Tailwheel Takeoff techniques

Tailwheel Takeoff Techique

  • The tail comes up as soon as possible

    Votes: 20 40.8%

  • The tail stays down until I'm flying

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • The tail comes up a little, but I don't force it up

    Votes: 23 46.9%

  • You can control this?? Who knew??!!

    Votes: 7 14.3%
  • Total voters
    49
brcase said:
Every tailwheel I have flown, the largest being the Bellanca Cruisemaster, bringing the tail up early seems to work very well.
However when I start getting over 200hp in tailwheel aircraft I would definitely consider the possibility or even likely hood that some airplanes have better directional control with the tail down.

Brian
CFIIG/ASEL


Edit: for short field T/O I usually compromise and bring the tail off the ground but leave it a bit tail low.
Click to expand...


It is interesting that you say that Brian as I have found the opposite to be true. The Pitts comes to mind as well as my Midget Mustang. Once the tail is up you are controlling the plane with the ailerons and rudder.

I am not advocating raising the tail too early, but as soon as the plane is rolling a bit.
 
Tom-D said:
Don't you use aerodynamic breaking during a wheels landing, push the yoke forward keeping the tail up as long as you can while staying off the brakes.???
Click to expand...


On a wheel landing there's very little aerodynamic braking. I have no flaps, and with the tail up there is less drag until the airspeed finally reduces.

I avoid wheel braking unless absolutely necessary (rare).
 
gismo said:
With the tail up you can keep the mains planted until you have sufficient airspeed to handle wind gusts. The extra weight on the mains prior to rotation/liftoff also makes for less sideways skidding and generally results in a cleaner departure from the runway when the wind isn't steady.

Finally, one issue with a tail low departure in some airplanes (i.e. ones where the 3 point attitude is very close to the stalling AoA which is rare) is that you can lift off in ground effect without enough airspeed to fly out of it. ..
Click to expand...

These are two reasons why I push forward most times to bring the tail up.
 
AEROBAT said:
It is interesting that you say that Brian as I have found the opposite to be true. The Pitts comes to mind as well as my Midget Mustang. Once the tail is up you are controlling the plane with the ailerons and rudder.

I am not advocating raising the tail too early, but as soon as the plane is rolling a bit.
Click to expand...

Not entirely sure what you are refering two. I only say that about 200+ Hp aircraft because I have flown relatively few of them.

After thinking about it a bit I realize that the reason I normally raise the tail early is that I teach a lot primary tailwheel usually in relatively low HP aircraft. Bringing the airplane up to a level attitude does improve visibility and also improves controllablity as the airplane lifts off. With the tail low take off the airplane lifts off at minimum airspeed (sometimes desireable but not normally required) which may allow the airplane to lift off behind the power curve and be mushy on the controls which is not exactly ideal for new or low time student pilots. So I prefer initially to build some speed in a level flight attitude and lift of at a bit higher speed. If you let the airplane build to much speed it will get squirrelly which is your signal that it is time lift the plane off the ground.

Brian
CFIIG/ASEL

Edit: another reason I often use the tail high takeoff is that I often tow gliders and I want to lift off at a speed that if the glider decides to pull just as I am lifting off it doesn't put me back on the ground.
 
Last edited:
dmccormack said:
On a wheel landing there's very little aerodynamic braking. I have no flaps, and with the tail up there is less drag until the airspeed finally reduces.

I avoid wheel braking unless absolutely necessary (rare).
Click to expand...

That may be true on the little aeronca, J3, or super cub, but to keep the tail of the bigger aircraft up causes a lot of lift/drag.
 
Last edited:
brcase said:
After thinking about it a bit I realize that the reason I normally raise the tail early is that I teach a lot primary tailwheel usually in relatively low HP aircraft. Bringing the airplane up to a level attitude does improve visibility and also improves controllablity as the airplane lifts off. With the tail low take off the airplane lifts off at minimum airspeed (sometimes desireable but not normally required) which may allow the airplane to lift off behind the power curve and be mushy on the controls which is not exactly ideal for new or low time student pilots. So I prefer initially to build some speed in a level flight attitude and lift of at a bit higher speed. If you let the airplane build to much speed it will get squirrelly which is your signal that it is time lift the plane off the ground.
Click to expand...
Are you teaching primary tailwheel to brand new students or just new to tailwheel?

I'm teaching a sport pilot right now in the Cub (just about to solo him) and so far I'm sticking to teaching allowing the tail to come up on it's own with the stick neutral, and then allowing the aircraft to fly off. No significant worries from my end at this point with that method.

Ryan
 
dmccormack said:
These are two reasons why I push forward most times to bring the tail up.
Click to expand...

Ditto here, in the RV-8 in my avatar....

It has 192hp and a CS prop and if I don't hold it on the ground in level attitude during the takeoff roll, the engine's power will muscle it up into ground effect before the ailerons really get effective enough to solidly handle the gusty crosswinds we seem to always have here in north central TX. Even doing that, the takeoff roll is still only a couple hundred feet and I feel much more comfortable when the aircraft lifts off naturally from level attitude since it feels more positively in control rather than wobbling in ground effect just barely above stall.
 
I tried both techniques this morning in no wind, cool, clear conditions from pavement.

The tail up on its own method resulted in a wallowing flight that required a positive push forward to accelerate in ground effect.

The tail up method resulted in positive control and positive liftoff.

Takeoff roll in each case was minimal (700' or so)
 
Does your have plane have elevator trim? If so, the tail coming up on its own could result in an equally-positive control during the roll and liftoff only when back pressure is increased.
dmccormack said:
I tried both techniques this morning in no wind, cool, clear conditions from pavement.

The tail up on its own method resulted in a wallowing flight that required a positive push forward to accelerate in ground effect.

The tail up method resulted in positive control and positive liftoff.

Takeoff roll in each case was minimal (700' or so)
Click to expand...
 
wabower said:
Does your have plane have elevator trim? If so, the tail coming up on its own could result in an equally-positive control during the roll and liftoff only when back pressure is increased.
Click to expand...


It does...

Trim in Takeoff position results in a 50 MPH climb attitude -- a bit slow and it sort of wallows along.

So I usually trim to T/O plus one crank (nose down) to maintain a positive 60 MPH hands off climb.

I also re-acquainted myself with short field technique today. 480 feet from notional edge of runway to full stop.

:D
 
If you added one more crank would it roll until you pulled?

dmccormack said:
It does...

Trim in Takeoff position results in a 50 MPH climb attitude -- a bit slow and it sort of wallows along.

So I usually trim to T/O plus one crank (nose down) to maintain a positive 60 MPH hands off climb.

I also re-acquainted myself with short field technique today. 480 feet from notional edge of runway to full stop.

:D
Click to expand...
 
wabower said:
If you added one more crank would it roll until you pulled?
Click to expand...


Good question. The tail will come up on its own (I tested that this AM). Eventually it will get airborne but with a fairly nose-high attitude. It climbs a bit out of GE then settles again (I corrected for too much settling before it got out of hand).
 
My C-180 does the same wallow when I allow the tail to rise of its own accord with zero flaps. With 20* flaps, it climbs happily.

dmccormack said:
Good question. The tail will come up on its own (I tested that this AM). Eventually it will get airborne but with a fairly nose-high attitude. It climbs a bit out of GE then settles again (I corrected for too much settling before it got out of hand).
Click to expand...
 
Neal Howard said:
Ditto here, in the RV-8 in my avatar....

It has 192hp and a CS prop and if I don't hold it on the ground in level attitude during the takeoff roll, the engine's power will muscle it up into ground effect before the ailerons really get effective enough to solidly handle the gusty crosswinds we seem to always have here in north central TX. Even doing that, the takeoff roll is still only a couple hundred feet and I feel much more comfortable when the aircraft lifts off naturally from level attitude since it feels more positively in control rather than wobbling in ground effect just barely above stall.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree with your approach in x-winds, but you're actually not very close to a stall if you lift off in a 3-point attitude, considering it takes a pitch attitude slightly higher than this for a power-OFF stall. On takeoff, you have full power. Try a full power stall sometime in your RV-8 and you will see how far from a stall you really are if you're airborne in a 3-point attitude.
 
RoscoeT said:
I don't disagree with your approach in x-winds, but you're actually not very close to a stall if you lift off in a 3-point attitude, considering it takes a pitch attitude slightly higher than this for a power-OFF stall. On takeoff, you have full power. Try a full power stall sometime in your RV-8 and you will see how far from a stall you really are if you're airborne in a 3-point attitude.
Click to expand...


My Chief will be airborne at around 40 MPH (That low on the ASI and it's all "About"). Stall speed is around 38.

Remember -- we're in Ground Effect, and can be "flying" at very low speeds -- as long as we stay within a wingspan...
 
dmccormack said:
My Chief will be airborne at around 40 MPH (That low on the ASI and it's all "About"). Stall speed is around 38.

Remember -- we're in Ground Effect, and can be "flying" at very low speeds -- as long as we stay within a wingspan...
Click to expand...
That sounds about right. I've flown a Chief before and really liked it. The Cub will just about match that, although I think our bird will off fly closer to 35 indicated when I'm the only one in it.

Ryan
 
RyanShort1 said:
That sounds about right. I've flown a Chief before and really liked it. The Cub will just about match that, although I think our bird will off fly closer to 35 indicated when I'm the only one in it.

Ryan
Click to expand...


Is your Cub 65 or 85 HP, Ryan?

My Chief is maybe 65 HP -- the Lycoming design has the air intake go through the oil pan, warming the air and thus reducing HP a bit once it warms. But since the Top OH it seems to be performing better.
 
dmccormack said:
My Chief will be airborne at around 40 MPH (That low on the ASI and it's all "About"). Stall speed is around 38.
Click to expand...

That's power off. What do you think your power-on stall speed is? ...not that your ASI will measure it. Power-on stall speed is a good bit lower than power off. Again, even in your lower-powered Chief, do a full-power stall and note your attitude. You're not achieving anything near that attitude even when lifting off at 40 indicated. You're not flying on the edge of a stall at 40 with full power. If you were power off, yes.
 
I reckon it depends on the aircraft, I was flying a 160hp RV6 and just holding it in the three point it would fly off nicely and climb like a homesick angel, the C185 I was in for a while needed a bit of a push to lift the tail but if I tried to "make" it come up it was a bit squirrely, the super dec needs to have the tail up and a bit of pressure to hold it down or it tries to fly before it's ready and gets a bit mushy, and I've just started flying a eurofox, so far it so light I'm over controlling it a bit( I have .7 init so things will get nicer) a bit heavy handed and it will push over a bit to far on the take off run!
It comes down to the type I guess!
 
dmccormack said:
Is your Cub 65 or 85 HP, Ryan?

My Chief is maybe 65 HP -- the Lycoming design has the air intake go through the oil pan, warming the air and thus reducing HP a bit once it warms. But since the Top OH it seems to be performing better.
Click to expand...
It's a 65hp Dan... and it's been hot down here. That thing climbs slowly in the summer. Slightly better now that we've gotten down into the 70s.

I flew a 65hp Chief from San Antonio to Houston and really enjoyed it. It was really nice to get an additional 20 mph out of the same engine.

Ryan
 
I didn't read all the replies here, but I'm sure it's already been said that there are thousands of combinations of aircraft make/model, weight, CG, wind, runway surface, density altitude and such that need to be taken into consideration regardless of the location of the tailwheel (in back where it belongs...or in front where it doesn't!). Conditions permitting, I like to let the tail come up just enough to attain a Vy attitude and let the airplane fly off the runway in that pitch attitude. In general, that gives the passengers and myself a takeoff requiring the least amount of change in attitude as well as a nice, smooth lift-off.

Now remember, I did specify "conditions permitting", so don't bash me with nit-picking details about the fact an AT-6 needs to pitch up (tail down) to a Vy attitude, etc. It was strictly a generalization! :dunno:

...and above all,
FLY SAFE!

WileyP
 
RoscoeT said:
That's power off. What do you think your power-on stall speed is? ...not that your ASI will measure it. Power-on stall speed is a good bit lower than power off. Again, even in your lower-powered Chief, do a full-power stall and note your attitude. You're not achieving anything near that attitude even when lifting off at 40 indicated. You're not flying on the edge of a stall at 40 with full power. If you were power off, yes.
Click to expand...


Power on stall doesn't indicate on the ASI (which starts at 40).
 
Last edited:
RoscoeT said:
That's power off. What do you think your power-on stall speed is? ...not that your ASI will measure it. Power-on stall speed is a good bit lower than power off. Again, even in your lower-powered Chief, do a full-power stall and note your attitude. You're not achieving anything near that attitude even when lifting off at 40 indicated. You're not flying on the edge of a stall at 40 with full power. If you were power off, yes.
Click to expand...


Power on stall doesn't indicate on the ASI (which starts at 40).
 
dmccormack said:
Power on stall doesn't indicate on the ASI (which starts at 40).
Click to expand...

Like I said. What do you think it is? Whatever it is, it's significantly slower than your power-off stall speed. My whole point is that when lifting off in a taildragger at min. speed, you're not that close to a stall. In trikes that can achieve a much higher pitch attitude on the ground, possibly so.
 
RoscoeT said:
I don't disagree with your approach in x-winds, but you're actually not very close to a stall if you lift off in a 3-point attitude, considering it takes a pitch attitude slightly higher than this for a power-OFF stall. On takeoff, you have full power. Try a full power stall sometime in your RV-8 and you will see how far from a stall you really are if you're airborne in a 3-point attitude.
Click to expand...

This particular RV-8, with it's extra HP and low weight, will try to lift off into ground effect from 3-point attitude if you apply full power at the start of the takeoff roll, right at about 60 MPH, stall is 58. That's too close for comfort. It also wants to roll left from the torque if you do that. If you use less than full throttle for the takeoff roll, it'll behave much more like you're thinking. Personally I like to not lift the wheels off the ground until I have at least 80 MPH airspeed when heavy, or 75 MPH solo. It's got pretty solid flying speed then, as Vx is 85 and it gets there and above very quickly.
 
Last edited:
RoscoeT said:
That's power off. What do you think your power-on stall speed is? ...not that your ASI will measure it. Power-on stall speed is a good bit lower than power off. Again, even in your lower-powered Chief, do a full-power stall and note your attitude. You're not achieving anything near that attitude even when lifting off at 40 indicated. You're not flying on the edge of a stall at 40 with full power. If you were power off, yes.
Click to expand...
It's probably not wise to lift off at a speed near or below the power off stall unless you remain very close to the ground until the speed builds. Personally I'd prefer to be able to glide a little if the engine quits shortly after I leave the ground.
 
Neal Howard said:
...if you apply full power at the start of the takeoff roll, right at about 60 MPH, stall is 58. That's too close for comfort.
Click to expand...

Again, that's power OFF stall speed. You can't compare a 58 mph power off stall speed with 60 mph at full power. Full power stall speed will be quite a bit slower, giving you more margin than you think you have. Not trying to get you to lift off at min. speed, just understand that power off stall speed and power on are different. Again, do a full power stall and see the difference (that is if you don't bail due to the extreme nose high attitude). Flying along at 60 with full power in 3-pt. attitude in an RV-8 is not even close. You also have to get the stick nearly fully aft, and the stick will not even be close to this position when lifting off at min. speed in most taildraggers.

gismo said:
It's probably not wise to lift off at a speed near or below the power off stall unless you remain very close to the ground until the speed builds. Personally I'd prefer to be able to glide a little if the engine quits shortly after I leave the ground.
Click to expand...

Of course. In my plane I can lift off in 3-pt. attitude, stay 6" off the runway and be at Vx about 3 seconds later. It would be stupid to attempt to climb at min. liftoff speed.
 
Last edited:
RoscoeT said:
Of course. In my plane I can lift off in 3-pt. attitude, stay 6" off the runway and be at Vx about 3 seconds later. It would be stupid to attempt to climb at min. liftoff speed.
Click to expand...

Power off vs powered stall speed is not really germane as we're in Ground effect, which reduces the speed below both published numbers.

Getting airborne is not the only objective -- we want to be flying with sufficient control, which means a speed where ailerons are effective, which may be a bit faster than the "power ON in Ground Effect stall speed."
 
dmccormack said:
Power off vs powered stall speed is not really germane as we're in Ground effect, which reduces the speed below both published numbers.
Click to expand...

Ground effect simply changes the stall speeds, it doesn't change the concept. And since both stall speeds would be less, you should be even LESS worried about being "close to the stall" in ground effect. If you stall power off above ground effect at 38, it might be 35 in ground effect, and might be 30 with power on in ground effect. Who knows if these numbers are exact, but at 40 with power on in ground effect, you're hardly riding a stall. Again, I'm not trying to advocate lifting off at minimum speed, just making the point about the different stall speeds and the fact that you can't compare one with other...a point which seems to be missed.
 
I'm not sure it matters. I think most pilots are capable of determining whether the airplane is performing as they would like and know that it's capable of doing so if flown to certain criteria. Whether the selected speed is a factor of stall speed, mush speed, sloppy aileron speed or whatever other reference is selected for debate, the bottom line is the same.

RoscoeT said:
Ground effect simply changes the stall speeds, it doesn't change the concept. And since both stall speeds would be less, you should be even LESS worried about being "close to the stall" in ground effect. If you stall power off above ground effect at 38, it might be 35 in ground effect, and might be 30 with power on in ground effect. Who knows if these numbers are exact, but at 40 with power on in ground effect, you're hardly riding a stall. Again, I'm not trying to advocate lifting off at minimum speed, just making the point about the different stall speeds and the fact that you can't compare one with other...a point which seems to be missed.
Click to expand...
 
RoscoeT said:
Ground effect simply changes the stall speeds, it doesn't change the concept. And since both stall speeds would be less, you should be even LESS worried about being "close to the stall" in ground effect. If you stall power off above ground effect at 38, it might be 35 in ground effect, and might be 30 with power on in ground effect. Who knows if these numbers are exact, but at 40 with power on in ground effect, you're hardly riding a stall. Again, I'm not trying to advocate lifting off at minimum speed, just making the point about the different stall speeds and the fact that you can't compare one with other...a point which seems to be missed.
Click to expand...

I get it, but I don't think it matters. :dunno:

Let me explain...

Let's say the airplane is airborne in Ground Effect (GE) at 30 MPH (airborne = no weight on wheels, wings fully supporting the aircraft).

Let's assume the airplane cannot climb out of GE until it reaches 38 MPH.

So it wallows along 4' AGL until it achieves minimum climb speed of 38 MPH. Yet this speed is still far too slow to provide any benefit (not Vx or Vy). So we hold it nose down until the speed builds to Vx (55, let's say).

Now, you might say getting airborne early is an advantage in soft field ops. However unless you have a big tailwheel you risk digging the tiny wheel into a soft field. So you'll want to be rolling fast enough to keep the wheel out of the soft while also acquiring the most lift in the shortest distance. This is likley still a faster speed than power on stall in ground effect speed.
 
dmccormack said:
I get it, but I don't think it matters. :dunno:

Let me explain...

Let's say the airplane is airborne in Ground Effect (GE) at 30 MPH (airborne = no weight on wheels, wings fully supporting the aircraft).

Let's assume the airplane cannot climb out of GE until it reaches 38 MPH.

So it wallows along 4' AGL until it achieves minimum climb speed of 38 MPH. Yet this speed is still far too slow to provide any benefit (not Vx or Vy). So we hold it nose down until the speed builds to Vx (55, let's say).

Now, you might say getting airborne early is an advantage in soft field ops. However unless you have a big tailwheel you risk digging the tiny wheel into a soft field. So you'll want to be rolling fast enough to keep the wheel out of the soft while also acquiring the most lift in the shortest distance. This is likley still a faster speed than power on stall in ground effect speed.
Click to expand...

I'm not disagreeing with any of this - mostly because you've changed the subject. I was simply talking to a couple of posts regarding min. liftoff speed being "too close to the stall"...and that it's not really that close.
 
Fearless Tower said:
One thing I have noticed is that 3-point takeoffs seemed to be the norm back in WWII. Most of the training videos I have seen for the B-17, T-6 and P-51 were done from the 3-point.
Click to expand...

You hardly see these types 3-pointed on landing any more either.
 
dmccormack said:
I get it, but I don't think it matters. :dunno:

Let me explain...

Let's say the airplane is airborne in Ground Effect (GE) at 30 MPH (airborne = no weight on wheels, wings fully supporting the aircraft).

Let's assume the airplane cannot climb out of GE until it reaches 38 MPH.

So it wallows along 4' AGL until it achieves minimum climb speed of 38 MPH. Yet this speed is still far too slow to provide any benefit (not Vx or Vy). So we hold it nose down until the speed builds to Vx (55, let's say).

Now, you might say getting airborne early is an advantage in soft field ops. However unless you have a big tailwheel you risk digging the tiny wheel into a soft field. So you'll want to be rolling fast enough to keep the wheel out of the soft while also acquiring the most lift in the shortest distance. This is likley still a faster speed than power on stall in ground effect speed.
Click to expand...
On the Cub, the tail will lift off on it's own at maybe 20-25 mph indicated. With just a slight amount of back pressure she will lift off around 30-33 or so and will accelerate very nicely in ground effect. I'm not worried about losing control of the aircraft or stalling 2 feet off the ground...

Ryan
 
RyanShort1 said:
On the Cub, the tail will lift off on it's own at maybe 20-25 mph indicated. With just a slight amount of back pressure she will lift off around 30-33 or so and will accelerate very nicely in ground effect. I'm not worried about losing control of the aircraft or stalling 2 feet off the ground...

Ryan
Click to expand...

The lowest speed on my ASI is 40 MPH. I've lifted off slow (not really sure of the airspeed but pretty slow) and it seems to wallow a bit. I'm fairly certain the J-3 and the Chiefs/Champs used the same NACA wing....
 
Fearless Tower said:
That is true, although I just saw a video a few months ago of a POF P-51 taking off from Chino in the 3-point attitude.
Click to expand...

I read somewhere that the P-51 had to be done tail-low or that huge prop would come too close to the surface. A long nose will lower that prop quickly when the tail comes up, and even close is bad: it sucks up too much garbage off the surface and gets chewed up.

That's one of the big drawbacks of the trike airplane, too. Insufficient prop clearance. We were forever dressing out nicks on the 172/182 props, almost never touched the Citabria props.

Dan
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top