• If You Are Having Trouble Logging In with Your Old Username and Password, Please use this Forgot Your Password link to get re-established.
  • Hey! Be sure to login or register!

New Tailwheel Pilot

JimParker256

Registered User
Farmersville, TX
Guys,

Just had to share the news: I completed the dual time required by insurance, and got my tailwheel endorsement in my 65 Citabria 7ECA (100 hp, wood spar, no-bounce oleo gear). I was able to apply a LOT of what I read here, and some "offline" reading (Thanks for the e-book, ContactFlying!) to make the learning progress faster, with less "dramatics".

After we finished the dual-time and my CFI did the endorsement paperwork, and (after a quick break for lunch) I flew my first "solo" flight. Wow, not having a big guy in the back seat makes it a LOT easier to get the tail up on takeoff, and to keep the tail up on wheel landings! The "solo" flight went very well (even got a compliment from the tower controller, who just completed her own tailwheel endorsement), despite a direct 8-knot crosswind. We had trained in 10-12 knot crosswinds, so I was sure I could handle it, and it went very well.

Anyway, I just had to tell somebody! Loving life right now!
 
Now here is a fun thing and good learning exercise . Get four / five 25 lb bags of anything that won't mess up your interior. Bird seed is a good one. Anyway bagged stuff is good because you can strap it down and it won't fly around. Now play loading your plane in diferent ways and fly it around. Have fun.
 
Tail-up on take-off? It should fly off itself.

I'm a fairly new tailwheel pilot myself (two years in a Cub after 15 in a 172), but I was also taught to bring the tail up on the takeoff roll. I understand there are differing opinions on this, but for off-airport work it seems to make sense to get the tail up as soon as possible to reduce impact of rocks and bumps.
 
Tail-up on take-off? It should fly off itself.

It will. I think getting the tail up is to increase the visibility over the nose and reduce wear and tear on the tailwheel.

If you are operating from a nice strip, letting it fly off is fine. I pick the tail up because I like to develop a habit and muscle memory.

Learning to push forward on the stick was an unnatural act when I started flying my Cub. Now it feels natural. Living proof that if you give a monkey enough bananas you can teach him to do anything.
 
Tried taking off without raising the tail, and in this particular airplane it seemed to take about 2X the runway distance to get airborne. Probably has to do with the O-200 (100 hp nominal, but probably 89 hp at this DA) engine and a prop that has seen better days... I'm keeping my eyes open for an "affordable" McCauley 1A100-ACM6948 prop in better shape than mine...
 
Hahaha! I'm right there with you!

I pick the tail up for the same reason.

I also like to rotate an airplane when I feel it is ready to fly. Never have liked the "it will fly when it is ready,". Depending on the plane, that may be a subtle back pressure or a definite rotation. I determine when it leaves the ground. The reduced AOA with the tail up also helps to accelerate.

IMHO. YMMV.
 
IF the airplane is balanced on the mains, with minimal elevator AOA.

When the plane is in a three pt, both the wing and horizontal stab are at a high AOA with accompanying induced drag.

You get a momentary high drag when you raise the tail and then the wing is at a low AOA with low drag until you rotate.

Maybe that is the reason that virtually every STOL takeoff you see uses the raise and rotate technique.
 
Pushing stick forward on T-craft, SCs, 180s and 185s on rough and undulating terrain didn't work for me. Trimmed properly, the tail came up with light footprint and strain on the gear.
 
I roll in some nose-down trim for takeoff, which allows the 180's tail to come up pretty much by itself. The airplane is ready to fly, just add some light back pressure and away you go. Then I have to start rolling in some nose-up trim for the initial climbout.
 
When the plane is in a three pt, both the wing and horizontal stab are at a high AOA with accompanying induced drag.

You get a momentary high drag when you raise the tail and then the wing is at a low AOA with low drag until you rotate.

Maybe that is the reason that virtually every STOL takeoff you see uses the raise and rotate technique.
Agreed, and if the tail is first lifted with the brakes locked, then even that momentary drag would be reduced. Although for soft ground, rolling drag would increase - seems there's always a tradeoff!
 
I think there is some confusion. King brown are you saying you let the tail come up on its own than rotate for takeoff? Or are you flying off from a 3 point position (not tail low). I agree Trim setting on takeoff is one of the keys to a good/short takeoff.
DENNY
 
Aircraft, (model), loads, ground texture all makes a difference, and uses different technique.

At least get that little wheel out/off of the slop to protect it and allow for less drag. Rough ground is friction against your wheels, so getting the tail clear is important.
 
Denny, trimmed, the tail comes up with application of power; light hand on stick to reduce wheels/ground friction and stress on the mains. Taught by a First World War Camel pilot 63 years ago. STOL, brakes locked, tail-high whole other thing.
 
Denny, trimmed, the tail comes up with application of power; light hand on stick to reduce wheels/ground friction and stress on the mains. Taught by a First World War Camel pilot 63 years ago. STOL, brakes locked, tail-high whole other thing.

Well, in my 1965 Citabria 7ECA, with only 100 hp (Cont O-200), on a hot day (98*F, DA = 2800 ft), at full gross weight (1650 lbs), the tail will not come up with application of full power (with or without the brakes locked) until it picks up some speed. Applying forward stick brings the tail up earlier, and you can literally feel the airplane accelerate once the tail is "streamlined" with the fuselage, and it quickly gets to flying speed where you can rotate very slightly and climb. Keeping it tail low and allowing it to accelerate in 3-point attitude causes the ground roll to increase significantly (roughly 2X the distance) before it's flying, and even then it is mushing along in ground effect.

I'm can certainly see how additional power might change the dynamics, and allow one to fly it off in a 3-point stance, but in my somewhat horsepower-challenged airplane, it's certainly not the fastest or shortest way of getting airborne.
 
Dear god, Jim, we'd never see those conditions up here. I'm a romantic and think of my launches into space au natural and Valdez as lusty stallions humping a field of mares.The pleasures are balanced equally I'm sure but, as aktango said, differences for conditions.
 
Yeah, but when you guys are shivering in the winter cold... Aw, who am I kidding? It gets cold here in winter also, it's just that it's only for a few days at a time.

Our Texas heat can be brutal. And this year it is actually a good bit cooler than usual - we have yet to hit 100*F. But I'm enjoying flying with a built-in sun-shade (no overhead glass in this one), and with the sliding window I get almost too much wind in the cockpit - but it feels pretty good, I have to admit. As I said, I'm having a ball flying this airplane. It teaches me something on every single flight.

My plan is to fly a complete series of test flights, to determine my takeoff distances, rate of climb versus different airspeeds, and figure out what cruise speed really is for this beast. (Maybe I should put the wheel pants back on for that, eh? Every little bit helps!) There is no POH or even "Owners Manual" for this year/model. Apparently, Champion thought the little 4"x4" "Operating Limitations" card was sufficient for "real pilots"... I've got one for the Bellanca 7ECA with O-235 power, but I'm finding it to be fairly "optimistic" for this version - mostly related to having 15% less power (O-200 vs O-235).
 
"When the plane is in a three pt, both the wing and horizontal stab are at a high AOA with accompanying induced drag".

In that circumstance, by what percentages does the Biot-Savart Law reduce the induced drag of the two surfaces?
 
"When the plane is in a three pt, both the wing and horizontal stab are at a high AOA with accompanying induced drag".

In that circumstance, by what percentages does the Biot-Savart Law reduce the induced drag of the two surfaces?

Jim C,

I haven't had nearly enough coffee this morning to figure out what impact an electromagnetic field might have on induced drag.

I can imagine a fanciful scenario (involving re-bar in the runway) that might result in increased rolling friction when the magnetic attraction between the airframe and re-bar cause the tires to be slightly more compressed than otherwise...

But like I said - not enough coffee (maybe in the entire world) to get me going on this morning... 8)
 
:)
I trust you are aware the the Biot-Savart Law is also used to compute the reduction in aircraft induced drag at low HAG, so I assume you are kidding me.

As an aside, with a wingspan about 35.2' and an average wing HAG on the very loose order of 5.5'-5.75', the induced drag reduction for the wing is about 48-49%.

I'll leave the tail computation as an exercise for those who are interested.

I'm struggling with that coffee problem myself....
 
Last edited:
In the Skywagon I start my T/O roll with full forward controls when on ruff ( grapefruit sized rocks ) or short strips. The game is to save the equipment , to include the stab's , a big rock flung into it does a big dent and two days playing riveting and painting. Just as a side note , brakes aren't your friend on gravel bars- stones spraying everywhere.
 
so I assume you are kidding me.
I'm struggling with that coffee problem myself....
It was way too early, so I did a quick Google search for "Biot-Savart Law" to refresh my fading memory, and the "magnetic field generated by an electric current" definition was the first hit, followed (much later) by the aerodynamics impact.

Somehow, in my caffeine-deprived state, the whole electro-magnetic thing just struck me as funny... And I figured anyone conversant with the Biot-Savart Law would get the joke...
 
:)
I trust you are aware the the Biot-Savart Law is also used to compute the reduction in aircraft induced drag at low HAG, so I assume you are kidding me.

As an aside, with a wingspan about 35.2' and an average wing HAG on the very loose order of 5.5'-5.75', the induced drag reduction for the wing is about 48-49%.

I'll leave the tail computation as an exercise for those who are interested.

I'm struggling with that coffee problem myself....

I do not allow any HAG in my Cub!!
 
Okay, but how about pilots who can't understand that stuff or count to 10 like myself? You can't leave it there. Does the Law make tail-low and high a wash?
 
It simply reduces the influence of aircraft drag relative to tailwheel drag. Other factors overwhelm it.

For a Super Cub at Gross, the Biot-Savart HAG effect reduces the induced drag of the WING at liftoff by roughly about 68 pounds (not the answer to your question).

You'd actually need to compute the tail drag reduction and compare it to the tailwheel rotational and terrain drag to address the question.
 
Last edited:
Or, you can just do what I did (which was a LOT more fun, and required a LOT less caffeine) and just go fly your plane and experiment with both ways.

But JimC's would also help explain why under-inflated tires or longer grass (both of which contribute more terrain/friction drag) can have a profound effect on your takeoff performance...

Personally, I think it's more fun to go practice in the airplane. Plus (and it's a major one) you don't have to remember how to do derivatives, etc.
 
Back
Top