Question Tailwheel training in a Carbon Cub?

[Meconiates]

If you haven't yet done your build I'd have CubCrafters do it and just have it done with. I don't know the current cost, my guess it's in the neighborhood of 20K now, mine in 2021 was 17K. @turbopilot I believe is working on the retrofit side on his recent purchase of an xcub so he may be able to share some info soon.

My goal was to get it all done at build and not chase down who can install and how much and will it be done right, after the build.

Welcome to Flightinfo.com. Tell us more about yourself, have you ordered, have a build date yet, etc.???

Hi Neal, thanks for the quick response.

I am based out of KHPN and fly a TBM850 and Cirrus SR22. I have about 20 hours of tailwheel between a Decathlon and Citabria and just got my tailwheel endorsement last week. I would love to get some hours in a Carbon Cub but I am finding it extremely difficult as its not typically a plane that's offered for rent or dual instruction. So I am considering ordering a brand new FX3, or buying something in the used market to build time & experience, and would even considering partnering with someone in the NYC area (either newbuild or used).

I would even be willing to trade TBM time for Carbon Cub time if there is a CFI here that happens to own a Carbon Cub...

 

[Neal]

I'm not sure if you reached out to the dealer in your area but he may be able to help. I didn't have any carbon cub time, just about 20 hours of TW time I think it was when I took delivery of mine. I did my TW endorsement and then the TacAero FX-3 training week which was about 10 hours in type. I don't know that specific time in type is critical as is tailwheel time being something to build is most important, IMHO. We can discuss in another thread outside of this BRS discussion thread if desired. Good group of folks here that can chime in as well which are mostly Carbon Cub owners as well.

 

[Tsquared]

Another FX3 owner here. Get as much tailwheel time as you can before you take delivery and I strongly second Neal’s recommendation that you take the TacAero class in one of their FX3’s.

You mentioned you had time in a decathlon. I started my tailwheel training in a 90hp champ which doesn’t even remotely compare to an FX3. I moved to a Decathalon with a 180hp and constant speed prop to finish my training and found it pretty similar to the FX3.

My 2 cents is to keep flying the Decathalon until you can get down to TacAero, then keep flying the Decathalon to keep proficient until you get your own FX3.

 

[Neal]

I moved the posts out of the BRS thread into this new thread on the topic of Carbon Cub tailwheel training.

 

[Cactus Charlie]

I have given tailwheel instruction but none recently. I have flown about 10 different tailwheel types but only the FX-3 recently.

Before I took delivery of my FX-3 I had read several NTSB reports that seemed to indicate that FX-3 were being wrecked by pilots who had little tailwheel experience and who lost control while making high speed wheel landings. I have seen people making high speed wheel landing in tailwheel aircraft and going missed before the tail comes down. In my opinion no tailwheel landing is complete until the tail has come down and the aircraft has stopped (or at least come close to stopping).

Please learn to make low speed approaches and to touch down with minimum energy. Wheel landings don't require high speed although many are introduced to wheel landings by using high speed touchdowns. Remember that the energy that will cause damage when directional control is lost is proportional the square of the ground speed.

 

[Cactus Charlie]

One of the reasons there is almost no possibility of getting instruction in a non-owned experimental Carbon Cub is that the aircraft itself cannot be offered for rental without a LODA (Letter of Deviation Authority). This limitation still exists despite the elimination of LODA for giving or receiving instruction in an experimental aircraft.

Years ago, before I took delivery of my FX-3, I looked into the possibility of offering instruction in my own aircraft. It appeared there would plenty of demand to keep TacAero and at least one other training provider busy. The more I looked into it the less attractive it became. I did get as far a getting the LODAs for giving and receiving instruction but never used either of them.

EAA comments here - FAA Rescinds LODA Requirement for Noncommercial Flight Training in Experimental Aircraft | EAA

 

[Waldom]

What Cactus Charlie said.

Wheel landings are an important arrow to have in your quiver, but Cub type airplanes make nice three point landings. Why not touch down in the lowest energy state unless you are in landing in gusty conditions?

You will hear some advocate for wheel landings all the time, citing that "they give you more control" of the airplane. That is true in that the approach speed for a landing in a Carbon Cub is five knots faster than that for a full stall landing. Of course more airspeed means more control effectiveness. What it doesn't take into account is that tail will have to come down eventually. The airplane will end up in that lower speed regime with either type of landing. The wheel landing just exposes you to needing that fancy footwork you are learning for a longer period of time. Pilots who feel wheel landings are better for crosswind conditions are using the same flawed reasoning.

In a light airplane, the wheel landing is useful in wind shear conditions (gusts) at the runway surface. Let's say that the wind is aligned with the landing runway at five gusting to fifteen knots. You are performing a three point full stall landing. The landing flair begins while the wind is at fifteen knots. At five feet of altitude, the gust quits. You have just lost ten knots of airspeed while the airplane is just a few knots above the stall and the airplane "drops in". Conversely, if the airplane touched down in full stall landing while the wind was at five knots and then the wind gusts to fifteen knots, the airplane will lift off again. To counter this, a wheel landing allows a greater airspeed margin at touch down. The tail can be held up until the airplane is below stall speed and then brought to the ground and held. Needless to say, the speed needs to be determined by "feel" and not by looking at the airspeed indicator or the groundspeed readout on a PFD.

A few conventional gear aircraft are difficult to land three point for aerodynamic reasons. A Beech 18 is an example. In the landing configuration, the 13 foot chord at the wing root and the extended flaps blank out the elevator effectiveness at higher angles of attack. A power off three point landing in that airplane will cause the tail to stall in the landing flair which pitches the airplane down quite rapidly. You can do a three point landing in the airplane but power has to be kept on until the airplane is on the ground to keep airflow over the elevators.

There is another point to note when transitioning to a Carbon Cub from a Decathlon and later model Citabrias with the spring steel gear. A full stall landing in a Cub type airplane requires the stick to be all the back in your lap at touchdown to avoid a skip unless the main wheels have touched down with absolutely zero sink rate. The Decathlon and Citabria have a shorter main gear. In a full stall landing with the stick all the back in those airplanes, the tailwheel will touch down with the main wheel tires eight inches in the air. This results in an inelegant "flop" to the runway. A smooth three point landing in the ACA airplanes is actually not a full stall landing. It is a tail low wheel landing in which the wing is not stalled but all three wheels touch at the same time. Take a look at the main gear on an ACA Scout. You will notice that the gear legs are about eight inches taller on that airplane. It was designed for a mission that required full stall landings.

The last item to consider is the recent fad that has developed while landing backcountry conventional gear airplanes. That is landing the airplane three point but shoving the tail back up at touchdown. I think this has evolved from a technique experienced bush pilots use to put more weight on the main gear for better braking, save the tailwheel from abuse, and to better see the rocks and logs in front of them. Save that one until you have some experience and are operating the airplane in those extreme conditions. Using that technique on prepared runways introduces two more transitions to every landing. Avoid the attitude "I now own a bush plane so I am now a bush pilot".

 

[Cactus Charlie]

The standard FX-3 has the CC 3x3 main gear. It is extended 3 inches down and 3 inches forward compared to the PA-18. This puts the CG further behind the wheels than on a PA-18 and reduces the stability on the ground roll with the tail up.

The (only?) good feature of the 3x3 gear is that it reduces the tendency to put the airplane on its back.