mtv wrote:
I guess I never give what shoes I’m wearing a thought before I go fly these days. Maybe I should look into some ballet shoes......

MTV

Lol. Ballet Shoes.. That is good. It's because you are a seasoned professional. I am a student and did notice that one time when I wore boots I had less "sensitivity" to the rudder pedals. They also got in the way a bit and I was on the brakes when I did not need to be. I guess all of that comes with more flying time. I do only fly in Converse All Stars right now to keep that "feel" of thin soles, etc. I assume when I am more experienced I won't care what I am wearing on my feet, but for now I feel better with thin soled shoes on.

Weird twist of discussion.

Given time, you'll find your shoe choice will become comfortable in about 2-3 flights.

I have an hour or two in 2-3 different aircraft . Switching from flip-flops... (go-ahead, I dare you...) to boots, even though having several hundred hours in the exact plane, it takes a second to get used to wearing them.

Once that happens, they're just an extension of your feet. Don't let your shoe choice deter you from flying. It's like a horse, gotta get used to it.

It is an interesting thread drift.

I firmly believe that people learning to fly, and especially learning to fly taildraggers, will get more input and learn more quickly if they are flying barefoot or with absolute minimal footwear. I can hear the screams from safety-nazi's from here, and I get it because I'm often in that category.

But the airplane isn't likely to crash or catch fire if it's in control, so anything that adds to the control of the aircraft increases your safety. If you can fly just as well in steel toe bunker boots or a fire proximity suit, great...that increases your safety. But if you can't, it doesn't.

I envy the vertically normal people who have a choice of footwear. At 6'5" with a 38" inseam and size 15 feet, flying a small plane in boots is simply impossible. Even a running shoe makes it impossible for me to fit in a airplane and have full control movement.

I hear instructors say "keep your feet on the bottom of the peddles until you need to use the brakes, then lift them to the top" and my eyes roll back. When learning to fly I controlled the brakes by curling my toes over the top of the peddle and pulling back to make sure they didn't engage accidentally, and my heals were still on the floor, while my knees rubbed on the bottom of the panel.

In primary training my flight school had a "sturdy shoe" policy, which probably looked good to their insurance company. I didn't know a thing about flying, but I knew I needed to be barefoot to fit in the cockpit. They were displeased, but relented because they wanted my money and I wasn't going to give it to them if I had to wear shoes.

I've butted heads with some USFS contractors who have their dress code dictated by the government, and walked away because of it, which is fine. It's not a matter of preference, it's a matter of physics. The government thinks I'm safer in a ten-inch lace up leather boot with a vibram sole, and they're right, because I can't fit in an airplane, much less fly one while wearing them.

I guess the point is that you have to do what works for YOU. Just because someone else can fly just dandy in bunny boots or in a full body cast doesn't mean it's possible, much less smart, for someone else.

I'd MUCH rather have good airplane control than the ideal footwear for that ever-looming survival situation. Thus far I have a few thousand hours of flying, and zero hours of needing to survive for having done it. You tell me which one makes sense to prioritize...

I started flying my Pacer with minimalist running shoes because I kept accidentally making brake inputs in my boots.

I'm not nearly as big as Hammer, but I have large feet and can't really do the low-on-the-pedals thing.

After some time I got comfortable and now it doesn't really matter what I wear on my feet.

Hammer wrote:It is an interesting thread drift.

I firmly believe that people learning to fly, and especially learning to fly taildraggers, will get more input and learn more quickly if they are flying barefoot or with absolute minimal footwear. I can hear the screams from safety-nazi's from here, and I get it because I'm often in that category.

But the airplane isn't likely to crash or catch fire if it's in control, so anything that adds to the control of the aircraft increases your safety. If you can fly just as well in steel toe bunker boots or a fire proximity suit, great...that increases your safety. But if you can't, it doesn't.

I envy the vertically normal people who have a choice of footwear. At 6'5" with a 38" inseam and size 15 feet, flying a small plane in boots is simply impossible. Even a running shoe makes it impossible for me to fit in a airplane and have full control movement.

I hear instructors say "keep your feet on the bottom of the peddles until you need to use the brakes, then lift them to the top" and my eyes roll back. When learning to fly I controlled the brakes by curling my toes over the top of the peddle and pulling back to make sure they didn't engage accidentally, and my heals were still on the floor, while my knees rubbed on the bottom of the panel.

In primary training my flight school had a "sturdy shoe" policy, which probably looked good to their insurance company. I didn't know a thing about flying, but I knew I needed to be barefoot to fit in the cockpit. They were displeased, but relented because they wanted my money and I wasn't going to give it to them if I had to wear shoes.

I've butted heads with some USFS contractors who have their dress code dictated by the government, and walked away because of it, which is fine. It's not a matter of preference, it's a matter of physics. The government thinks I'm safer in a ten-inch lace up leather boot with a vibram sole, and they're right, because I can't fit in an airplane, much less fly one while wearing them.

I guess the point is that you have to do what works for YOU. Just because someone else can fly just dandy in bunny boots or in a full body cast doesn't mean it's possible, much less smart, for someone else.

I'd MUCH rather have good airplane control than the ideal footwear for that ever-looming survival situation. Thus far I have a few thousand hours of flying, and zero hours of needing to survive for having done it. You tell me which one makes sense to prioritize...

Here ya go: https://tieks.com/matte-black.html?gcli ... gInifD_BwE

MTV

mtv wrote:Here ya go: https://tieks.com/matte-black.html?gcli ... gInifD_BwE
MTV

Unfortunately they stop at size 13...otherwise I'd say they fit the bill pretty well for a flying shoe.

This is what I eventually came up with for flying, and I'm happy with it. They now offer taller shoes with the same boar-hide sole, but they didn't when I ordered them. They're really not worth what they cost, but they're the only game in town if that's what you want. And they do hold up amazingly well.
http://www.russellmoccasin.com/huron-thula-thula/

In the winter I wear my moccasins with thick socks, or down booties if it's really cold, under a pair of flat-soled Neos overshoes that come up to my knee...sort of like a mukluk. As a bonus I can stash mittens and a hat and some snacks in them where they're easy to reach but out of the way. Unfortunately that model is not made anymore...this is the closest thing they currently offer:
https://www.overshoesneos.com/Neos_Over ... lager.html

Hammer wrote:

mtv wrote:Here ya go: https://tieks.com/matte-black.html?gcli ... gInifD_BwE
MTV

Unfortunately they stop at size 13...otherwise I'd say they fit the bill pretty well for a flying shoe.

This is what I eventually came up with for flying, and I'm happy with it. They now offer taller shoes with the same boar-hide sole, but they didn't when I ordered them. They're really not worth what they cost, but they're the only game in town if that's what you want. And they do hold up amazingly well.
http://www.russellmoccasin.com/huron-thula-thula/

In the winter I wear my moccasins with thick socks, or down booties if it's really cold, under a pair of flat-soled Neos overshoes that come up to my knee...sort of like a mukluk. As a bonus I can stash mittens and a hat and some snacks in them where they're easy to reach but out of the way. Unfortunately that model is not made anymore...this is the closest thing they currently offer:
https://www.overshoesneos.com/Neos_Over ... lager.html

Hammer would you please stop posting about gear, you are like the ultimate good gear guru. You post it I want it.$$$$$

Hammer wrote:

mtv wrote:Here ya go: https://tieks.com/matte-black.html?gcli ... gInifD_BwE
MTV

Unfortunately they stop at size 13...otherwise I'd say they fit the bill pretty well for a flying shoe.

Yeah, I saw that. Tried to find a size 15, but they were all in pink...... . Didn’t want to go there.

Carry on.

MTV

mtv wrote:

Hammer wrote:

mtv wrote:Here ya go: https://tieks.com/matte-black.html?gcli ... gInifD_BwE
MTV

Unfortunately they stop at size 13...otherwise I'd say they fit the bill pretty well for a flying shoe.

Yeah, I saw that. Tried to find a size 15, but they were all in pink...... . Didn’t want to go there.

Carry on.

MTV

Hey, I got nothing against pink...it's not like I spend a lot of time looking at my feet while I fly, and I don't expect that most folks who see me step out of my airplane have the discourtesy...or balls...to comment on my wardrobe. Anyone who's seen my flying outfits will attest to that, including my wife.

This time of year I fly in a a salomon insulated winter hiking boot. Like this:



Reason 1: My feet get cold when flying in 10F

Reason 2: If the crash doesn't kill you, the cold will.

akschu wrote:This time of year I fly in a a salomon insulated winter hiking boot. Like this:



Reason 1: My feet get cold when flying in 10F

Reason 2: If the crash doesn't kill you, the cold will.

Yes, I know of a gent that spent well over a full day laying in the rear seat of a plane that'd crashed, in moderately cold weather.....as in +10 or so. Good shoes and no frostbite.

One of my early mentors sat in the back seat of a Super Cub on Afognak Island after it crashed, pilot dead and his back broken. He said his feet were cold the whole time, and almost as painful as his broken back.

MTV

Hi. I am not a certified pilot, and have never been in a tail wheel aircraft. That said, I am by no means at par with the skill/knowledge level of the rest of these guys, I am just sharing what I have learned in my research. Both the Cessna 180, Maule M7-235 B, and Bearhawk 250 would work as great tail wheel aircraft. I am not sure whether they carry the type of transponder you need, so that would be something to double check. The maule, can add an extra ( 5th ) seat in the back, but is very cramped for teens/adults, and I hear it takes a lot of planning out the placement of your load when using the 5th seat. Another thing to consider, is that the 5th seat is where the baggage area is, meaning you will not have room for hardly any luggage when you're hauling someone in the back extra seat. Also, stock, the maule only has 895lbs of useful load. This is deffintently not the greatest useful load, although the aircraft can be STCd for a useful load of 1195lbs. Now we're talking. The aircraft is gonna stall at about 35kts ( fully loaded ), and, with stock tires, you'll be getting about 10gph @105-110KIAS. Rotate at max gross is 600ft for the maule. The bearhawk doesn't bother to try to bump out the fuselage and add an extra seat, because they are smart enough to know that, just like the maule, it would be practically useless. The Bearhawk 4 place with a Lycoming I/O 540 engine ( about 250hp ), should get around 9gph@ 105KIAS, but could push cruise speeds of 170MPH IAS, at about 14gph. The stall speed fully loaded should be almost the same as the maule, but because u have 15 more horsies, you're gonna see rotate at about 400ft instead of 600. The Bearhawk 4 place I believe has about the same cabin dimensions as the C180. Speaking of the C180, I believe you get about 1100lbs useful load with this aircraft, and is a four seater. This would be probably the most " cross country " suitable aircraft of the 3 I believe, but in terms of takeoff, you'll be seeing numbers around the 1000ft Mark for rotate and 1100-1200ft above 50ft. Than again, some skill could lower those numbers. At cruise, I believe 150-160KIAS would be higher end cruise speeds, and the GPH at that speed, I do not know. Stall speed is gonna be a little bit higher, at about 52MPH IAS. I think the maule can hold 85 gallons of fuel, and the bearhawk I believe can hold 55 gallons, with optional Aux tanks in the outer part of the wing. I am not sure of the Cessna 180's fuel capacity. In terms of landing gear configurations, the Maule I believe can be fitted with both aluminum spring, and oleo strut. The Bear hawk is Oleo strut, and the C180 I believe is only aluminum spring. I have heard, that the handling on a maule in slow speed flight is very sloppy, whereas the Bearhawk I have heard is quite an improve!ment on handling. Again, I am not a certified pilot, nor have I ever been in a tail dragger aircraft, so the information I have shared should not be looked at as correct, in the case that someone else corrects my post. I hope I helped. Happy flying

Woops. I am so sorry guys. Wrong forum.

IdahoBushFlyin wrote:Hi. I am not a certified pilot, and have never been in a tail wheel aircraft.
...
Again, I am not a certified pilot, nor have I ever been in a tail dragger aircraft, so the information I have shared should not be looked at as correct, in the case that someone else corrects my post.

This is a message to everyone in the forum.

It is human nature to want to be helpful and pass on the gems we cull from research, though I think you (IdahoBushFlyin) would be well served by knowing that this forum is populated with experienced pilots of Skywagons, Maules, Cubs, et al. In the other thread you posted on, not two posts above yours was input from the 2018 Valdez Light Touring division winner.

I do not mean to discourage your participation or seem a bully, as it seems you're on the proper path to becoming a neurotic over-analyzing airplane shopper like the rest of us. I would only offer the advice that it may be wiser to work on absorbing the commentary already provided by experienced pilots.

If you have no confidence in what you're posting, and readily admit it may be wrong because you have no first hand experience, that's a good sign that you should not have posted it. I would recommend focusing on your own arc to becoming a certificated pilot and ask whatever questions you can to achieve that goal.

Zzz wrote:

IdahoBushFlyin wrote:Hi. I am not a certified pilot, and have never been in a tail wheel aircraft.
...
Again, I am not a certified pilot, nor have I ever been in a tail dragger aircraft, so the information I have shared should not be looked at as correct, in the case that someone else corrects my post.

This is a message to everyone in the forum.

It is human nature to want to be helpful and pass on the gems we cull from research, though I think you (IdahoBushFlyin) would be well served by knowing that this forum is populated with experienced pilots of Skywagons, Maules, Cubs, et al. In the other thread you posted on, not two posts above yours was input from the 2018 Valdez Light Touring division winner.

I do not mean to discourage your participation or seem a bully, as it seems you're on the proper path to becoming a neurotic over-analyzing airplane shopper like the rest of us. I would only offer the advice that it may be wiser to work on absorbing the commentary already provided by experienced pilots.

If you have no confidence in what you're posting, and readily admit it may be wrong because you have no first hand experience, that's a good sign that you should not have posted it. I would recommend focusing on your own arc to becoming a certificated pilot and ask whatever questions you can to achieve that goal.

Damn Zzz...you should be a diplomat.

IdahoBushFlyin wrote:Hi. I am not a certified pilot, and have never been in a tail wheel aircraft. That said, I am by no means at par with the skill/knowledge level of the rest of these guys, I am just sharing what I have learned in my research. Both the Cessna 180, Maule M7-235 B, and Bearhawk 250 would work as great tail wheel aircraft. I am not sure whether they carry the type of transponder you need, so that would be something to double check. The maule, can add an extra ( 5th ) seat in the back, but is very cramped for teens/adults, and I hear it takes a lot of planning out the placement of your load when using the 5th seat. Another thing to consider, is that the 5th seat is where the baggage area is, meaning you will not have room for hardly any luggage when you're hauling someone in the back extra seat. Also, stock, the maule only has 895lbs of useful load. This is deffintently not the greatest useful load, although the aircraft can be STCd for a useful load of 1195lbs. Now we're talking. The aircraft is gonna stall at about 35kts ( fully loaded ), and, with stock tires, you'll be getting about 10gph @105-110KIAS. Rotate at max gross is 600ft for the maule. The bearhawk doesn't bother to try to bump out the fuselage and add an extra seat, because they are smart enough to know that, just like the maule, it would be practically useless. The Bearhawk 4 place with a Lycoming I/O 540 engine ( about 250hp ), should get around 9gph@ 105KIAS, but could push cruise speeds of 170MPH IAS, at about 14gph. The stall speed fully loaded should be almost the same as the maule, but because u have 15 more horsies, you're gonna see rotate at about 400ft instead of 600. The Bearhawk 4 place I believe has about the same cabin dimensions as the C180. Speaking of the C180, I believe you get about 1100lbs useful load with this aircraft, and is a four seater. This would be probably the most " cross country " suitable aircraft of the 3 I believe, but in terms of takeoff, you'll be seeing numbers around the 1000ft Mark for rotate and 1100-1200ft above 50ft. Than again, some skill could lower those numbers. At cruise, I believe 150-160KIAS would be higher end cruise speeds, and the GPH at that speed, I do not know. Stall speed is gonna be a little bit higher, at about 52MPH IAS. I think the maule can hold 85 gallons of fuel, and the bearhawk I believe can hold 55 gallons, with optional Aux tanks in the outer part of the wing. I am not sure of the Cessna 180's fuel capacity. In terms of landing gear configurations, the Maule I believe can be fitted with both aluminum spring, and oleo strut. The Bear hawk is Oleo strut, and the C180 I believe is only aluminum spring. I have heard, that the handling on a maule in slow speed flight is very sloppy, whereas the Bearhawk I have heard is quite an improve!ment on handling. Again, I am not a certified pilot, nor have I ever been in a tail dragger aircraft, so the information I have shared should not be looked at as correct, in the case that someone else corrects my post. I hope I helped. Happy flying

Two things:

1. Paragraphs dude, paragraphs matter!

2. Flying is way way way more about the pilot than the airplane. Never forget that. A good pilot (and there are many on this forum) can fly a Cessna 150 into places that a poor pilot wouldn't take a 300hp cub on 40's.

I have a really good idea what a bearhawk and a Cessna 180 can do. I've flown both. They have strengths and weaknesses which may or may not be compounded with the pilot's strengths and weaknesses. Translation: Numbers between very similar aircraft mean little, pilot skill means everything, unless you only care about cruise speed, in which case, snore....