Thoughts on an L-2 for basic tailwheel instruction

[Acroeric]

I am looking to buy an airplane to rent (yes, let others solo) after they pass our tailwheel course. I do not have any time in a L2 but have always thought that the seating arrangement was ideal for basic tailwheel instruction. My other option is a Champ but I just can't warm up to the way they fly. A J-3 is just too small and I want my students to solo from the front.

Do any L-2 owners care to chime in on the flight characteristics of the L-2 and how they think it would hold up in this environment. I have owned several clipwings and BC12 series Taylorcrafts. Because fo that I have a pretty good collection of spare parts. (wheels, brakes, etc.)

Eric Minnis

https://www.bullyaero.com

[Ragwing nut]

Re: Thoughts on an L-2 for basic tailwheel instruction

I have a bunch of time in L-2's. Frankly I like the way they fly better than a "B". With ball bearing pulleys, control feel is more balanced. Definitely need 85 hp or more. They don't like to float and remind me of an underpowered decathalon or 90 hp supercub (although it does not climb like one). The con is the rear seat. The front seat is difficult to get into just like all the other tandems. The rear seat is small, must have better support if you plan to fly more than 30 minutes from the back. I think it would make a good trainer.

[otrcman]

Re: Thoughts on an L-2 for basic tailwheel instruction

Eric,

I've owned and flown my L-2 for just over 40 years now. And have done many tailwheel endorsements in the plane. Here are my thoughts for what they're worth.

1. As you might expect, the L-2 is a rugged airplane and will give good service with minimum cost of operation. Maintenance is very low.

2. The handling characteristics make it a good tailwheel trainer. It is just bouncy enough to challenge the student, but not so difficult that it will take too long for a student to learn. You can safely do wheel landings and three point landings and crosswind landings.

3. Visibility and controllability from the back seat are adequate for any competent instructor. And of course you do have brakes in the back seat. I have rearranged the instruments so that I can see the airspeed and the oil pressure from the back seat.

That's the good news. Now the bad news.

I do not insure my plane for solo flight because I believe that there are too few pilots with the skill level necessary to fly it safely. If you have followed this forum for any length of time you know that stall-spin accidents in L-2's are not uncommon. If you would like to send me a PM I will be happy to go into details for my opinion.

Dick

[Acroeric]

Re: Thoughts on an L-2 for basic tailwheel instruction

Dick and Mike- thanks for the replies. I did do a little research into the NTSB data and reviewed several accidents. It seems the airplane is a little less tolerant than others of sloppy pilot skills. Nothing at all wrong with that but it may not be the best choice for what I intend to do.

I fly with some very good students and also some that need lots of coordination work. I am of the school of thought that most anyone can be taught to fly a taildragger safely if given the right instruction.

With that said, I do plan to rent the airplane once they pass our tailwheel course. There will be a currency requirement to maintain solo privilages but we want to create an environment where pilots can rent a simple old school tailwheel airplane.

Insurance for a 25k airplane is over $8000 per year for full coverage. We are going to get liability but hull insurance just doesn't make fiscal sense. We are just going to have to keep tight reigns on the people that we let solo. It is a shame for it to be so difficult to get access to these types of airplanes. An entire nation learned to fly in them! I think we can still make that happen.

I have decided to go with a Champ. If anyone knows of a nice 85 HP Champ with an electric starter for sale please let me know. It looks like this may be the best compromise for the mission.

Thanks again-
Eric

[otrcman]

Re: Thoughts on an L-2 for basic tailwheel instruction

Eric,

I can't find any fault with your decision favoring the Champ. I agree that the Champ isn't as thrilling to fly as some of the others. Maybe that's why it has a better safety record.

For some other input, you might enjoy talking to Steve Krog. They have extensive experience renting Cubs. I'm not pushing the Cub, but would respect whatever Steve has to say.

I don't know whether Amelia Reid Aviation still exists, but they used L-2's for many years. Even if the company is gone by now, Robin Reid might be able to give you some insights on how well the L-2's did for them. I think he lives in Oregon now.

One last thing. It seems like the tailwheel itself can be your highest maintenance item. I have come around to the idea that a simple, non swiveling tailwheel will give me the best service. For an owner operated plane, something like a swiveling Maule or Scott or Lang works fine and gives some extra maneuverability. But for day in and day out use with minimum quirks, it's hard to beat a simple tailwheel like the Heath or similar. And you don't need quirks with renters.

Dick

[M Towsley]

Re: Thoughts on an L-2 for basic tailwheel instruction

Eric,

I know Robin and can give you his phone number, if you are interested. Just let me know.

[maximumvmo]

Re: Thoughts on an L-2 for basic tailwheel instruction

FWIW, I learned in a Piper J5. Solo from front, etc. Pretty similar to an L2 but bigger back seat.

[Acroeric]

Re: Thoughts on an L-2 for basic tailwheel instruction

Marty- I would love to hear from Robin- if for no other reason just to hear about some of the things to make sure we think about before renting.

I really appreciate everyone's input. I have to admit that since leaving the FAA and trying to make a real living in aviation I have learned more and had more fun that any job in my life. I have also worked harder and gone without a steady paycheck more often too.

I think a man is not meant to have too secure of a life.

[Mark Julicher]

Re: Thoughts on an L-2 for basic tailwheel instruction

There is a good Champ for sale in the hangar next door to us. 90 hp, electric system. flown regularly. It has a couple of interesting modifications to discuss, but all in all a very good plane.

For more info - e-mail me or call cell phone at two one zero, three eight two, zero eight four zero.

[Ragwing nut]

Re: Thoughts on an L-2 for basic tailwheel instruction

the issue with the L-2 and accidents is the cut outs at the root. there is no warning before they break. I also fly a o-235 powered champ, and frankly just don't like it. Since your looking at L-2, LSA does not seem to be a concern, I would look for an early citabria. probably could be bought for similar money as the champ.

[jim cooper]

Re: Thoughts on an L-2 for basic tailwheel instruction

the issue with the L-2 and accidents is the cut outs at the root. there is no warning before they break. I also fly a o-235 powered champ, and frankly just don't like it. Since your looking at L-2, LSA does not seem to be a concern, I would look for an early citabria. probably could be bought for similar money as the champ.

Everyone has an opinion so its tough. I learned in an 85hp Champ which has EXCELLENT visibility. I also owned a nice 85hp about 5 years ago. Liked it alot. Have flown a tandem T-Craft quite a bit also but years ago. Liked it. Have just sold a 65hp T-Craft. To be honest I would choose the 85hp Champ for what you intend to do. No bad habits, easy to land. All of them taught thousands of people in their time. JC

[barnstmr]

Re: Thoughts on an L-2 for basic tailwheel instruction

I have never flown an L-2 or a DC-65. But... my observation is that the DC-65 with full turtle deck should have quite different flying qualities than the L-2's with the observation windows. For one thing, the DC65 I bet is faster. Also, take note of the wing root cut-outs on the L-2. I wonder if these alter the stall characteristics. I expect they would make the airplane a bit more squirrely in and near stall. I am thinking airflow over the rudder at slow speed would be quite turbulent in this configuration. Can anyone verify or refute these suspicions of mine?

[otrcman]

Re: Thoughts on an L-2 for basic tailwheel instruction

I have never flown an L-2 or a DC-65. But... my observation is that the DC-65 with full turtle deck should have quite different flying qualities than the L-2's with the observation windows. For one thing, the DC65 I bet is faster. Also, take note of the wing root cut-outs on the L-2. I wonder if these alter the stall characteristics. I expect they would make the airplane a bit more squirrely in and near stall. I am thinking airflow over the rudder at slow speed would be quite turbulent in this configuration. Can anyone verify or refute these suspicions of mine?

Terry,

I have owned my L-2M and flown it for quite some time. Along the way, I've tufted the rear window and aft fuselage to study local airflow. The tufts lay nice and straight -- far better than I expected. I saw no evidence of flow separation or turbulence at all. As a matter of fact, a bit of turbulence over the tail prior to stall would be most welcome in the way of stall warning. As it is now, my L-2 has pretty much zero aerodynamic buffet prior to stall.

While I've never flown a "fastback" L-2, all the stories I've heard is that they are faster and nicer flyers. The L-2's with the rear window certainly are short on directional stability, and there's no doubt that having more aft fuselage side area would help in that department. The difference between stick-fixed (rudder fixed) directional stability and stick-free is really marked.

Dick

[maximumvmo]

Re: Thoughts on an L-2 for basic tailwheel instruction

the issue with the L-2 and accidents is the cut outs at the root. there is no warning before they break. .

I really take this seriously. When I bought my L2M, one of the first things I did after I got it home was get very familiar with the slow-flying characteristics of the airplane (previous airplane was a Stinson 108 which had excellent slow traits).

What I found is that the L2M handles very well at MCA, and can fly very very slow. Of course, that's being coordinated.

I also found that the L2 will spin very quickly and without much effort (with very little buffet onset). Recovery is not difficult, but altitude loss can be significant with more than one turn as unfortunatley many base-to-final reports can attest to.

Bottom line like any other airplane--keep the ball where it is supposed to be and keep the air flowing over the wings (preferrably the top part).

Sidenote: I find the L2M handles extremely well in crosswinds compared to a Stinson.

[Ragwing nut]

Re: Thoughts on an L-2 for basic tailwheel instruction

I really take this seriously. When I bought my L2M, one of the first things I did after I got it home was get very familiar with the slow-flying characteristics of the airplane (previous airplane was a Stinson 108 which had excellent slow traits).

What I found is that the L2M handles very well at MCA, and can fly very very slow. Of course, that's being coordinated.

I also found that the L2 will spin very quickly and without much effort (with very little buffet onset). Recovery is not difficult, but altitude loss can be significant with more than one turn as unfortunatley many base-to-final reports can attest to.

Bottom line like any other airplane--keep the ball where it is supposed to be and keep the air flowing over the wings (preferrably the top part).

Sidenote: I find the L2M handles extremely well in crosswinds compared to a Stinson.

-1 or -2 is not bad. -3 weathervanes horribly and have to maintain staright ahead with the brakes, rudder is useless below 40. excellent brakes essential with a stinson. they are a dream to fly in the air.