glider tailwheel endorsement necessary?

Salty

Salty

Touchdown! Greaser!
Joined
Dec 21, 2016
Messages
15,130
Location
FL
Display Name
Salty
Do you need an endorsement to fly a glider with a tailwheel?

I trained and got my rating in two wheel gliders that technically were tail draggers. But I didn't get a tailwheel endorsement. They don't have the ground loop issues that a real tail dragger would because of not having main gear in front of the CG.

So, do I need an endorsement to fly this glider?
Xenos_5296_on_clouds-20.jpg
 
MauleSkinner said:
Not unless there’s a reg besides 61.31 that requires it.

But how do they not have the main gear in front of the CG?
Click to expand...
It always confuses me that a glider is not an airplane. 61.31 (i) is only applicable to airplanes, not gliders.

Some do, some don't. Some do depending on how much you shift your weight. Bottom line, having the tire on the centerline reduces the moment of inertia and makes it easier to control than having normal main gear.
 
Salty said:
Some do, some don't. Some do depending on how much you shift your weight. Bottom line, having the tire on the centerline reduces the moment of inertia and makes it easier to control than having normal main gear.
Click to expand...
They’re not technically taildraggers. (The one in the picture you posted it a taildragger.)
 
MauleSkinner said:
They’re not technically taildraggers.
Click to expand...
If your point is that if the CG is in front of the main gear, then technically it can't be a tail dragger, then I am forced to agree. Not sure if that's what your point was.
 
Salty said:
If your point is that if the CG is in front of the main gear, then technically it can't be a tail dragger, then I am forced to agree. Not sure if that's what your point was.
Click to expand...
The entire CG envelope is in front of the main gear. It’s not a taildragger even when the tail is resting on the ground.
 
MauleSkinner said:
The entire CG envelope is in front of the main gear. It’s not a taildragger even when the tail is resting on the ground.
Click to expand...
How can you say that globally? Perhaps true of "most" or "common".
 
Salty said:
Not without doing research. Unless you consider the one in my OP. ;)
Click to expand...
I don’t consider the one in your OP. It doesn’t have the main wheel on the centerline, and the CG is unlikely to ever be in front of the main wheels.
 
MauleSkinner said:
I don’t consider the one in your OP. It doesn’t have the main wheel on the centerline, and the CG is unlikely to ever be in front of the main wheels.
Click to expand...
I was just yanking your chain.
 
Salty said:
How can you say that globally? Perhaps true of "most" or "common".
Click to expand...
"On the ground it [the glider] is tail down when empty, and nose down with pilot in the seat. When pilot gets out he should keep his weight on the side of the cockpit until he is in a position to lower the tail gently to the ground."

(The last paragraph under LANDING in the POH for the Schweizer 1-23, 1-26, 2-33, and possibly others.)
 
billsgs126 said:
"On the ground it [the glider] is tail down when empty, and nose down with pilot in the seat. When pilot gets out he should keep his weight on the side of the cockpit until he is in a position to lower the tail gently to the ground."

(The last paragraph under landing in the POH for the Schweizer 1-23, 1-26, 2-33, and possibly others.)
Click to expand...
There are some AS gliders that sit with the tail on the ground, but they have the CG behind the main gear and aren't common trainers.
 
Lindberg said:
There are some AS gliders that sit with the tail on the ground, but they have the CG behind the main gear and aren't common trainers.
Click to expand...
I've never flown one*, but my understanding is that the 1-36's** main wheel is in front of the CoG at GW.

* If anyone wants to lend me one I promise to fly it a lot and provide complete reports.
** Definitely not a training glider.
 
That's not a glider. It's designed to fly with an engine. You need TW endorsement but not glider rating.
 
Sometimes things pique my interest and I just need to know "why" so I found a copy of an SGS 1-36 POH.

They were actually offered in two flavors* 36903-1 "forward wheel position" and 36903-3 "aft wheel position". The position of the former's main makes it a "tail-dragger". It's main is 11 ft 3.8 in behind datum and forward of the empty gliders CoG. It has a different takeoff procedure and one additional landing task than the latter, whose main is 12 ft 11.5 in behind datum and aft of the empty CoG.

Reading between the lines, the -1 offers slightly better aerodynamics because it lacks a nose skid.

*Not including NASAs singular 1-36 which had a horizontal stabilizer that could pivot 70 degrees (leading edge down).
1747763025186.png
 
I always thought my Pipistrel Taurus, 2 mains and a tail wheel with the CG behind the mains, was a tail dragger. It was a self-launch but not a cruiser. Not designed or recommended for continuous flight behind the engine like the Zimango or whatever they are.
 
RoscoeT said:
That's not a glider. It's designed to fly with an engine. You need TW endorsement but not glider rating.
Click to expand...
If anything with an engine is not a glider, then what is 14 CFR 61.31(j)(1)(iii) all about? And what about all the talk of powered gliders in AC 21.17-2A?
 
Tarheelpilot said:
Gliders are not airplanes. They can’t be anything besides a glider. It’s a singular title for all of them things.
Click to expand...
For certificated aircraft in the US, the certification tells a owner / pilot / mechanic what a "zug" is. Being bureaucrats they do not think like you or I. Nor is what you or I think of the least significance to them. But, Will Rodgers is surrounded by many disillusioned El ingenioso hidalgo Don Quixote de la Manchas looking for giants to fight.

Heck, once upon a time you could buy a kit from Schweizer (or others) and build your own glider. You filled out an affidavit that you followed the factory instructions, and it was certificated standard category. 114 SGS 1-26As, including one that I have flown, were constructed this way.
 
Last edited:
I wonder if you need the endorsement for the U-2. It's more of a unicycle than a tail dragger.

Years ago, when a former U-2 pilot wanted to fly my plane, I told him my insurance required 25 hours of retract time and inquired if the wheels fall off your plane, does that count as a retract?
 
flyingron said:
I wonder if you need the endorsement for the U-2. It's more of a unicycle than a tail dragger.

Years ago, when a former U-2 pilot wanted to fly my plane, I told him my insurance required 25 hours of retract time and inquired if the wheels fall off your plane, does that count as a retract?
Click to expand...
That would be a lot of fun to fly.
1747838878553.png
Does anyone have the phone number for The War Assets Administration or the Reconstruction Finance Corporation? I read U-2s are being phased out in favor of (censored). They sold surplus L-4 Cubs for $500 in 1946. With inflation that's $9,200 today. Maybe I can get a deal! :)
 
flyingcheesehead said:
If anything with an engine is not a glider, then what is 14 CFR 61.31(j)(1)(iii) all about? And what about all the talk of powered gliders in AC 21.17-2A?
Click to expand...
That doesn't specify that self launch is due to an engine.
RC gliders can use, basically, a slingshot. No reason that couldn't be used full scale.
 
billsgs126 said:
once upon a time you could buy a kit from Schweizer (or others) and build your own glider. You filled out an affidavit that you followed the factory instructions, and it was certificated standard category. 114 SGS 1-26As, including one that I have flown, were constructed this way.
Click to expand...
yes my 1-26C was a kit built standard certificate glider. #294. Actually the only difference between the 1-26B and the 1-26C. The 1-26B was assembled in the factory, the 1-26C was assembled from a kit.

Brian
 
brcase said:
yes my 1-26C was a kit built standard certificate glider. #294. Actually the only difference between the 1-26B and the 1-26C. The 1-26B was assembled in the factory, the 1-26C was assembled from a kit.

Brian
Click to expand...
Think of how lucky us pilots are that the FAA saved us from those deathtrap 1-26C's falling out of the sky. :rolleyes:
 
Lindberg said:
That would be a ground-launch method, like winching.
Click to expand...
There is no definition in 1.1 or self-launch or ground-launch. If no one else is required (whether a winch, or an engine) couldn't both fall under self-launching?
 
EdFred said:
There is no definition in 1.1 or self-launch or ground-launch. If no one else is required (whether a winch, or an engine) couldn't both fall under self-launching?
Click to expand...
“No one else required” would be a self-launching pilot, not a self-launching glider.
 
EdFred said:
There is no definition in 1.1 or self-launch or ground-launch. If no one else is required (whether a winch, or an engine) couldn't both fall under self-launching?
Click to expand...
Does such a method exist?

Regardless the FAR lists three categories of launch methods and simply requires appropriate instruction for each category. If you think that the instruction for launching with a slingshot would be most like the instruction needed for launching with an engine rather than a winch or other ground-based methods, then I disagree.
 
Lindberg said:
Does such a method exist?

Regardless the FAR lists three categories of launch methods and simply requires appropriate instruction for each category. If you think that the instruction for launching with a slingshot would be most like the instruction needed for launching with an engine rather than a winch or other ground-based methods, then I disagree.
Click to expand...
I'm just saying it doesn't specify engine, so the regulation isn't limited to motorgliders.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top