effect.

In a steep spiral, the throttle and leveling the wings will solve the problem, not the elevator. Pulling up risks a tail/wing failure.... a common scenario in the old Bonanza accidents. Perfect example of basic flawed learning.

Hydro:

Certainly it is important that a pilot undertands the operational gamut of the aircraft they are flying. My comments are probably over generalized as they mostly apply to tractor type pistons such as the C-150, 172, cherokee, supercub, etc. - not pushers, and other variants. I AM making generalizations, but you have to start from a basis of understanding before you can move into complete comprehension of all the various gaits of flight. Many of the folks I teach believe physics is a form of aerobics or something and we try to introduce the concepts in a manner that they can apply the knowledege when it is most badly needed. Of course, steep spirals, spins, and unusual aircraft would require a different approach and your point is well taken.

The struggle is to take a student from not flying to flying without them having to get a college education - and still keep them as safe as possible, which is always my number one goal.

You provide some interesting food for thought and I am not in disagreement, I am just thinking how to best incorporate what you have said into the regimen I use when training pilots.

Thanks!

sj

Anytime, Steve...

I've trained many primary students (three in last two years) and give them the "detailed" basics of aerodynamics from the very first flight. In reality, despite some conceptual challenges, they quickly learn how the wing flies... and more important, get ahead of the aircraft. The last student (a 52 yr old female) flew her patterns so well we only did two go-arounds during her whole training regiment. My students must land in a prescribed area (no long landings are allowed) or they must go-around. If they don't, we stop flying for the day. This creates a challenge and also forces them to apply judgement to their learning process.

Pitch will change airspeed... but that change is a secondary effect of the lift change. The most effective way to make change is to change the force most aligned to the desired change. Airspeed is horizontal movement and aligned with thrust/drag. Altitude is vertical movement and aligned with lift/gravity. Basically, if something needs changing, use the control that is primary to the effect desired. If the secondary effect is substantial, change the control that controls it also.

In 40+ years of flying I've converted a lot of pilots to pitch/altitude & power/airspeed. They've never gone back. Frankly, it's the only way to control a high performance wing if you don't want to kill yourself. The lowly Cub wing flies the same way... just the effect is not so prominent.

So, I turn base to final. I recognize that I'm going to land short of my intended spot. I'm already slow with the flaps out. If I try to correct by use of the elevator, I will get to attend 1 funeral. If I correct with throttle, I can attend more than 1. All physics lessons aside, this is my reality.
SB

Hydro.......maybe I'm not understanding your point on this. Whether on the GS in a Bonanza or stabilized final in a cub if you are settling below your intended flight path(losing altitude) a pitch change may bring you back up to your desired track BUT without the addition ot throttle you lose airspeed in either case. With a slight increase in power you maintain that airspeed and recoup your altitude. I know you can't be saying pull back on the elevator if you're low and slow in any airplane without additional power.......my point is that with the added power you need little or no pitch change.

I'm on line with SB.

stewartb said:

So, I turn base to final. I recognize that I'm going to land short of my intended spot. I'm already slow with the flaps out. If I try to correct by use of the elevator, I will get to attend 1 funeral. If I correct with throttle, I can attend more than 1. All physics lessons aside, this is my reality.
SB

Click to expand...

Actually, SB.... when you add power in a Cub, the nose will normally rise (pitch) and you will establish a shallower angle of descent while maintaining the same airspeed that did not decrease from the additional drag because of the power increase. Often, your pitch corrections are almost subconscious.... slight as they may be. And, with a Cub wing, the slight increased lift is all that was necessary to shallow the glide angle. That lift comes with a penalty (increased drag) and the power is what keeps the airspeed from decreasing... and gives the perception of lifting the airplane. Make any sense?? All this darn cold & snow in Omaha is blocking my brain waves..!

My point wasn't to argue the intellectual or theoretical, but to put it into terms that I use in real situations. The appropriate response to prevent landing short is to increase throttle. What happens after that (in physics terms) is unimportant, except that I reach my landing spot. I'm not arguing, I just prefer the simple answer. I know nothing of physics other than that bad things happen if you hit the ground really hard.
SB

Doug,

You definitely want to keep design characteristics in mind. E.g,. on T/O and initial climb, SC's are happy to fly off with the stick "relaxed." On C-180's, you pull back. On DHC's (Beaver, Otter), you push forward. The differences are sublte but worth noting. Oftentimes, pilots get hurt using the "right" technique on the wrong airplane.

Have fun
Nick

cubdrvr said:

Hydro.......maybe I'm not understanding your point on this. Whether on the GS in a Bonanza or stabilized final in a cub if you are settling below your intended flight path(losing altitude) a pitch change may bring you back up to your desired track BUT without the addition ot throttle you lose airspeed in either case. With a slight increase in power you maintain that airspeed and recoup your altitude. I know you can't be saying pull back on the elevator if you're low and slow in any airplane without additional power.......my point is that with the added power you need little or no pitch change.

Click to expand...

Power is only necessary after the pitch change if there is a substantial decrease in airspeed without it.

When you just add power, a Cub will usually pitch up (wing lift & vertical component of thrust) and the airspeed often remains stable because the increased power quickly balances with the increased drag from the higher AOA which is shallowing the glide path (rate of descent).

This all boils down to control precision and efficiency..... and the potential use of a control improperly with disastrous results. Use of pitch and power produces a primary & secondary effect. When you add power during a glide, it's the immediate increase (be it slight) in airspeed (primary effect) that creates the additional lift (at the given AOA) that gives you a change in rate of descent (secondary effect). Using the secondary effect of a control works in many cases.... especially on a Cub wing. However, that control use is flawed. Just because you get the desired change doesn't mean you have used the correct control.

Let's go to short final on a C310.... a heavy twin relative to its wing area. When at less than 50' agl with decreasing airspeed, would you pitch forward..?? To do so would only increase airspeed (secondary effect) a few knots while your rate of descent (primary effect) would most likely increase 200-300%. The correct action would be to increase power (to maintain airspeed) and pitch as necessary (to maintain the stable glidepath).

Hope I'm making some sense to you....

Surely you use pitch to maintain a level altitude... a glidepath is virtually the same thing, the wing knows no different. The best way to maintain the perfect glidepath is pitch also.

We need to be havin' a beer over this..........too much typing.

When at less than 50' agl with decreasing airspeed, would you pitch forward..??

Click to expand...

Your airspeed should not be decreasing at 50' or at 5000' if you are in a stabilized mode. If at a critical altitude and airspeed in the cub I would pitch forward and power simultaneously.

The best way to maintain the perfect glidepath is pitch also.

Click to expand...

Sorry, I gotta disagree.......but we may be on the same page and not know it.

cubdrvr said:

We need to be havin' a beer over this..........too much typing.

When at less than 50' agl with decreasing airspeed, would you pitch forward..??

Click to expand...

Your airspeed should not be decreasing at 50' or at 5000' if you are in a stabilized mode.

Click to expand...

Actually, even when stabilized, a 5 or 10 knot loss of airspeed is very common if a wind gradient or wind shear is encountered. Would you still pitch down?

The best way to maintain the perfect glidepath is pitch also.

Click to expand...

Sorry, I gotta disagree.......but we may be on the same page and not know it.

Bet we are too.... pay careful attention next time you are making minor corrections when flying a pattern approach. You will be surprised what you are subconsciously doing with your pitch. This is very common with experienced Cub pilots. Pitch changes become instinctive...power changes only when you know you have to have some airspeed to keep the wing flying.

Didn't you say earlier you fly the ILS glideslope with pitch? A visual approach is no different.

STEVE....

I'm getting a bit concerned. The last two times I've replied to this thread using internal quotes, etc.... my INTERNET EXPLORER started flashing.. as much as 60+ times before I powered down.

Tried another thread I subscribe to with no troubles. Will see if this "sterile" post does the same.

just FYI

John

STEVE,

The "sterile" post worked properly...!!

John

I think that Hydro Cub makes a couple of important points. You can assert that power is primary for this, and pitch is primary for that, all you like. That fits in very nicely with the FAA's method of teaching someone to fly airplanes.

I am a bit disturbed by one of the comments, that we are trying to teach someone to fly without them getting a degree in it, or words to that effect.

My philosophy is that if you're gonna fly one of these things, be it a B29, a Super Cub, an F22, or heaven forbid, a Husky, you really do need to know a little bit more about how it works than "pull to go up, power to go fast", or the alternative.

This is a very dynamic environment, and I believe that a lot of the problems we see in pilots down the road is that they never developed an understanding of how a wing flies, thanks to their primary instructor, who tried desperately to "simplify things" for them. In so doing, we've simplified the concept to the point where most low time pilots (and a fair number of high time pilots) really minimize the importance of understandign aerodynamics.

Flying is NOT a simple process. You can't fly an airplane successfully without using ALL the controls. Why not teach that right up front? I'm not convinced that students are so boneheaded that they can't grasp the concepts.......

That is, assuming the instructor actually understands how an airplane flies.

The foregoing discussion is overly simplistic. Hydro Cub is correct, get in a Lake, and adding power low will buy you dirt. But that's not because power controls speed, not altitude, it's because they mounted the dang engine thrust line so high.

I hope nobody who gets low on final just sits there, holding their pitch attitude absolutely firm, while adding power. I'm also hoping that they don't, in the same circumstances, just pull back on the stick till the airplane stalls, without adding power.

Flying is dynamic, not static, and it's complex. It's not that hard to understand, though, and sometimes I think as instructors we tend to underestimate our students.

Course, some of them we tend to overestimate, but frequently only once.

For what it's worth,

MTV

Good points,

I also think it is important to point out that moving the elevator is not the only think that effects pitch. In fact, maybe better put is that TRIM controls airspeed, rather than pitch, since of course the pitch changes when the power is applied / reduced without changing the elevator setting. Leave the trim alone and make a power change and after a few osciliations (depending on the plane) the airpseed will settle back in to roughly the previous trimmed speed. No doubt this is not true on all airplanes, but it is handy when flying an ILS or landing approach in most planes.

Mike V, I appreciate both your and Hydrocubs extensive knowledge of aerodynamics. I have a little more understanding than the FAA provides, but it still is nothing compared to you two. Is it enough to teach people to fly safely in the "normal" manner prescribed by the FAA? I believe so. Is it important to know a lot more when operating on the edges of the flight envelope? Absolutely.

Follow up question, do you believe that the checkride is an appropriate demonstration / requirement of a pilots skill level to ensure there ability to fly safely (at least at that moment)?

sj

Mike, Hydro, etc.,
When I was taught to fly, the instructors never said to use either pitch and speed to control the descent. They said elevator and throttle. They were teaching me the response to a situation, the action to take to change the situation. Regardless of whether the nose pitched up or didn't, that wasn't the issue.

I think Steve's "college education" comment is perfectly appropriate. I don't have a clue how a microwave oven works, but I'm a competent operator of one.

Lake's are funny airplanes. You guys say that to use the throttle will drive you into the ground. A friend that has one says the throttle has to be applied to make the elevators effective, including to keep the nose up on approach, which is counterintuitive to a Cessna pilot. I'd love to try one.

Fun topic, guys.
SB

I agree with the dynamics thing. At cruise speed when you yank on your elevator you go up. At approach speed do the same thing and you go down. The point that that relationship changes is airplane specific.