Non flying solo flight training via a Penguin

Every once in a while someone brings up the old Penguin flight training system. The "Penguin" was one example of an under powered "airplane" the students could be turned loose with to practice high speed taxi (important with a tail wheel). The idea was to learn yaw and pitch control without actually flying. The aircraft did not have enough power to make it around the pattern.

The program these days is usually associated with some sort of youth program to avoid the liability of actually letting the kids fly into danger.

I am interested in talking with others who may have an interest in starting such a program.

Is there an interest in EAA youth activities to provide such a program at Pioneer field?

Does anyone have an old airframe to contribute to such a program? A single seat glider would be preferred.

Is there an EAA Chapter that would take up construction of an EAA Penguin.

An interesting idea from the historical viewpoint, but I don't see this being introduced as a youth training program.

1. Penguins were helpful in the tail-skid era to help learn how to control aircraft on the ground. But a trigear aircraft is a better solution to ground control issues, and you don't need a penguin for that.

2. Penguins were used in BIG fields, to allow the trainees to lose control without damaging anything. Restricting activity to a typical runway (even that at Pioneer Field) would be far less safe. You'd probably want to give instructors a remote "kill switch" for if the students start heading for a hangar (easy to do, these days).

3. Penguins were simple wooden aircraft that could be repaired easily when damaged...but that assumes a ground staff trained in repairing wooden aircraft. Back in 1915, crashes were more common and the continuous need for repairs was accepted. Attitudes toward crashes these days are a lot different.....

4. Penguins can't take off, but they have an engine and a propeller. Ground collisions stand a good chance of resulting in serious injury. So you'd end up only running one penguin at a time, especially if you're limited to just a standard grass runway vs. a big open field.

That said, it would be tremendous fun. You'd learn to operate a TAILSKID aircraft, vs. something with a steerable tailwheel. Few of us get that opportunity. Could probably overcome a lot of the safety issues with modern electronics and a safety cage around the pilot.

Ron Wanttaja

All good comments. Thanks Ron.

I am considering a concept that would eliminate disadvantage #4 above (including the propeller)and would allow short hops for limited air time but lots of takeoff and landing practice.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jedi

All good comments. Thanks Ron.

I am considering a concept that would eliminate disadvantage #4 above (including the propeller)and would allow short hops for limited air time but lots of takeoff and landing practice.

---

This brings up a potential problem. Unless I am misunderstanding what you propose, you're talking about just getting airborne, then landing again, without really going around the pattern or such. If this is the case, keep in mind that the reason CFIs take students to the practice area early, with TO&L only at each end of the flight, is to give the student a chance to actually learn how the aircraft behaves, how to properly control it in a reasonably safe environment, since near the ground is the most dangerous part of the flight.

Or maybe I'm completely misunderstanding what you propose.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lnuss

This brings up a potential problem. Unless I am misunderstanding what you propose, you're talking about just getting airborne, then landing again, without really going around the pattern or such. If this is the case, keep in mind that the reason CFIs take students to the practice area early, with TO&L only at each end of the flight, is to give the student a chance to actually learn how the aircraft behaves, how to properly control it in a reasonably safe environment, since near the ground is the most dangerous part of the flight.

Or maybe I'm completely misunderstanding what you propose.

---

You say "near the ground is the most dangerous part of the flight." I will add that near the ground is where precision flight control is practiced and learned. That is the reason ground reference maneuvers and various types of takeoffs and landings are included in the syllabus.

You have the purpose right but are making assumptions that restrict the syllabus to conventional training. There are many reasons the typical lesson concentrates on flight skills at altitude before attempting takeoff and landing practice. Many of these reasons have to do with airport operations and restrictions. I will not go into all the reasons for conventional flight training but will point out that the penguin method is not intended to be done at the typical GA airport of today which generally involves paved runways, runway lights and markings, etc. and frequently involves Class D (or in my most recent case Class C) operations with considerable radio work.

The proposal is aimed towards Light Sport and Ultralight training or perhaps glider training where there is no need for the distraction of radio communication. Specifically, ultralight training requires single seat instruction which is much more difficult to find but is an excellent vehicle for learning basic aircraft control and principles of flight at a reasonable cost. It is intended to build an interest in aviation and a foundation for follow on training more suited for the students chosen path to flight.

An example of the possible success is given by the quality of German pilots in world War II who began training on bungee launch gliders in the youth programs.

I have many students who are turned off by flight training at busy airports where radio control is a requirement and the resulting time and dollars wasted kills the desire to fly.

OK, what you are proposing is different from what I thought you were saying, and I didn't realize what aircraft type(s) you were planning on.

Quote:

---

You say "near the ground is the most dangerous part of the flight." I will add that near the ground is where precision flight control is practiced and learned. That is the reason ground reference maneuvers and various types of takeoffs and landings are included in the syllabus.

---

Ground reference is indeed nearer the ground than most flying in conventional aircraft, but still usually 500 feet or higher, but the "near the ground" I was talking about is within 100-300 feet. It's still dangerous even for ultralights, but not as much as for more conventional craft.

On the other hand, I have trouble conceiving of single seat training from scratch, so I'll butt out now.

How about bolting an ultralight glider to the front of an old truck like Bede did with the BD-5 training?
An ultralight with low speed could get three times the touch and goes that Bede got at 70 mph.
Use a taxiway with permission.
Or a hull glider bolted on the front of a powerboat with almost unlimited space into the wind.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lnuss

OK, what you are proposing is different from what I thought you were saying,
.....

I was talking about is within 100-300 feet.

.....

---

I was talking 5 to 10 feet or less. Not high enough to be dangerous but high enough to get the feel of flaring and cross wind control.

I would definitely *not* recommend a "penguin" aircraft capable of even a short hop, which defeats the whole point of the concept, but I could see the benefit of a low-powered, completely non-flying tailwheel trainer with a cheap industrial engine to demystify tailwheel training and the dreaded ground loop. It would also be a fun project for a group of young people looking to learn basic aircraft construction without the stress and liability of a flying project. With a small industrial engine, just enough to get the tail up, I don't see what it would be any more dangerous than a quad or dirt bike, in fact, with a seat harness, helmet, and roll bar it would likely be much safer. You could probably get away with a pretty small diameter prop and even put a big guard around it if you really wanted to. There are complete plans including drawings by the great Douglas Rolfe in the 1932 Flying & Glider Manual.

Attachment 7472
Attachment 7473
Attachment 7474

Thanks Cluttonfred,

What I propose is to go electric with power to the wheel and eliminate the propeller. Add enough power and wing to allow short crow hops or at least to get light on the wheel. Max height is limited because as soon as one leaves the ground there is no more traction through the wheel. Max ground speed is limited by the motor controller same as is done with electric bikes.

If that would work out I have other applications using a similar principle for additional aero projects.

The powered-wheel version might be a fun go kart but it will lose the ground training aspect without a prop wash to raise the tail or any "torque" to correct with the rudder. You'd end up with a grown-up version of a pedal plane.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cluttonfred

The powered-wheel version might be a fun go kart but it will lose the ground training aspect without a prop wash to raise the tail or any "torque" to correct with the rudder. You'd end up with a grown-up version of a pedal plane.

---

True. But it is a Powered pedal plane. Much faster and more fun in addition to having the capability to make controlled jumps and three axis control. Glider pilots learn the required flying skills without propwash or engine torque. These are important issues but a well trained and experienced pilot will handle them the same as he would handle turbulence or any other upset issue.

Thank you all for your input but this is page two and I see little interest in the proposal. I do not intend to pursue it further. If, in the future there is an interest. I may be available to assist.

Hey, it was a fun idea and discussion anyway - personally I see more chance to get sued when a novice drops 5-10 feet in a 'non-airplane' and gets injured. And you just know that would happen.

Maybe you could rig a standard trainer so the throttle gets killed back to idle (or off if electric) automatically the instant the wheels lift.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jedi

Thanks Cluttonfred,

What I propose is to go electric with power to the wheel and eliminate the propeller. Add enough power and wing to allow short crow hops or at least to get light on the wheel. Max height is limited because as soon as one leaves the ground there is no more traction through the wheel.

---

Unfortunately, the effect is not binary (traction/no traction). As the plane increases in speed, weight will be coming off the wheels, and the powered wheels will have less and less traction and thus have trouble accelerating the trainer. One could play with aerodynamic effects to keep the plane planted on the ground until there's enough speed for liftoff, but then the pilot is not operating like they are actually trying to fly an aircraft.

I'd go with a pair of ducted fans using electric motors. That greatly reduces the "chopper" risk, and as you say, speed/altitude can be limited by the motor controller. It also easily supports a remote kill switch, should the instructor deem it necessary to shut the beast down.

Ron Wanttaja

I read of one famous Lutfwaffe pilot who wrote o training in a plane that had such short wings that it would only hop,dont think it was a power thing.

p
I

I saw a penguin trainer in the Western Antique Airplane and Auto Museum (WAAAM) in Hood River OR.
I think any trainer might work if the throttle was limited properly.

I thought the idea behind the penguin was no matter how fast you taxied the airplane would not fly. The wings were to short to produce the lift needed for flight.

Well yeah. But how many penguin trainers have you seen around?

Some foam spoilers could be strapped on the trainers wings if needed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bill Berson

Well yeah. But how many penguin trainers have you seen around?

Some foam spoilers could be strapped on the trainers wings if needed.

---

A friend had a man call him and asked if my buddy would fly his newly built airplane. My buddy spend an evening trying to fly that airplane. It never did come off the ground no matter how fast he went down the runway. My buddy came to the conclusion the wings " main wings and tail feathers" were setup wrong. The airplane would not produce lift to fly. I told my buddy this airplane would make a good trainer to train new pilots tail wheel handling on the ground, for it will never fly no matter what you do.

Here's an idea, a non-flying plane on gimbal so that you can get a feel for the controls while sitting on the ground. These days you could easily see using an electric motor and rechargeable batteries for power, maybe put a guard on the prop for to keep the lawyers at bay.

https://www.facebook.com/FilmImages....4694061564805/

http://www.messynessychic.com/2013/0...fayette-paris/

Maybe the flight school should have a cheaper simulator so the student can sit there for five hours of rudder peddle practicing up and down the runway only without flight before moving on to actual flight.
My brother had numerous dual lessons in our Chief, but just didn't get the hang of steering a taildragger. He wasn't that interested and gave up on flying

Perhaps one that makes a raucous noise in the headset if the student doesn't put the proper wind inputs while taxiing.

I just discovered this thread and we have been discussing the possibility of doing a Penguin as a youth build. It would also be a great recruiting tool for the chapter.

Some of the possibilities, concerns, etc. are:

1. Configuration- All Penguins we have seen photos of are tractors. Perhaps a pusher would be safer.
2. It would be even safer if the prop had a cage like airboats use.
3. There's concern that no amount of ground school would be equel to having an on board instructor. Therefor, how about a two place with the back seat on the C. G.?
4. It would definitely not be capable of flight in any form. Not even short crow hops.
5. Configuration again. If it was a pusher, use a three tube empennage system.
6. From a cost standpoint electric is probably out as it would cost several times as much as using an industrial engine. That said electric would be cleaner and much quieter.
7. For solo "flight" a remote (RC components) kill system is necessary.
8. Folding or removable wings.
9. Use a motorcycle front fork & tire for the wheel.
10. Use wing tip wheels to reduce ground looping forces.
11. Could be wood as the historical ones are, tube and fabric (a bit fragile) or aluminum. All would teach skills needed to build a real aircraft.
12. The recruiting value for potential youth aviation candidates and adult EAA members would be tremendous.
13. How would a chapter get insurance coverage for such an activity? If licensed pilots were used in a two place version, would the Young Eagles program cover it? If the Penguin weighed less than 254 lbs qualifying as an ultralight fit into the Young Eagles program?

Any thoughts on this?

Vince Homer
EAA 292

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vince

I just discovered this thread and we have been discussing the possibility of doing a Penguin as a youth build. It would also be a great recruiting tool for the chapter.

Some of the possibilities, concerns, etc. are:

1. Configuration- All Penguins we have seen photos of are tractors. Perhaps a pusher would be safer.
2. It would be even safer if the prop had a cage like airboats use.
3. There's concern that no amount of ground school would be equel to having an on board instructor. Therefor, how about a two place with the back seat on the C. G.?
4. It would definitely not be capable of flight in any form. Not even short crow hops.
5. Configuration again. If it was a pusher, use a three tube empennage system.
6. From a cost standpoint electric is probably out as it would cost several times as much as using an industrial engine. That said electric would be cleaner and much quieter.
7. For solo "flight" a remote (RC components) kill system is necessary.
8. Folding or removable wings.
9. Use a motorcycle front fork & tire for the wheel.
10. Use wing tip wheels to reduce ground looping forces.
11. Could be wood as the historical ones are, tube and fabric (a bit fragile) or aluminum. All would teach skills needed to build a real aircraft.
12. The recruiting value for potential youth aviation candidates and adult EAA members would be tremendous.
13. How would a chapter get insurance coverage for such an activity? If licensed pilots were used in a two place version, would the Young Eagles program cover it? If the Penguin weighed less than 254 lbs qualifying as an ultralight fit into the Young Eagles program?

Any thoughts on this?

Vince Homer
EAA 292

---

Vince,

I started this list several months ago and have had little positive response. My proposal does not conform to many of your concerns/requirements but I would be interested in continuing discussions as I do believe there are several benefits to the proposal and it would satisfy your requirements. email cfig1467368@yahoo.com for contact info.

In these days of liability and lawsuits, I think an actual Penguin trainer would be a disaster waiting to happen. On the other hand, something like an adult-size toy plane on a gimbal with an electric motor and propeller up front that would give a little of the sensation of aerodynamic control could be a lot of fun. The old Link Trainers were actually quite complex electromechanical contraptions, but something more like the Paris rooftop one in my previous post would be quite doable.

Sad to say, but you're correct. It would be a lawyer's field day. That's why we are checking to see if such an activity could be done under the insurance umbrella of the Young Eagles program.

Vince Homer
vhhomer@hotmail.com

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vince

Sad to say, but you're correct. It would be a lawyer's field day. That's why we are checking to see if such an activity could be done under the insurance umbrella of the Young Eagles program.

Vince Homer
vhhomer@hotmail.com

---

Any reply from EAA staff?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jedi

Any reply from EAA staff?

---

It's been all quiet on the EAA Front.

We had tried to compare it to the chapter owning an ATV and would a participant in the Youth Aviation program be covered riding it off road. It's a stretch, but we had to start somewhere and we did propose a two place Penguin with an adult pilot on board.

Vince Homer

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vince

I just discovered this thread and we have been discussing the possibility of doing a Penguin as a youth build. It would also be a great recruiting tool for the chapter.

Some of the possibilities, concerns, etc. are:

1. Configuration- All Penguins we have seen photos of are tractors. Perhaps a pusher would be safer.
2. It would be even safer if the prop had a cage like airboats use.
3. There's concern that no amount of ground school would be equel to having an on board instructor. Therefor, how about a two place with the back seat on the C. G.?
4. It would definitely not be capable of flight in any form. Not even short crow hops.
5. Configuration again. If it was a pusher, use a three tube empennage system.
6. From a cost standpoint electric is probably out as it would cost several times as much as using an industrial engine. That said electric would be cleaner and much quieter.
7. For solo "flight" a remote (RC components) kill system is necessary.
8. Folding or removable wings.
9. Use a motorcycle front fork & tire for the wheel.
10. Use wing tip wheels to reduce ground looping forces.
11. Could be wood as the historical ones are, tube and fabric (a bit fragile) or aluminum. All would teach skills needed to build a real aircraft.
12. The recruiting value for potential youth aviation candidates and adult EAA members would be tremendous.
13. How would a chapter get insurance coverage for such an activity? If licensed pilots were used in a two place version, would the Young Eagles program cover it? If the Penguin weighed less than 254 lbs qualifying as an ultralight fit into the Young Eagles program?

Any thoughts on this?

Vince Homer
EAA 292

---

To Vince and Jedi - I am new to this Forum Thread, but believe I have something to offer. The American GEM (Ground Effect Machine) is a Kolb Firefly modified for youth aviation training. If you read Soaring magazine, there is a full article in the September 2019 issue about our program. We are trying to replicate the Eastern European and Russian programs where youth as young as NINE are actually airborne SOLO. Here is a link to the video. https://youtu.be/FNWdq5eGhcI

We elected to eliminate any motor / propeller / fan/ as that was one more safety factor issue. We have done initial hopping - adult pilot - with a golf cart tow vehicle, but this did require a hard surface and - as stated in the article - we knew we needed more wing to get the lift-off speed down into the 20'ish mph range.

Rather than answer the 13 questions above directly, I will comment on a few of them.
#4 - as we are staying in Ground Effect - we are not "flying" but we are aviating!
#6 - agreed - we really looked at electric hard - but the $$$ are way too much -
#7 - as the "power" is coming from a ground tow line and the instructor controls the power - once daylight shows under the wheels, chop the power (golf cart in a reverse tow system or powered loop as in Europe) and gravity works again!
#8 - VERY important! And our GEM does exactly that
#12 - agreed, but we have learned a LOT in the last year about today's adolescent generation - WAY too glued to the screens. CAP kids however are really great
#13 - EAA Young Eagles leadership thinks as long as we do Plane-on-a-Post and ground tow line operations, and as the American GEM is NOT AN AIRPLANE (FAA defined it as GEM) then probably EAA Chapter or Chapters could own one. - Also ultralight dealers thing this could be the legal trainer for UL pilots before first flights.

Go to our Facebook page https://www.facebook.com/Cupertino-A...5194713505090/ and see what we have been up to!!

We really need some specific help - so if interested I can send you much more detail.

I have read of Penguins in Germany pre war , but they had short wings so not enough lift to fly. Having full size wings but lacking power seems more dangerous. I dont think I ve ever flown a tailskid type, but just a tailwheell plane is not so hard. And you dont need to spend much time at 70 mph to learn tailwheel handling. Taxiing around a wide open ramp area at a fast taxi can teach a lot. Before I had a full type rating in my tailwheel plane, I used to taxi solo around APA airport a lot and got the feel of it. Just taxing on a narrow taxiway is too confining, I guess one could practice on a runway when not busy.