The International Cessna^® 170 Association

blueldr wrote:With a strange airplane, I've always teken it up and stalled it a few times in the landing configuration noting the stall speed, and then mulyiplying that speed by 1.3 for downwind, 1.2 for base , and 1.1 for short final. Usually seems to work out pretty good.

Blueldr,
I think you meant 1.5 on downwind 1.4 on base, and 1.3 on final. That is the textbook. It also does not take into account for environmental impact(ie crosswind or gusty wind)

0.9 Vso on short final would definitely result in an "environmental impact"!

canav8 wrote:

blueldr wrote:With a strange airplane, I've always teken it up and stalled it a few times in the landing configuration noting the stall speed, and then mulyiplying that speed by 1.3 for downwind, 1.2 for base , and 1.1 for short final. Usually seems to work out pretty good.

Blueldr,
I think you meant 1.5 on downwind 1.4 on base, and 1.3 on final. That is the textbook. It also does not take into account for environmental impact(ie crosswind or gusty wind)

bluElder says what he means. This is the last taildragger he used that technique upon:
He tried to convince the Navy to replace those little flat-prone Scott tailwheels with floats. (It didn't work out too well.)

I bought an A model 4 yrs ago and then used it to get my license. Got my license in 11 weeks. Had this discussion ad infinitum about should I start in a nose dragger. To this day 700 hours latter have never flown a nose dragger. In the end I have no regrets to learning this way. Fortunately my instructor was able to show me the benefits of a taildragger while I was learning - very rough off airport stuff. I must admit the level of commitment was higher than I had expected but has rewarded me tremendously. Currently I probably make more off airport landings than on and am perfectly comfortable with it. Why learn bad habits first. There is alot of muscle memory to flying a plane so why not start conditioning yourself from the beginning. A taildragger never goes straight on the ground it just appears that way in the hands of a good pilot. If you are the least bit timid I would go with the nose wheel as it is easy to quit flying early due to fear. I have to laugh but I still wonder if I could land a nose dragger. Good luck and don't give up. Steve

Steve, you are very fortunate. In a day where there is not many flight schools with a tailwheel aircraft and tailwheel instructors are waining, you are extremely fortunate. If you transition to nose wheel aircraft you will understand when we say tailwheel pilots are better pilots. They generally have fine tuned their skill set far more then a nose dragger pilot. You can argue all day long but the tailwheel training forced you to learn what the nose wheel pilot takes for granted. Doug

krines wrote:...I have to laugh but I still wonder if I could land a nose dragger...

Just full stall land it like you would your 170; DON"T try a wheel landing!

Dad used to tell me that in the late 1950's anyone who was vertical and self-propelled could walk onto an airport and rent a J3. However, if you wanted to fly their Tri-Pacer, you'd need a checkout. Fast forward 35 years to the early 1990's when I was based at Stennis Airport in Bay St. Louis, Mississippi. Late one afternoon after I'd put '98C away, the local mechanic said he had a 172 he needed to get to New Orleans ASAP and asked if I'd fly it over for him. I told him I wasn't current in nosewheel airplanes. I must have not been wearing my poker face very well, as he just rolled his eyes and tossed me the keys.

Doug I could not agree more that I was so fortunate. I cannot believe looking back on the whole experience that it happened that way. I basically asked a pilot friend what to do and he set me up with a 170 to buy and that crazy instructor. My life today could be dramatically different in flying terms. And the best part of it all is this organization no other seems so friendly and helpful. Steve

canav8 wrote:...tailwheel pilots are better pilots. ...the tailwheel training forced you to learn what the nose wheel pilot takes for granted. Doug

I don't know that nosewheel pilots are better pilots.... It depends upon what airplane they're flying, and in what type operations they are working, when they're being evaluated.
But I agree that tailwheel pilots are infinitely more-likely to understand basic stick and rudder skills.
I believe that is partly because nosewheel pilots think in terms of the airplane travelling in the direction the nose is pointed... while tailwheel pilots understand that all airplanes travel in the same direction the tail is moving.

The same is true of a power-boat skipper....who is taught to be cognizant of, and to protect the rudder .....because It's the rudder that moves the STERN... to which the the bow is attached.

Nonetheless... unless the primary student is already the owner of a tailwheel airplane he intends to operate after completion.... then I believe it is better that he learns his primary aeronautical skills in the more forgiving tricycle gear...then transition to the conventional gear..... because the potential damage to ego (which affects perseverance) and airplane is less in the trike... Also because the certificate is more quickly and assuredly obtained, and for less time and money (which is encouraging.....not discouraging).... And also because there are a lot more skills to learn besides directional control in the early experience. The transition to tailwheels, if not excessively delayed and if properly and promptly accomplished, will not retard the pilot's advancement or skills-acquisition.

Tailwheel skills are like most other piloting skills. Like instrument, or multi, etc.,....they can be acquired at any of numerous opportunities along the career-of-learning....it's not compulsory to learn them right out-of-the-box.

I agree with you George. I have to say that it is cheaper because of the average hours in primary are less in the nosewheel then the tailwheel. Cant argue with statistics. I still love to teach anyone that wants to learn the art of Tailwheel flying. I am still young and plan to keep tailwheel pilots going for another 20 years at least. D

cessna170bdriver wrote:

krines wrote:...I have to laugh but I still wonder if I could land a nose dragger...

Just full stall land it like you would your 170; DON"T try a wheel landing!

Dad used to tell me that in the late 1950's anyone who was vertical and self-propelled could walk onto an airport and rent a J3. However, if you wanted to fly their Tri-Pacer, you'd need a checkout. Fast forward 35 years to the early 1990's when I was based at Stennis Airport in Bay St. Louis, Mississippi. Late one afternoon after I'd put '98C away, the local mechanic said he had a 172 he needed to get to New Orleans ASAP and asked if I'd fly it over for him. I told him I wasn't current in nosewheel airplanes. I must have not been wearing my poker face very well, as he just rolled his eyes and tossed me the keys.

Sometimes I think folks tend to make a big deal out of the tailwheel thing. Back in "58" , thats 1958, I learned to fly in a J-3, which was the only thing they had at the airport at the time. I didn't know anything different and was soloed in 4 hours. If I can do it, I think anyone can. Many years later, with some tri-cycle gear time under my belt, we bought our current 170-B. The old J-3 instruction came back like it was yesterday. IMHO, as far as light aircraft go, I think learning in a taildragger probably tends to make you a little more aware of what the plane wants to do and requires a little quicker leg work to make it do it.