What's new
Van's Air Force

Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.

Tailwheel endorsement worth it?

Status
Not open for further replies.
I just did a quick spreadsheet math based on the 100hr/year of flying. Combine the cost of fuel, hangar, oil, maintenance reserve, insurance, my monthly cost is over $1200. Some will have more, some less. I think the $1000/month is conservative. From the number, this cost is comparable to a flying club in SoCal, given the same number for flying hours. Of course, the cost is much higher if you are paying for the aircraft loans, which is not included in my calculation.

Ah, my bad...California. Yes, 1000/month is probably conservative estimate there...
 
What do you mean "worth it"? Getting a TW endorsement does not require a written, but does require you sit down and read books on the "ART" of flying a "Conventional Gear" (tailwheel) plane. There is no check ride, only CFI enforcement. Proficiency is the criteria. Here is a thread I started about the topic. https://vansairforce.net/community/showthread.php?t=200527

Even though there is no written, there is schooling, even if self guided. In your studies, reading, watching videos, ground time with CFI, you will learn about the unique physics, aerodynamics, common mistakes. It is fun. TW planes are different than Trikes bottom line. Trikes tend to self correct even landing in a crab and a Tailwheel not so much with CG behind the main gear. However if you have good habits and skill in making good approaches and landings with nose wheel planes, it will transfer nicely to a TW plane.

Learning is fun. There are many great TW videos free on line (see link below). As far as RV's a TW plane is going to be slightly faster, lighter. The early nose gears are subject to digging onto soft dirt and folding. With no commitment go spend some time in self guided learning about TW plane operations.

Here is a thread I started with many references you can review on the topic. https://vansairforce.net/community/showthread.php?t=200527

The endorsement requires you fly with a CFI. There is no Min or Max hours or check ride. How long did it take me. I hesitate say, but one flight about 1.5 hours (have to get old log book out and look). Most people take a few hours. At the time I was an active CFI on top of my game landing all kinds of nose gear planes, fixed and retractable. If you are rusty and forgot or never learned how to properly land in a Crosswind then you can expect many hours. It is to proficiency not a set hours.

If you are current, proficient, can land a nose wheel airplane in a strong cross wind or no wind at all, like a boss, the endorsement straight forward. TW is not hard, just requires you to be a pilot making proper control inputs. Not rocket science.

I am a CFI and one of my biggest complaints of many pilots including airline pilots to private pilots, watching cross wind landing videos, is they either never learned or forgot how to do a side slip and hold it to touch down and maintain it through out roll out (some of it on one upwind wheel). Yes cross control coordination is key. Yes there is the KICK IT method, where you crab right into the flare, then kick it stright and plop it on. If the cross wind is strong and you don't have aileron into the wind you can have LOC landing accident. That kick it method might work in an Airliner with auto spoiler (come up when weight is on wheels and kills lift)). In a light RV it will result in an ugly landing or worse. You have to master the side slip.

If giving a TW endorsement first flight or following flights as needed light winds is in order. Practice wheel landing and 3-point landings. However at some point I would want to see a real cross wind landing, done with confidence. It is not hard, but takes knowledge, skill and practice. TW is not as forgiving but RV's are very docile TW planes. I equate them to fast landing Cubs. You can't go for a ride if you just sit there and don't use proper control inputs. YOU HAVE TO FLY THE PLANE... no auto correcting nose wheel.

There are many YouTube Videos of pilots documenting their TW training. Only YOU can decide if it is worth it.

If you have rough edges on your flying skills a TW endorsement will sharpen you up. TW planes are way more fun to fly (Takeoff, Land, Taxi).
 
Last edited:
Yeah, no

“…That kick it method might work in an Airliner with auto spoiler (come up when weight is on wheels and kills lift)). In a light RV it will result in an ugly landing or worse. You have to master the side slip…”

Disagree.

Properly executed, the “kick it”, as you call it, method will yield consistently nice landings.

Any poorly executed method will result in an ugly landing.

Side slipping down final? Done properly, it works, too…although, in my opinion, a bit amateurish…:rolleyes:

In the end, it is an individual preference; there is no right or wrong answer.
 
Forget the “kick it.”

If you’re a smidge high put in the proper aileron/rudder pressures in early and the bit of slip will bring you in steeper. If you are low bring the rudder/aileron pressure in as you flare, in a decent crosswind you’ll need the aileron and rudder pressures throughout the landing.

Use enough rudder pressure to keep the nose straight, to many people kick and let off regardless of steering wheel location. Rudder pressures will vary with aileron pressures, balance both to keep going straight and don’t forget about the flare. When you move one you have to compensate with the other.
 
I'd be willing to bet that 99 percent of the ground loops that happened were caused by pilots with a tail-wheel endorsement....

-Marc

That’s like saying 99 percent of all aircraft accidents have a licensed pilot at the controls or 99 percent of automobile accidents have a licensed driver at the wheel or even the majority of twin engine aircraft accidents involve a twin-rated pilot. The mere process of getting to those point means that statistically the operator has the proper license or other qualifying status.

Thousands of hours of TW here. No TW endorsement. Unlike the analogies above don’t assume every legal TW pilot you see has a TW endorsement. That is not required for all currently flying TW pilots. It took me tens of hours to exorcise bad tri-gear habit demons during tailwheel transition training. I am a klutz. TW training was humbling yet confidence building. No ground loops 35 years later between Pitts’, Bird Dogs, DC-3, antiques, war birds and RVs. I always dial in my A-game on final expecting it. But so far so good. Not that there haven’t been a couple of soiled undergarment events along the way. In fact my worst incident yet wasn’t even in a TW. It was in a tri-gear Rutan Vari-Eze when I got the prop on landing. That should have been physically impossible just by looking at geometry of the design. But yep. I was “that guy”.
 
What do you mean "worth it"? Getting a TW endorsement does not require a written, but does require you sit down and read books on the "ART" of flying a "Conventional Gear" (tailwheel) plane. There is no check ride, only CFI enforcement. Proficiency is the criteria. Here is a thread I started about the topic. https://vansairforce.net/community/showthread.php?t=200527

Even though there is no written, there is schooling, even if self guided. In your studies, reading, watching videos, ground time with CFI, you will learn about the unique physics, aerodynamics, common mistakes. It is fun. TW planes are different than Trikes bottom line. Trikes tend to self correct even landing in a crab and a Tailwheel not so much with CG behind the main gear. However if you have good habits and skill in making good approaches and landings with nose wheel planes, it will transfer nicely to a TW plane.

Learning is fun. There are many great TW videos free on line (see link below). As far as RV's a TW plane is going to be slightly faster, lighter. The early nose gears are subject to digging onto soft dirt and folding. With no commitment go spend some time in self guided learning about TW plane operations.

Here is a thread I started with many references you can review on the topic. https://vansairforce.net/community/showthread.php?t=200527

The endorsement requires you fly with a CFI. There is no Min or Max hours or check ride. How long did it take me. I hesitate say, but one flight about 1.5 hours (have to get old log book out and look). Most people take a few hours. At the time I was an active CFI on top of my game landing all kinds of nose gear planes, fixed and retractable. If you are rusty and forgot or never learned how to properly land in a Crosswind then you can expect many hours. It is to proficiency not a set hours.

If you are current, proficient, can land a nose wheel airplane in a strong cross wind or no wind at all, like a boss, the endorsement straight forward. TW is not hard, just requires you to be a pilot making proper control inputs. Not rocket science.

I am a CFI and one of my biggest complaints of many pilots including airline pilots to private pilots, watching cross wind landing videos, is they either never learned or forgot how to do a side slip and hold it to touch down and maintain it through out roll out (some of it on one upwind wheel). Yes cross control coordination is key. Yes there is the KICK IT method, where you crab right into the flare, then kick it stright and plop it on. If the cross wind is strong and you don't have aileron into the wind you can have LOC landing accident. That kick it method might work in an Airliner with auto spoiler (come up when weight is on wheels and kills lift)). In a light RV it will result in an ugly landing or worse. You have to master the side slip.

If giving a TW endorsement first flight or following flights as needed light winds is in order. Practice wheel landing and 3-point landings. However at some point I would want to see a real cross wind landing, done with confidence. It is not hard, but takes knowledge, skill and practice. TW is not as forgiving but RV's are very docile TW planes. I equate them to fast landing Cubs. You can't go for a ride if you just sit there and don't use proper control inputs. YOU HAVE TO FLY THE PLANE... no auto correcting nose wheel.

There are many YouTube Videos of pilots documenting their TW training. Only YOU can decide if it is worth it.

If you have rough edges on your flying skills a TW endorsement will sharpen you up. TW planes are way more fun to fly (Takeoff, Land, Taxi).

This is an excellent write up and dead on. George is obviously a seasoned TW CFI. I notice in many of these types of threads the “time it kick it” pilots have A model RVs in their signature block. The time it and kick it crosswind technique came about after WWII when modern military and commercial jet tri-gear aircraft had geometrical issues that all but eliminated the side slip and upwind landing gear first traditional crosswind technique. Look at the annhedral of a B52 wing or the clearance of fully deployed Fowler flaps on a Boeing airliner combined with the short gear. Swept wings are also key with this issue. The 727 is a prime example of where anything more than a bit of side slip could drag the outboard edge of the deployed flap on the runway. The limited side slip capability during landing for these aircraft was considered not as important a logical outcome of their design requirements to be light weight and efficient while accommodating proper aerodynamics. There is nothing wrong about that but the “time it and kick it” crosswind technique was a solution. That is trade knowledge at Boeing and I was a design engineer there in a past life and got to hang with many of the brilliant old timer there (many of the best immigrated from the UK in the 50’s and 60’s during the post-Comet brain drain). Since many modern flight schools are oriented towards professional flying careers, both student and instructor repeat in white shirts with epaulets, this leads to swarms of Cessna 172s flying multi-mile patterns and “time it and kick it” crosswind landings. Not knocking those schools as they are on a mission to make airline pilots, if not running up the Hobbs meter at the same time. Those white epaulet shirts might be why some folks consider that kick technique professional, since swept wing jets do it that way. There are some light EABs like KRs and Quickies that also have geometries that can’t get a wing down very easily on landing but those are rare designs. I maintain that with a side-slip cross wind landing with cross controls the pilot can establish runway directional control well above the ground on final and maintain it all the way to touch down with small corrections all the way down. Remember that the up aileron on the upwind wing in a cross-wind landing isn’t just keeping the wing down, it has as much to do with adding adverse yaw to help with centerline control. Adverse yaw is free extra virtual anti-wind rudder. This technique also has the added advantage of allowing the pilot time to decide whether the cross wind component exceeds the aircraft or pilot capabilities before getting too close to the ground. Time it and kick it in a light 2-seat RV taildragger in the flare and you may not know if those limits are exceeded until you are scrubbing your tires sideways on the pavement.

Like the proverbial camel factions proclaiming the advantages of one hump or two, or the notorious discussions about 3 points or wheel landings it will ultimately come down to personal preference. As long as we make it go straight and don’t hit s*#, it’s nice to have options.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for all the advice. Hearing that I don’t earn enough to own isn’t what I wanted to hear, but I needed to hear it.

Duncan, don't buy into that BS. There are many facets to flying, and (heresy warning!) some are every bit as much fun as an RV.

I had $11K in the scratch-built biplane. It would be a bit more now, but not a lot. Wish I still had the Maxair Rocket. And these are just two of many. I flew cheap for years, with a bunch of friends doing the same, all regular Joes.

The tailwheel thing? Sure, do it. It's a useful skill, one of many.

https://youtu.be/h8cWKi4Ir6E
.
 

Attachments

  • JN4CPhoto.JPG
    JN4CPhoto.JPG
    32.2 KB · Views: 58
  • Rocket2.JPG
    Rocket2.JPG
    51.1 KB · Views: 61
Thanks for all the advice. Hearing that I don’t earn enough to own isn’t what I wanted to hear, but I needed to hear it. :). Seems like I once read that the average cost of ownership for the 2-seat RVs (fuel, insurance, maintenance) was roughly $1k per month, but perhaps this applies to the owners who perform their maintenance.

I’m in the Valdosta Ga area; does anyone know of any flying clubs even remotely close to this area?

Average cost these days is likely to be somewhat more than that if you can't do your own maintenance and repair, and will probably go up, but you have to be prepared for the occasional cata$trophe like an engine problem or an avionic failure. It's not just a matter of working $1000/month into your budget....your cash flow has to be able to accommodate a cylinder replacement every now and then, or worse.
 
From my experience as a low-time private pilot transitioning to tailwheel in an RV, I found that I had to be much more aware of sideslip when touching down and the process forced me to really improve my crosswind technique (and even then I still had to buy my dad some new tires).

Most of the responsis here based on the belief that a tail wheel ratting is good because it makes you a better pilot. I dont necessarly agree with that. A centered ball is a centered ball in either plane.
From discussions elsewhere on the subject, there seems to be an oft-held belief that flying tailwheel aircraft also improves overall coordination in "up and away" flight, not just during takeoff/landing/ground ops. Apparently that's because a lot of the old "classic" taildraggers had pretty strong adverse yaw with roll input (same with gliders thanks to the long wings), much more so than more modern aircraft (which typically also happened to be trigear). You had to use a lot more rudder with roll inputs on those aircraft.



"...Seems like I once read that the average cost of ownership for the 2-seat RVs (fuel, insurance, maintenance) was roughly $1k per month..."

I have owned many airplanes over the past 40 years and none of them ever cost $1k a month. Of course that would depend if you are paying a majority of that in hangar rent...

$900-1000/month is about on par for my conservative estimate and my dad's "here's what it costs me for my -6", both assuming 100hr/year. But that's an all-inclusive cost--hangar, insurance, fuel, maintenance/parts, upgrade budget, engine overhaul reserve, smoke oil, etc. And 2/3 of that is "fixed cost" - hangar and insurance. I'm estimating a bit high on the insurance because I'm still fairly low-time and expect to pay through the nose for a couple years, even though most of my time is in an RV-6.
 
Duncan, don't buy into that BS. There are many facets to flying, and (heresy warning!) some are every bit as much fun as an RV.

I had $11K in the scratch-built biplane. It would be a bit more now, but not a lot. Wish I still had the Maxair Rocket. And these are just two of many. I flew cheap for years, with a bunch of friends doing the same, all regular Joes.

The tailwheel thing? Sure, do it. It's a useful skill, one of many.

https://youtu.be/h8cWKi4Ir6E
.

I’m with Dan on this - flying is worth it, no matter what you’re flying. My first airplane, a Yankee, cost me $4900. Yup, it was the local “rent-a-wreck” before I got it, and that was in the early 1980’s, but it was mine, and I improved it with sweat equity. There are lots of ultralights and really neat low and sow things out there to enjoy - the RV can wait.
 
My first aircraft was an Avid Flyer kit plane. Took me 4 years to pay off the loan I took out to buy it (and 5 years to finish the kit). I started while still in college. Paid as I went and learned a lot. I had somebody offer me more than I had in the Avid when I was moving across the country for a new job so I sold it. Later I bought a Luscombe 8A for 9 grand and flew the pants off it. Did a lot of renting and flying club action. There was a $12K Vari-Eze in there. Which I later traded straight across for a Cessna 150 so my brothers could work on their private license. In 2013 myself and 4 friends bought back that same Luscombe 8A for $10K. We still have it. Like most folks here I always kept my hand in flying whether on low salary or later in life when I had a bit more to spend. I think the majority of real Joe pilots like many of the Vans Air Force types here started out just like you and progressed over time. It comes down to when you want something bad enough you will find a way to get it done up to and without crossing the line of it affecting any personal relationships or responsibilities. Go to the local small airport and meet people and hang out.
 
“…That kick it method might work in an Airliner with auto spoiler (come up when weight is on wheels and kills lift)). In a light RV it will result in an ugly landing or worse. You have to master the side slip…”

Disagree.

Properly executed, the “kick it”, as you call it, method will yield consistently nice landings.

Any poorly executed method will result in an ugly landing.

Side slipping down final? Done properly, it works, too…although, in my opinion, a bit amateurish…:rolleyes:

In the end, it is an individual preference; there is no right or wrong answer.
You can disagree agree all you want. I'm not sure if you're talking about airliners but I've got 737/757/767 Boeing time, and sometimes I might use a little bit of a kick straight method in really strong winds, because it's uncomfortable for passenger to be in a side slip. Additionally there's ground clearance issues with the engines on the wing. Again auto brakes with anti skid and auto spoilers plants the aircraft, weight +100,000 lbs and stall speed 3x a light GA SE plane.

But in a little taildragger you're in a crab and you're about to land and you just kick it straight you better put in a bunch of anti-wind aileron, or you're going for a ground Loop. The end result is a side slip albeit at the last second. Can't avoid a side slip for proper X-wind Ld'g. You don't fly a side slip all the way down final aligned with runway. You align (side slip) before flare or starting flare point. Truly flying level crabing, kicking it straight and doing nothing else (alerion) as you touch down, you're likely drifting, up-wind wing likely can be lifted and plane will try to weathervane, aka ground Loop.

I'm talking about moderate to strong cross winds. Once the up wind wheel touches down you keep adding more aileron, holding down wind wheel off, until you get the taxi speed and have full aileron deflection, while tracking with rudder. While you taxi you use full anti wind control inputs.

You do you, but in general I'm going to teach my TW students some some form of uncoordinated control input, i.e., side slip. It's in all the books, tried and true recommend method, works for me the last 37 yrs. Because pilots never master this as a private pilot and rarely if ever practice in strong cross winds it's typically the weakest part of pilot's skill set. Then faced with x-wind near planes limit, never using large defelection control inputs they have LOC. Fortunately these incidents and accidents statically are mostly non-fatal. But it sure does bend planes.

To answer the OP a TW endorsement is a great benefit. It forces the pilot to learn or improve their x-wind landing skills. TW planes are less forgiving than nose wheel planes, to landing in a crab or last second kick it straight techniques. Proper x-wind skill translates to better airmanship overall regardless of plane large or small.
 
Last edited:
Rent the tail dragon, and use the money saved on insurance, annuals, etc., to get a Glider add-on rating. (Can be done in lieu of a BFR, IIRC.). You’ll learn formation flying behind the tow plane, and if you think learning to fly a tail dragger wakes your feet up….. oh boy.
 
get a Glider add-on rating. (Can be done in lieu of a BFR, IIRC.)
Yes, a new rating counts as a flight review.

You’ll learn formation flying behind the tow plane
Ehh... I'll disagree here. I don't have a lot of formation time compared to many here, but I do have some, and when I did my glider rating last year I found that formation flying vs. aerotow don't really work the same. In fact I'd even say there was some "negative habit transfer"--in particular, boxing the wake was much different. The way I would move out to the side in formation is not what works to move out there during a tow. You also don't have to worry about throttle management in a glider, and there's no tow rope to go slack in formation.

I don't see that there'd be a lot of transfer between the two, other than just generally getting used to being close to another aircraft in flight.

and if you think learning to fly a tail dragger wakes your feet up….. oh boy.
Yeah, you definitely need a lot of rudder in a glider. Honestly I found that turns were mostly "lead with rudder and just follow through a bit with the stick".
 
Ehh... I'll disagree here. I don't have a lot of formation time compared to many here, but I do have some, and when I did my glider rating last year I found that formation flying vs. aerotow don't really work the same. In fact I'd even say there was some "negative habit transfer"--in particular, boxing the wake was much different. The way I would move out to the side in formation is not what works to move out there during a tow. You also don't have to worry about throttle management in a glider, and there's no tow rope to go slack in formation.

I don't see that there'd be a lot of transfer between the two, other than just generally getting used to being close to another aircraft in flight.

I will (respectfully) disagree with you. Several years ago I was fortunate enough to starting hanging around with some Warbird guys, one of them was a FAST examiner and started teaching me formation flying in his -6. I didn't gt my FAST card before he Went West but I picked it up pretty quickly, we both wondered how until it struck me to mention my glider rating and he said Yup, that's it.

Just my personal experience, YMMV.
 
Last edited:
I rarely comment on here due to not owning an RV (yet) but felt I could contribute a tiny bit.

One of the earlier comments was to buy a cheap plane to build time and hopefully be less of a financial burden. This is great advice. I started 35 years ago and began with a C-150 which I traded for a C-172A. Flew it for many years and actually kept it until last summer when it was transfered to my son. In the mean time, I got my TW endorsement in a Champ that I purchased. The my SES rating in the same Champ on PK1500's. Floatplane flying is the best flying I have ever done!!!

Sold the Champ and bought a RANS S7 for more TW flying fun. Have skis and floats for it also. Meanwhile, I still had the trusty 172 for other missions. Last spring I picked up a Murphy Rebel with floats and skis. I wanted a little more stability and load capabilities then the RANS had. Also, My son was coming to pick up the 172 when he returned from his overseas deployment.

I wanted an RV for cross country travel and nearly pulled the plug on an RV-8 but my father passed away and that put a big hold on everything. This is when I bought the Rebel, a friend was up grading to a Carbon Cub and offered it to me at a price I couldn't pass up. Bought it and gave upon the RV search temporarly. Well, now I am in search mode again for an RV and it will be a TW unless I get a smoking deal on an 'A' model.

What I guess I am getting at, start out small and work your way up. I have seen too many guys jump in head first for their 'dream' plane and the financial burden sours them very quickly. Buy/fly what you can truly afford and you will love it. Get in over your head and you will get discouraged quickly. We need more pilots and flyers, one bit at a time.

PS. I was making way less money than you are....I found a way to make it work. Might have to give up other things in life, but if your passion is there, you won't really miss what you gave up. I don't smoke, drink, or gamble....Lot's of funds right there!
 
I rarely comment on here due to not owning an RV (yet) but felt I could contribute a tiny bit.

One of the earlier comments was to buy a cheap plane to build time and hopefully be less of a financial burden. This is great advice. I started 35 years ago and began with a C-150 which I traded for a C-172A. Flew it for many years and actually kept it until last summer when it was transfered to my son. In the mean time, I got my TW endorsement in a Champ that I purchased. The my SES rating in the same Champ on PK1500's. Floatplane flying is the best flying I have ever done!!!

Sold the Champ and bought a RANS S7 for more TW flying fun. Have skis and floats for it also. Meanwhile, I still had the trusty 172 for other missions. Last spring I picked up a Murphy Rebel with floats and skis. I wanted a little more stability and load capabilities then the RANS had. Also, My son was coming to pick up the 172 when he returned from his overseas deployment.

I wanted an RV for cross country travel and nearly pulled the plug on an RV-8 but my father passed away and that put a big hold on everything. This is when I bought the Rebel, a friend was up grading to a Carbon Cub and offered it to me at a price I couldn't pass up. Bought it and gave upon the RV search temporarly. Well, now I am in search mode again for an RV and it will be a TW unless I get a smoking deal on an 'A' model.

What I guess I am getting at, start out small and work your way up. I have seen too many guys jump in head first for their 'dream' plane and the financial burden sours them very quickly. Buy/fly what you can truly afford and you will love it. Get in over your head and you will get discouraged quickly. We need more pilots and flyers, one bit at a time.

PS. I was making way less money than you are....I found a way to make it work. Might have to give up other things in life, but if your passion is there, you won't really miss what you gave up. I don't smoke, drink, or gamble....Lot's of funds right there!

Thanks for this. I wondered if starting small was a good idea at first, and there’s no substitute for asking those who’ve done it.

I still have to buy a home and get it paid off, but I’m building my credit score for a home loan. I haven’t had a car payment in over 10 years, so I have no credit score. I drive a fuel-efficient Camry; no pickup truck, motorcycle, boat, RV (not the aircraft, the camping kind :D), etc. I spent quite a lot of money on flight instruction and aircraft rental (a lot of which took place after my PPL checkride), so that’s been my hobby in which to blow money on. Now I’m being as frugal as possible until I have a house paid off.
 
A week ago flew my new RV-7 I spent 8+ years building. I'm a pro pilot so I spend a lot of time away from home, or it would have taken half the time. I have a few hundred hours of tailwheel time, mostly in Decathlons (but a few others), from way back. There was never any discussion of getting a tri-gear airplane - tailwheel was the only choice for me. The only real adjustment for me transitioning to the RV-7 was the highly sensitive (In a good way) controls and low stick-force/g compared to other airplanes I have flown. Directional control has been no problem - there is PLENTY of rudder.

A tailwheel endorsement is always a good idea - even if you don't fly TW airplanes regularly.
 
You can disagree agree all you want. I'm not sure if you're talking about airliners but I've got 737/757/767 Boeing time, and sometimes I might use a little bit of a kick straight method in really strong winds, because it's uncomfortable for passenger to be in a side slip. Additionally there's ground clearance issues with the engines on the wing. Again auto brakes with anti skid and auto spoilers plants the aircraft, weight +100,000 lbs and stall speed 3x a light GA SE plane.

The physics are the same whether it's a 767 or a Cub. It comes down to technique; you do not like the "kick it straight" technique...that doesn't make it wrong.

...and I have plenty of Boeing time as well as Cubs, Champs, T6s, Stearmans, and my personal favorite, The Beech Staggerwing.


But in a little taildragger you're in a crab and you're about to land and you just kick it straight you better put in a bunch of anti-wind aileron, or you're going for a ground Loop. The end result is a side slip albeit at the last second. Can't avoid a side slip for proper X-wind Ld'g. You don't fly a side slip all the way down final aligned with runway. You align (side slip) before flare or starting flare point. Truly flying level crabing, kicking it straight and doing nothing else (alerion) as you touch down, you're likely drifting, up-wind wing likely can be lifted and plane will try to weathervane, aka ground Loop.

See the highlighted text. That statement is absolutely true. The difference in opinion is when that state is reached. You choose to get there much earlier. The end result is the same. This method is taught so as to acclimate the student to what is necessary, and which input controls ground track and which controls runway alignment. Using the crab method you have little time to play around and instruct. With experience, a cross controlled final is seldom necessary...not wrong but not necessary, IMO.

I'm talking about moderate to strong cross winds. Once the up wind wheel touches down you keep adding more aileron, holding down wind wheel off, until you get the taxi speed and have full aileron deflection, while tracking with rudder. While you taxi you use full anti wind control inputs.

Yeah, I learned that about 27,000 hours ago but thanks for the reminder! Always good to review!

You do you, but in general I'm going to teach my TW students some some form of uncoordinated control input, i.e., side slip. It's in all the books, tried and true recommend method, works for me the last 37 yrs. Because pilots never master this as a private pilot and rarely if ever practice in strong cross winds it's typically the weakest part of pilot's skill set. Then faced with x-wind near planes limit, never using large defelection control inputs they have LOC. Fortunately these incidents and accidents statically are mostly non-fatal. But it sure does bend planes.

Very true. As I stated earlier, The side slip final is a great training aid.

To answer the OP a TW endorsement is a great benefit. It forces the pilot to learn or improve their x-wind landing skills. TW planes are less forgiving than nose wheel planes, to landing in a crab or last second kick it straight techniques. Proper x-wind skill translates to better airmanship overall regardless of plane large or small.

That I will agree with. Any additional training to add to your skill set is a benefit.

Training is always a good thing. And the discussion really comes down to technique...which usually is vastly different between experience levels.

...and in reference to landing in a crab, that's something those airbus guys do!:D

(only kidding)
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by gmcjetpilot View Post
You can disagree agree all you want. I'm not sure if you're talking about airliners but I've got 737/757/767 Boeing time, and sometimes I might use a little bit of a kick straight method in really strong winds, because it's uncomfortable for passenger to be in a side slip. Additionally there's ground clearance issues with the engines on the wing. Again auto brakes with anti skid and auto spoilers plants the aircraft, weight +100,000 lbs and stall speed 3x a light GA SE plane.

The physics are the same whether it's a 767 or a Cub. It comes down to technique; you do not like the "kick it straight" technique...that doesn't make it wrong.

...and I have plenty of Boeing time as well as Cubs, Champs, T6s, Stearmans, and my personal favorite, The Beech Staggerwing.


Great. You are my hero, and I have time in all those tailwheel planes and more. This an irrelevant appeal to authority.


But in a little taildragger you're in a crab and you're about to land and you just kick it straight you better put in a bunch of anti-wind aileron, or you're going for a ground Loop. The end result is a side slip albeit at the last second. Can't avoid a side slip for proper X-wind Ld'g. You don't fly a side slip all the way down final aligned with runway. You align (side slip) before flare or starting flare point. Truly flying level crabing, kicking it straight and doing nothing else (alerion) as you touch down, you're likely drifting, up-wind wing likely can be lifted and plane will try to weathervane, aka ground Loop.

See the highlighted text. That statement is absolutely true. The difference in opinion is when that state is reached. You choose to get there much earlier. The end result is the same. This method is taught so as to acclimate the student to what is necessary, and which input controls ground track and which controls runway alignment. Using the crab method you have little time to play around and instruct. With experience, a cross controlled final is seldom necessary...not wrong but not necessary, IMO.

I'm talking about moderate to strong cross winds. Once the up wind wheel touches down you keep adding more aileron, holding down wind wheel off, until you get the taxi speed and have full aileron deflection, while tracking with rudder. While you taxi you use full anti wind control inputs.

OK "Kicking it straight" is NO Aileron, in my vernacular. You have to simultaneously add aileron opposite of aileron. I have 1000's of hours CFI and 10's of thousands Part 121 with all kinds of pilots and I see the KICK it and PLOP it on, with no aileron, and it gets weird sometimes.


Yeah, I learned that about 27,000 hours ago but thanks for the reminder! Always good to review!

You are my hero...

You do you, but in general I'm going to teach my TW students some some form of uncoordinated control input, i.e., side slip. It's in all the books, tried and true recommend method, works for me the last 37 yrs. Because pilots never master this as a private pilot and rarely if ever practice in strong cross winds it's typically the weakest part of pilot's skill set. Then faced with x-wind near planes limit, never using large defelection control inputs they have LOC. Fortunately these incidents and accidents statically are mostly non-fatal. But it sure does bend planes.

Very true. As I stated earlier, The side slip final is a great training aid.


It is not a training aid it actually what you do to land in a cross wind in GA planes. People who can not side slip while they flair don't have the proper training, or skill or coordination. The kick it stright from crab out wings levelis lazy and may work with a nose wheel plane in low to moderate winds, but is a recipe for ground loop moderate or higher cross winds in a TW plane. That is my expert opinion.

To answer the OP a TW endorsement is a great benefit. It forces the pilot to learn or improve their x-wind landing skills. TW planes are less forgiving than nose wheel planes, to landing in a crab or last second kick it straight techniques. Proper x-wind skill translates to better airmanship overall regardless of plane large or small.

That I will agree with. Any additional training to add to your skill set is a benefit.
Training is always a good thing. And the discussion really comes down to technique...which usually is vastly different between experience levels.

Well thank you for agreeing with something. I think everything else you said was an appeal to authority and pedantic. What was your point? You don't seem understand the physics of TW planes despite your credentials. I have seen pilots with more experience than Moses not be able to handle cross winds well.

...and in reference to landing in a crab, that's something those airbus guys do!

(only kidding)
__________________
Bob
Aerospace Engineer '88
ot.
RV-10

N464RL


Oh you fly a nose wheel plane. That explains a lot. You can land in a crab with a nose wheel and get away with it most of the time, unless the winds are strong, and even with strong winds the plane may save pilots with poor x-wind landing skills. TW plane not so much.

Dues+ Paid 2021,...Thanks DR[/QUOTE

Dude I have a Degree in Mechanical Engineering, worked at Boeing early in my career, fly for airlines, very aware of "physics" and have thousands dual given, 10's of thousands of hours in 60 airplanes from small to large, including Cub, Stearman and T6. So appeal to authority aside, the aerodynamics and skill set are different in a RV vs B767-300ER swept wing jet that can weight over 300,000 lbs on landing at 140 kts. To pretend otherwise it pedantic. As I said and repeat, lots of lift killing spoilers, autobrakes with antiskid allows you to plant a large jet and keep it going straight on touchdown even if you land in a crab. Besides it has a nose gear. You can land in a crab but the Flight Attendants in the aft galley and PAX in the back will be PO'ed. It is not a people pleaser but the plane will take the abuse and track down the runway. Obviously 20 kt cross wind has less effect on a B767 heavy landing at 140 kts Vs. an Van's RV TAIL WHEEL bird weighing 180 times LESS at 50 kts. Do the math. So forget the jets and forget kicking it straight with no aileron on a strong cross wind in light TW planes or even nose wheel planes for that matter. There is proper technique and "KICK IT" (rudder only) is not it. If that is what you do? Get some dual with a CFI who knows how to land in a side slip, fuselage aligned with runway, no drift, and hold it through out touchdown and roll out.

Yes it is wrong to KICK it straight in a GA plane and not use cross control / side slip in a strong wind. I am not even going to entertain any discussion of KICK IT out of crab last second with no aileron in a TW plane. RV-10 do as you like. You have the training wheel in front... it is more forgiving.
 
Last edited:
Wow. I got lost in the "he said, she said" quotes in this thread. But I like all the pretty colors...:D
 
The crab and kick straight group, which requires very good timing especially in gusty winds works just fine in most aircraft with tricycle gear. The normal response in tricycle gear is to want to straighten out.

Tailwheel crosswind landings are best done slipping the plane, landing on one wheel etc. this allows you to always put the aircraft down straight. You can also choose to reduce the crosswind by landing at an angle on the airstrip if it’s reasonably wide.

And finally there may be times that the crosswind is simply too strong to land:)
 
The crab and kick straight group, which requires very good timing especially in gusty winds works just fine in most aircraft with tricycle gear. The normal response in tricycle gear is to want to straighten out.

Tailwheel crosswind landings are best done slipping the plane, landing on one wheel etc. this allows you to always put the aircraft down straight. You can also choose to reduce the crosswind by landing at an angle on the airstrip if it’s reasonably wide.

And finally there may be times that the crosswind is simply too strong to land:)
You make a good point. In the old days on large grass fields you could land into or near into the wind, and the dirt/grass would allow the tires to slip an skid on the turf. The too strong x-wind is a good point. You can exceed planes capability and have to land more into the wind by picking another runway or airport. Mike Patey's "Draco" (monster turbine STOL plane) came to grief taking off in strong cross wind. He could have taken off on a taxiway or ramp in a few 150-200 feet.

If you land WINGS LEVEL with cross wind you are drifting even if aligned with runway. It is just a fact as you know. Will it cause a problem? Yes it could and does. Banking into the wind allows the horizontal component of lift to counteract the cross wind (drift). You land with no drift and aligned with the runway in a side slip. You kick it straight just before touchdown and the wings are level you are drifting. You also have a lot of yaw dynamics right before touchdown by Kicking it straight (no aileron). Side Slip allows you to stabilize and dial in the slip to have zero drift and good runway alignment.

If you land in a drift (wings level) in strong cross wind no matter how good your timing, you will be drifting to downwind side of runway. The tires will skid and then provide anti side drift force. However in a TW plane the CG is behind the wheels. The dynamics or inertia of CG still moving in the downwind drift direction, will start a weathervane into the cross wind. Yes judicial deft use of rudder and even dragging downwind brake if you land cattywampus and starting to ground loop, it may save the day. Why not be in a stabilized slip without all these post touchdown dynamics control histrionics to correct tracking?
 
Last edited:
You make a good point. In the old days on large grass fields you could land into or near into the wind, and the dirt/grass would allow the tires to slip an skid on the turf. The too strong x-wind is a good point. You can exceed planes capability and have to land more into the wind by picking another runway or airport. Mike Patey's "Draco" (monster turbine STOL plane) came to grief taking off in strong cross wind. He could have taken off on a taxiway or ramp in a few 150-200 feet.

If you land WINGS LEVEL with cross wind you are drifting even if aligned with runway. It is just a fact as you know. Will it cause a problem? Yes it could and does. Banking into the wind allows the horizontal component of lift to counteract the cross wind (drift). You land with no drift and aligned with the runway in a side slip. You kick it straight just before touchdown and the wings are level you are drifting. You also have a lot of yaw dynamics right before touchdown by Kicking it straight (no aileron). Side Slip allows you to stabilize and dial in the slip to have zero drift and good runway alignment.

If you land in a drift (wings level) in strong cross wind no matter how good your timing, you will be drifting to downwind side of runway. The tires will skid and then provide anti side drift force. However in a TW plane the CG is behind the wheels. The dynamics or inertia of CG still moving in the downwind drift direction, will start a weathervane into the cross wind. Yes judicial deft use of rudder and even dragging downwind brake if you land cattywampus and starting to ground loop, it may save the day. Why not be in a stabilized slip without all these post touchdown dynamics control histrionics to correct tracking?

Wow, It would seem that YOU are the one who started the "... but I've got 737/757/767 Boeing time..."

...and you just don't really get it, with a comment like this, "...Oh you fly a nose wheel plane..." My RV-10 is a family cruiser; that doesn't mean I do not fly nor instruct in TW aircraft.

I won't even address the "...Dude I have a Degree in Mechanical Engineering..." comment.

I really think the disconnect is in your definition of "kick it straight"; I think you are misunderstanding the technique. You do NOT land in a crab, you land in a proper side slip. The difference is that you do not fly the final in a cross controlled condition.

Please don't lecture me on aerodynamics; been there, done that, have the t shirt.

No more colors, it's giving me a head ache.

Anyway, have a nice night...
 
Thanks for all the advice. Hearing that I don’t earn enough to own isn’t what I wanted to hear, but I needed to hear it. :). Seems like I once read that the average cost of ownership for the 2-seat RVs (fuel, insurance, maintenance) was roughly $1k per month, but perhaps this applies to the owners who perform their maintenance.

I’m in the Valdosta Ga area; does anyone know of any flying clubs even remotely close to this area?

The most fun flying I’ve ever had was in my powered paraglider. 10k all in and about $6/hr to fly.
 
This thread has drifted far from the original poster's question and devolved into snarky discourse.

Thread closed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top