Going to learn tail wheel

Huckster79 said:
no doubt the 0-200 has more than the c85 but what rpm are you limited to? As I believe it’s still prob not making 100hp in a 120/140.

my favorite use of the flaps is for take off on rough stuff or while on skis, once your rolling good but before normal liftoff ya pop those babies full on and whhhom your a foot or two in the air! Then climb just a skosh and ease em off by feel for no “flap dump drop” and be on your way. It’s kinda fun :)

and yes if we do those shirts I’ll let ya know
Click to expand...

Not sure what you’re asking. The redline is 2700. It turns 2550 or so on takeoff and climbout.

if you’re a member of the 120-140 organization you might know Randy Thompson. He is a C85/O-200 guru. He owns the O-200/140 STC and is a great guy. It would be interesting to get his take on the power difference between the two.
 
Last edited:
MBDiagMan said:
Not sure what you’re asking. The redline is 2700. It turns 2550 or so on takeoff and climbout.

if you’re a member of the 120-140 organization you might know Randy Thompson. He is a C85/O-200 guru. He owns the O-200/140 STC and is a great guy. It would be interesting to get his take on the power difference between the two.
Click to expand...

Yea I know Randy, well just over FB...

I believe Ive read part of the 0-200 STC for the 140 pulls their redline down below the engines actual redline, so that ya really can’t get all 100 ponies out of em in our birds. I’m sure they pull more than the c85 but I don’t think ppl get the full 100. A comment was made about the 100hp and I was just curious.

mines the half breed a c85 with the 0-200 crank, jugs and cylinders, pistons too I think. It’s debated wether that gives ya more hp or not. Because it’s limited to the c85s rpm redline I think it likely doesn’t add much hp but I’d bet it adds torque as I have the c85 “combo” prop but it makes only 25rpm short of max static rpm so in effect, my extrapolation of that, is it’s a climb prop for mine as if flattened it out it would be over max static.
 
MBDiagMan said:
Not sure what you’re asking. The redline is 2700.
Click to expand...
2750, according to the TCDS. One of the reasons the 150 is so slow for some folks is that they POH calls for higher cruise RPMs than they might be used to in the 172 they learned to fly in. Read the book.

upload_2021-5-23_18-12-23.png
 
Last edited:
Dan Thomas said:
2750, according to the TCDS. One of the reasons the 150 is so slow for some folks is that they POH calls for higher cruise RPMs that they might be used to in the 172 they learned to fly in. Read the book.

View attachment 96636
Click to expand...

Even w the c85, I barely back off take off power for cruise. From all I’ve read it’s far better to run these lil continentals hard that lug em along. You are quite the engine guy if I recall right, would you concur?
 
Mine was done in the early sixties on an STC different from Randy’s. Mine has a prop that has not been tested and approved on his STC. I met Randy some years ago through the Forum and then in person two times at the nationals. He is an incredibly good resource when it comes to these engines. He showed me a lot about the differences.

The main reason for the O-200 crank in an 85 is because the 85 crank is difficult to find, but I expect that experimenting with different props could come up with a combination that would yield a little more thrust.

when just out cruising around the lake sight seeing I pull it back to about 2450 and it does well. With two aboard and full tanks on a neutral density altitude day, I can climb out at almost 700 FPM. I plan 94 knots cruise which it will give at 2550.
 
Last edited:
Kritchlow said:
So if there’s two pilots in the airplane nobody is PIC?
Click to expand...
For training and certification purposes, not two-pilot ops.

CAR 400.01(1)

solo flight time means, with respect to the flight time necessary to acquire a permit, licence or rating,

  • (a) in the case of a pilot, the flight time during which the pilot is the sole flight crew member, and
  • (b) in the case of a student pilot permit holder, the flight time during which the holder is the sole occupant of an aircraft while under the direction and supervision of the holder of an instructor rating for the appropriate category of aircraft;
Pretty hard to be the sole flight crew member if the instructor is sitting next to you. There was some kafuffle years ago when I was working on my float rating. Some other flight schools had been doing the required final "solo" flight of three takeoffs and landings with the instructor still in the airplane. Transport Canada stopped that. If the instructor can't trust the student's competency to do the job safely, he shouldn't be getting the rating.

The one exception, IIRC, is the flight test for a license (PPL/CPL/ATPL) where the examiner is on board. In that case, the student is considered the PIC---he can decide to not comply with an examiner's request for reasons of safety---but if the examiner has to take control, the exam is an automatic fail.
 
Huckster79 said:
Even w the c85, I barely back off take off power for cruise. From all I’ve read it’s far better to run these lil continentals hard that lug em along. You are quite the engine guy if I recall right, would you concur?
Click to expand...
Enough maintenance and flight experience with the smaller engines, but not nearly as much as some others. I was also an instructor, which means that one has to know the POHs of the airplanes you're instructing in. If a student complained of poor cruise (a 150's cruise is already pretty poor) I'd ask him to check that cruise chart again and see what he did wrong. Most were afraid to run the engine so close to redline. This is another area where car-driving habits and preconceptions have to be broken. Anytime I installed a rebuilt Lycoming engine in one of our airplanes, I did the break-in test flight as per Lycoming's instructions. 2.5 hours of it, with the last half-hour at redline RPM at a low enough altitude to get the power way up. A 172 sure scoots along at that setting. Throttle is wide open.

With my A-65-8, which redlined at 2300, I typically cruised it at 2300. Prop was a little too fine in pitch. Ideal pitch gives redline at full throttle in level flight. Some models of the A-65 had a 2350 redline, one (the -14) had a 2675 RPM redline.

This guy here knows the little Continentals:
http://bowersflybaby.com/tech/fenton.html
 
Yes I’ve pored over Harry Fentons huge document lots of times. I also have emailed a question to him and got a virtually instant response. His lengthy document is a virtual encyclopedia.
 
Dan Thomas said:
Enough maintenance and flight experience with the smaller engines, but not nearly as much as some others. I was also an instructor, which means that one has to know the POHs of the airplanes you're instructing in. If a student complained of poor cruise (a 150's cruise is already pretty poor) I'd ask him to check that cruise chart again and see what he did wrong. Most were afraid to run the engine so close to redline. This is another area where car-driving habits and preconceptions have to be broken. Anytime I installed a rebuilt Lycoming engine in one of our airplanes, I did the break-in test flight as per Lycoming's instructions. 2.5 hours of it, with the last half-hour at redline RPM at a low enough altitude to get the power way up. A 172 sure scoots along at that setting. Throttle is wide open.

With my A-65-8, which redlined at 2300, I typically cruised it at 2300. Prop was a little too fine in pitch. Ideal pitch gives redline at full throttle in level flight. Some models of the A-65 had a 2350 redline, one (the -14) had a 2675 RPM redline.

This guy here knows the little Continentals:
http://bowersflybaby.com/tech/fenton.html
Click to expand...

yes that’s where I did a lot of my learning on my engine. Being too many certified owners, not all of course, are okay with their flying carpets being a mystery machine only an aircraft mechanic could possibly understand. So there’s a dearth of information to the newbie certified owner who desires to learn the intricacies of their machine more so than just accepting the broad rules of thumb, many of which we know are based on OWTs. So I greatly enjoyed his write ups. Really helped understanding the Stromberg, so I didn’t end up one saying “it’s junk”, I learned to appreciate its differences and not take marvel knowledge and try to operate the stromberg.

thanks for reminding me of his write ups as I should read them again. Now that I’m a few hundred hours in I’ll likely glean more this time.
 
That brings to mind another O-200 difference. You get to lose the Stromberg. The Marvel has an accelerator pump. I too am a hands on guy. I grew up in my Dad and Uncles car repair business so I can’t help it.
 
Huckster79 said:
that’s hilarious :)



I love mine! You will be smitten soon if you aren’t already. I’ve yet to meet anyone who had a 120/140 in the past that doesn’t say they miss it. Speaks well of them. I’ve taken mine all over from MI to Idaho twice into Johnson Creek, to Florida and all over my state. I get back in the club 172 I’m still a part of and it feels like driving an old truck w no power steering :) still a great bird- just not as fun as ol Shirley. Congrats on going for it! Keep us posted!



there’s pretty good reason for the argument that it’s still no homesick angel as you are t really getting all 100hp out of the O-200 in a 120/140 as it’s airframe limited on rpm so you can’t wind it up as high as you can say in a 150/2 so ya are leaving hp on the table.

the low power will teach you a lot too! I know my 140 taught me things in the first 6 months that 180hp 172 never did in 10 years of flying it. When we went out west in high DA I handled it better than some of my friends all who had 100hp over me, sure she was very anemic but I’d learned to fly not relying just on “pulling back and zooming up” so more accentuated- sure, but nothing new.

enjoy enjoy enjoy!
Click to expand...

Yes Huck, the low power teaches you to get it off the runway, then nose it over to pick up air speed before climbout. A good plan in most small planes. That has transferred to the Mooney. When the gear comes up and flaps go down I am nosing it over a little until climbout speed is reached. The transition to the Mooney after flying the 140 for awhile always reminds me that I climb out in the Mooney at the same speed that I can get straight and level with the throttle cobbed in the 140. The contrast is fun.

When setting up for climbout in the 140 I am trimming the nose down to pick up my climb speed. In the Mooney I’m trimming the nose up to keep it down to climb speed.

The contrast between the two planes makes it fun.
 
2nd tailwheel lesson yesterday evening. Again, light winds and practice at the grass strip. Seemed like it went a bit better - no 'life or death' saves by the instructor necessary this time. Introduced to picking up the tail on a takeoff run (which takes more attention to the rudder), and slips to landing. Not comfortable carrying a slip down too close to the runway! Takeoffs felt less 'white knuckle' ish. Was directed to do a touch-and-go, but had to abandon that when there wasn't enough runway left. Becoming a fun challenge!

Edit: also tried power on & off stalls: very benign in this airplane. No stall horn or light needed, gives a nice buffet in the yoke before anything major happens.
 
Last edited:
MBDiagMan said:
That brings to mind another O-200 difference. You get to lose the Stromberg. The Marvel has an accelerator pump. I too am a hands on guy. I grew up in my Dad and Uncles car repair business so I can’t help it.
Click to expand...
I was an aircraft mechanic. Those Marvel carbs were the worst piece of fuel system technology. They are known in the industry as the "Marvelous Dribbler" carbs. They have poor homogenization of the fuel atomization. The Stromberg on my own airplane, on the other hand, ran flawlessly, It has an "accelerator well" in it that stores a small amount of fuel ready for sudden consumption when the throttle is opened, and works nearly as well as an accelerator pump. The only drawback is that the mixture control is a back-suction type that reduces the bowl vent pressure to restrict fuel flow. It works very well in flight but it can't cut the flow off to kill the engine. You shut the fuel valve off to leave the engine with no fuel in the cylinders.

The AD history of the MS series carbs is dismaying. They've had trouble with the venturis, with the floats, with the nozzles, with the mixture control valves. No ADs on the Bendix/Strombergs at all.
 
Well then, it sounds like I’m the luckiest O-200 owner ever, because my Marvel has been marvelous for ten years. I occurred to me that I bought it ten years ago this month.
 
40YearDream said:
2nd tailwheel lesson yesterday evening. Again, light winds and practice at the grass strip. Seemed like it went a bit better - no 'life or death' saves by the instructor necessary this time. Introduced to picking up the tail on a takeoff run (which takes more attention to the rudder), and slips to landing. Not comfortable carrying a slip down too close to the runway! Takeoffs felt less 'white knuckle' ish. Was directed to do a touch-and-go, but had to abandon that when there wasn't enough runway left. Becoming a fun challenge!

Edit: also tried power on & off stalls: very benign in this airplane. No stall horn or light needed, gives a nice buffet in the yoke before anything major happens.
Click to expand...

Wonderful! Sounds like you’re getting a taste of why some of us love our little 120/140’s. Welcome to our little world!
 
Taking the plunge now... just bought a Husky and learning the art of safe/effective tailwheel flying. It is a blast when things are done right. There is a lot to learn.
 
MBDiagMan said:
Well then, it sounds like I’m the luckiest O-200 owner ever, because my Marvel has been marvelous for ten years. I occurred to me that I bought it ten years ago this month.
Click to expand...
Hang on to it. The quality of those things varies enormously from one carb to another.
 
You can carry a slip pretty low if you’re wheel landing also.

Edit: I meant to write “if you’re three point landing.”
 
Last edited:
Just keep in mind the aircraft is going to pick up speed when you relax the forward slip. That little spurt of speed makes it easier to grease the mains on a wheel landing. Slipping into 3 pointers can be a bit more challenging, as you are gonna float and maybe balloon if you carry extra speed into the flare. When I am going to 3 point land, I usually release the slip and adjust pitch to slow down before I start the round out.
On aircraft without flaps, it is an important skill. If you ever have an engine failure and do an off-airport landing, a slip is the only way to steepen your approach angle once you have the field made. I fly every landing as power out so I will be confident in my technique.
 
I fly a one place biplane. I land it to the right of the centerline so I have a reference. Always on the peddles landing but no big deal. What I like is the performance in the air. A friend has a luscombe. Always heard they were difficult to land. Not so compared to a short biplane. Easy to learn but learning never stops.
WILL
 
Will moffitt said:
A friend has a luscombe. Always heard they were difficult to land. Not so compared to a short biplane.
Click to expand...

Ha, everybody says the same thing about a Pacer. I flew one and thought it landed and rolled out easy as J-3 Cub compared to the little acro bipes.
 
RoscoeT said:
Ha, everybody says the same thing about a Pacer. I flew one and thought it landed and rolled out easy as J-3 Cub compared to the little acro bipes.
Click to expand...
Pretty much everything is easy compared to a Pitts. Was it Bud D who said it was like landing a forklift driven off a loading dock at 90mph?
 
Ed Haywood said:
Just keep in mind the aircraft is going to pick up speed when you relax the forward slip.
Click to expand...
I trained my students to let the nose come up as they came out of the slip. The nose has to go down on entering the slip or the airspeed will suffer, and raising the nose will prevent the acceleration.
 
Some other issues I’ve been dealing with and discussing on this forum brought me back to this thread.

Earlier in the thread there was a debate about tailwheeling being only challenging when on the ground. Many, or maybe all, tailwheel airplanes, for different reasons, do not have rudder linked to ailerons. This is a factor not only on the ground but maybe more so non the air. This is one more reason that a tailwheel airplane wakes up your feet. For smooth, precision flying by hand, it takes true rudder manipulation.
 
I won't waste time on my learning successes thus far, but I will point out my major challenge... "Landing planning" (wheel or 3 point & what is the wind doing?) while in the pattern and executing that plan. I know I know you veterans "don't think" about rudder and aileron inputs because you have been doing it a long time. However, as a new tailwheel guy, I learned that there is zero room for ADD while landing. I am finding that I am like a prize fighter before the big match where I have to get my feet moving, my brain focused on where the wind is coming from and how much of an an aileron input and to what degree am I going to move the stick and rudder... it is a process and I am looking forward to the day when it all "clicks" on windy days. I am "good" on no wind or right down the runway or slightly quartering landings... it's the windy/breezy days that are the challenge.
 
AGLyme said:
I won't waste time on my learning successes thus far, but I will point out my major challenge... "Landing planning" (wheel or 3 point & what is the wind doing?) while in the pattern and executing that plan. I know I know you veterans "don't think" about rudder and aileron inputs because you have been doing it a long time. However, as a new tailwheel guy, I learned that there is zero room for ADD while landing. I am finding that I am like a prize fighter before the big match where I have to get my feet moving, my brain focused on where the wind is coming from and how much of an an aileron input and to what degree am I going to move the stick and rudder... it is a process and I am looking forward to the day when it all "clicks" on windy days. I am "good" on no wind or right down the runway or slightly quartering landings... it's the windy/breezy days that are the challenge.
Click to expand...
Better to just not think about. You're on final, if you're drifting, put a wing down. If your axis isn't aligned with the runway, use the rudder. Maybe some pilots can predict how much rudder and aileron they're going to need, but not me. Just do the needful, and keep everything moving. You're not going just put the controls in a spot and hold them there.
 
Inspiring words Lindy... thanks.
 
AGLyme said:
I won't waste time on my learning successes thus far, but I will point out my major challenge... "Landing planning" (wheel or 3 point & what is the wind doing?) while in the pattern and executing that plan. I know I know you veterans "don't think" about rudder and aileron inputs because you have been doing it a long time. However, as a new tailwheel guy, I learned that there is zero room for ADD while landing. I am finding that I am like a prize fighter before the big match where I have to get my feet moving, my brain focused on where the wind is coming from and how much of an an aileron input and to what degree am I going to move the stick and rudder... it is a process and I am looking forward to the day when it all "clicks" on windy days. I am "good" on no wind or right down the runway or slightly quartering landings... it's the windy/breezy days that are the challenge.
Click to expand...

And therein lies one of the reasons tailwheeling makes you a more complete pilot. Once you get rudder control into the lizard brains, that skill will carry forward into most everything you fly short of an Ercoupe.
 
Lindberg said:
Better to just not think about. You're on final, if you're drifting, put a wing down. If your axis isn't aligned with the runway, use the rudder. Maybe some pilots can predict how much rudder and aileron they're going to need, but not me. Just do the needful, and keep everything moving. You're not going just put the controls in a spot and hold them there.
Click to expand...

I agree with the this, You use the wind to predict how safely you can land the airplane and what likely control inputs you will need. But once you line up on final the only thing you care about is what the airplane is actually doing and make corrections to the movements you see. If the Movements are way different than you were expecting, on the more extreme side, perhaps a Go around is in order.

Brian
Tailwheel CFIIG/ASEL
 
Dan Thomas said:
There's a thrill in mastering something that few people master, and there's a thrill in finding out how flying used to be many years ago.

One in 500 people (0.2%) hold a pilot license or permit of any sort, in Canada or the US. That makes pilots pretty rare. Of those, I'd figure that no more than one in ten can fly a taildragger, making those people one in 5000.
Click to expand...
Any pilot can fly a taildragger. It's taking off and landing that's difficult. I have little experience, and it all went fine, but haven't been in a wrong wheeler for decades.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top