This is the first time I have flown one of these
   since I was fourteen or fifteen. I forgot how bad it
   was.

   Horrible handling airplane. Terribly un coordinated.

   Don't learn in it unless you can afford to spend twice as much time
   and money. The flying skills you learn are then useless for flying any
other
   type of modern aircraft.

   However it is fun and challenging :)

   Paul Lamar
   --



 Flying something like a Cub or Champ will make the automatic parts of
your
brain ready to work without you thinking about it.  You call it bad, but
it's actually perfect for flight training.  If you can make the Cub do
your
bidding, the only problem you'll have with the RV is getting used to its
small and light control inputs.  Some people might over-control in the
first
few moments of transition.  Hopefully you will get you a bit of stick
time
in another RV before having to do it solo.


 Matt-

The reason it is bad is nobody designs an airplane today with out due
diligence to coordination and aero balance of the controls.  There is no
upside to uncoordinated and unbalanced controls.  It is like an old
unstable
car.  Yes you can learn to drive it but why do that if it can be made
stable.  Therefor I disagree with the idea it is perfect for flight
training.


Get lessons in a C172.  After you have your license get checked
out in a Cub if you feel the need to find out what it was like to fly
in the
1930's.  Build a replica of the Wright Flyer if you really want to
learn to
fly a bad airplane.  Yes it was the first barely controllable airplane
but
technology improves.


The other Cub drawback is the early versions did not
have flaps so the flare is very nose high which totally obscures the
runway
ahead.  In fact Piper lost a huge law suite about 30 years ago because of
this factor.  As I recall it bankrupted them.  This had a very negative
effect on the light plane industry.  Cessna stopped building and selling
piston powered aircraft.  Congress had to enact a law prohibiting
liability
suites for products 17 years or older.


 Paul Lamar



  Hi Paul,  I think the big suit at that time was against Cessna for
failing seat latches that would leave the pilot in the back seat  hanging
on to the yoke after lift off.  I did not see any comments on my "Bass
Akwards" article. With such a knowledgeable group, I was expecting
something.  http://www.eaa.org/experimenter/articles/2010-11_bass.asp
There is a link to a side splitting segment from Top Gear.
 --   Murry

That was another one.
I had to modify my 182 for that one.

Paul Lamar

"The trike arrangement with the single front wheel leads to terminal
oversteer, a spinout, when pushed to the limit."

Not necessarily true. Under steer over steer has nothing to do with where
the wheeels are and how many.  I don't think he knows what he is talking
about using these terms in this context. Slip angles vary with load
and tire construction. The coefficient of friction of a tire also varies
with load. Higher load lower coefficient of friction. Therefor side
force generated can vary widely.  The major effect is the CG being
behind the center of side force. If what he says is true fully locking
tails wheels would
be more popular. Has anybody on here flown a fully locking tail wheel?

Paul Lamar


Locking tailwheel is a minor advantage for keeping straight on initial
takeoff roll, provided the stick is held full back.
I flew and instructed in Beech 18 (Twin beech, C-45,etc) and most had
locking tailwheels.  Taxiing required the use of brakes and differential
power. Taxi out, line up on the runway engage tailwheel lock, open
throttle. On landing slow to walking speed, unlock tailwheel. The
tailwheel authority is dependent on the down-force maintaining friction
between the wheel and the runway. That friction is very low at high
power unless the stick is full aft, and tailwheel ground contact is not
possible much above stall speed. The 3-point attitude of most airplanes
is very near the stall angle of attack for one-G loading.
The biggest problem when landing a taildragger is lack of awareness of
the direction the plane is pointed relative to the direction of travel
over the ground. A five-degree drift at touchdown with a nosewheel is of
no consequence, as the inertia of the CG will simply straighten things
out. With a tailwheel, touching down with a drift causes the downwind
wheel to bite, rolling the plane towards the drift and yawing into the
wind. The airplane must be pointed in the direction it is traveling over
the ground. Small drifts can be tolerated if landing on only the upwind
wheel as it will slide some, but the path must be straight before the
other wheel touches down. The tailwheel has no authority on landing
until below stall speed with the stick full back.
As regards control coordination, most of the adverse yaw is the result
of low airspeed and long wing. Both my RV's have a lot of adverse yaw
below 80 knots, as does my Cessna P-210.

Victor Roberts