[Flyin'Dutch']

Basically it will torque roll on take off.

and asymmetric blade effect, and gyroscopic force effect and slipstream effect all working in perfect harmony to get you off the straight and narrow.

Add to that a bit of crosswind from the wrong side and you are stacking the odds in the wrong direction.

One of the major benefits of tailwheel aeroplanes is that their layout provides much better prop clearance. Raising the tail reduces that benefit too.

[map5623]

Marj,
I flew a Luscombe for some time and had in fact been using the method you explain for some time. It gives a smooth controlled departure from the ground.
I only every used the classic tail takeoff in windy conditions.
Mike

[envelope]

I disagree with

It encourages a ground loop early in the take off run as you don't yet have full rudder authority.

, if you have enough air over the tail to lift it then you will also have enough to give the rudder authority.

Total Carp ! Not all aircraft are the same.
My RV has an extremely course pitch prop. At fast tick over pushing the stick forward will dig a hole with the prop before it's moved six inches. Waggle the rudder and it will do nothing .
Open up to full power before it gets rolling and it will depart the runway even with full opposite rudder , brake and aieleron. Trust me plenty of people saw it do just that at Abbiville and I'm lucky I'm still here to tell about it.
Basically it will torque roll on take off.

The point of this post is to say that it is dangerous to generalise about aircraft. As pointed out by the O.P. and others the teqnique may work for some but it definitely doesn't work for all.

And some aircraft rely on the tailwheel steering as the only way to keep straight until there is significant airflow (& airspeed) over the rudder; lift the tail early and round you go how ever much rudder you use!

[gaznav]

I get my tailwheel off when she's ready - I do NOT hammer the stick forward so that I am effectively flying the mains onto the ground. I try and get her into ground effect soonest and then accelerate to Vx or Vy; whichever I need. The technique you mention, Marj, is trying to do something similar in that an aerodynamically loaded aircraft (ie. one that is heavily nose down on the mains or being held on the 3 points) will not accelerate as quickly an unloaded one.

However, going hands off on the stick sounds a bit too much - a light touch should suffice (IMHO)!

Gaz

[rf3flyer]

I used to positively raise the tail quite early but following a discussion on one of the Fournier forums I have moved to what we call 'tail skimming'. It's not as hands off as Marj describes and involves raising the tail only enough to get it out of ground contact then letting her fly off when she's ready. My ground roll reduced so dramatically, to pretty much that stated in the Flight manual, that I have been able to comfortably visit one of the local microlight fields.

My aircraft is not at stall angle of attack when on the ground and with the tail raised a very little it's even less so but post lift off does require a little finesse to build speed before establishing in the climb proper.

I may try Marj's 'hand-off' take-off next time.

[Rob L]

I close my eyes and apply full throttle.

What happens next is in the hands of (/Dave Allen) whatever god you believe in.

[Paul_Sengupta]

I use a similar technique to Rob L!

Actually, my tailwheel technique is almost exactly as Marj describes. Don't know why, but I've done that from day 1. Just feels like the best way. Not that I have a huge amount of tailwheel experience!

In my nosedragger, on a hard runway (grass in the summer or tarmac) the take off run is the shortest if I just let it roll on all three wheels without pulling back on the stick until take off time. Pulling back to raise the nose will increase AoA and lift and therefore drag, so it takes longer to get airborne. However, if the surface is soft, it accelerates best by hauling back hard on the stick at the start of the take off run - any lift that's generated helps to dig the wheels out of the mud and get them rolling better. Then as the aircraft accelerates I can adjust to just keep the mains skimming the ground.

I suspect Marj's technique works on all surfaces, as he says. Get the nose down sufficiently that the wings don't create too much drag, but not so much that the lift on the tail creates more drag? Maybe. Not sure how much difference the weight on the wheels makes on a hard surface. Would suspect it's more down to aerodynamics.

Did you see the Guy Martin programme this evening? It said on a bike that about 7% was rolling resistance, 90% air resistance, with the other 3% being losses in the drive system. I would suspect cycling through mud is a bit different.

[golfcharlie]

Being at best just an average Jodel pilot, I ask myself what the value of this technique would be to me. Would a (possible) 25% reduction in take-off run make a significant difference to my decision whether to fly or not? In my case, I have to say 'not'. I don't like tight safety margins. So far, in 25 years I have not managed to bend my aeroplane by getting myself into a tight corner on take-off or landing. Would I use a shorter strip to land, thinking that the '25% technique' would get me out okay?
We must each decide for ourselves what is acceptable. I am sure that the experts out there have better skills and are comfortable in tight corners. I don't have that many hairs on my chest.

[Rob P]

I guess it is of most use on those aircraft where the take off roll is considerably longer than the landing. The Shiny Colt can happily land in 400 metres, but would be unlikely ever to get out of such a strip without a lot of wind assistance.

Rob P

[gaznav]

CG

I guess it comes down to the old addage of "the runway behind you is of no use". Thus if we can be airborne 25% earlier and then the engine quits then there might be more options available to us? You state that you only fly from fields with plenty of room for a Jodel - let's say its runway is 800m long and you take 400m to get airborne, wouldn't you rather be airborne after 300m with 500m remaining rather than the 400m you woukd have normally?

Gaz

[Cookie]

It is a tailwheel take-off technique that I have read about (USA Cub forum) and there is some debate there about its usefulness and whether it actually reduces take-off roll or not...At this point, the stick can receive a tiny amount of back-pressure and the mains leave the ground.

Nothing new Marj. This is the technique described in the FAA Airplane Flying Handbook:

https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policie ... a-6of7.pdf

However, the danger with this technique is that the pilot applies back-pressure (up-elevator) too early thereby getting the aircraft airborne at a high angle of attack. Having spent several thousand hours teaching flying in tailwheel aircraft, I would much rather see a low hour tailwheel pilot get airborne with a safe margin above the stall by selecting a slightly lower nose attitude with the elevator during the take-off roll.

http://www.gasco.org.uk/news/general/ne ... ?p=1036698

Cookie

[mick w]

Surely everyone knows that Aircraft fly better without Pilot influence ??.

[baldwinm]

This seems similar to the technique I was taught when I converted to the Jodel, my first tailwheel aircraft. I thought I was being taught a three point take off but maybe not.

I was told to set "take off" trim (slightly aft of neutral), keep it straight down the runway and wait until it flew itself off - certainly no rearward (or forward) movement of the stick until airborne. Forward vision in the Jodel is not a problem with the tail down.This seems to work well on our short strip with trees on the climb out. Later on I experimented with conventional take offs as that is what most of the other group members did and according to most "experts" on the forums the correct thing to do. Getting the tail up feels more positive too but the ground roll is probably longer - the all moving rudder seems to give plenty of authority either way.

May investigate further when I get a chance.

[Bebedriver]

Interesting points of view! I was interested in Marj's 'method' and I will be trying it as soon as the weather here in Cornwall allows! I've been flying my Taylorcraft since 1994 so I have a bit of experience to draw on I think. I've been thinking about take-off techniques I've used and I realise that basically I've always flown the T craft as I was taught by the previous owner. That is: Lift the tailwheel at around 12mph (when it wants to rise naturally) and then look for take-off at around 45mph. It works.....

I have added another technique where the ground is muddy or the field very short and that is to apply full power in the last stages of the taxy run, turning to line up on the run. I learned that in the USA from an old Forward Air Controller who had been flying Cessna Bird Dogs out of stupidly short fields in the jungles of Vietnam; works for wheel barrow jobs too

Maurice Kirk takes off in a circle! His strip is so short he can't get enough speed up in a straight line so he just opens up with full rudder and describes a circle until he has flying speed

[Trent772]

This is the technique I have always used in little taildraggers....

The Champ was particularly affected if you had two on board and the 65hp engine - if you tried to lift the tail, the take off roll was significantly longer.

Even the RV works well using this method - just check the trim is set correctly - if it is still set for approach, it may tend to lift off a little nose high.

P-51 needed the tail lifting though