Tailwheel time...does it matter what its in?

M

moparrob66

Pre-takeoff checklist
Joined
Mar 31, 2024
Messages
131
Display Name
Display name:
Moparrob
My son is working on his PPL in our 172B. He got a job loading cropdusters for the summer and now he wants to fly them. His boss said he needs 500 hours of tailwheel time (among other things, depending on how desperate they are at the time). Is it worth it to rent a Luscombe or Taylorcraft for 500 hours ($100/hr if we're lucky) or should he buy something?

Why couldnt he buy a 1-2 seat kit built tailwheel and log time in that? Would a prospective employer look down on that or is an N number good enough? Ive seen some comparatively sketchy tailwheel birds for cheap, some of which use premix...but theyre ASEL tail draggers with N numbers. Some of them remind me of aluminum lawn chairs though...
 
Not really… get him a Pietenpol. Cheap, easy, will get your tailwheel skills right up where they need to be!

And he can take the occasional friend… depending…

Uh… 500 x 100 comes in at 4 zeros, right? I’d definitely buy him something. You got LOTS of options. In addition to the Piet, there’s all the side by side post war candidates at 25k or less, and will largely keep its value. A good Piet is 10k.
 
I'm with Tools. Buy something. I know what a Piet is, but I'd be looking at a Cessna 120 or 140 because they have easily (?) supportable engines and relatively large numbers of aircraft on the register. Another (less expensive) option would be an Aeronca Chief, but you're probably in the hand-prop business at that point.
 
I would qualify my recommendation by mentioning I’d only get one with a continental… for reasons mentioned above!

Plus one on the Chief. Inexpensive and plentiful.

Although… as you may be able to tell by my pic, got a serious soft spot for 120s or 140s!
 
I agree…if you’re talking 500 hours, buy.

He’ll probably run into that chief pilot sometime who thinks taildraggers are a waste of time, but that’s not the right job anyway. ;)
 
I'd sell the 172B and replace it with a comparable tailwheel model, or even something less expensive that still suits your needs. The fear of tailwheels is unfounded IMHO, and I always wonder what the difference is between a fifty hour TW pilot and a 500 hour one actually is.

In reality, hours shouldn't matter. Number of landings would be a better metric. I guess one of the concerns relates to the first solo and next few flights in an aircraft that only has one seat, but that should also relate to landings, not logged time.
 
We just bought the 172B and I need it to get my instrument rating. The kid should as well. Wife likes the 172 and fabric planes are unnerving to her...for now. I need to finish my Zenith 801 and then I could probably part with the 172. Mission might change by then and we might be looking for a 210. If muh ship comes in, I'll be Helio shopping. For now, I love having my own bird!
 
moparrob66 said:
For now, I love having my own bird!
Click to expand...
Nothing better!

I have a friend who was told by the owner of a crop dustng business to get 500 hours of tailwheel. He bought a champ and did it. Then suddenly he also needed 100 hours of turbine time. Might as well have been 10,000. Tough business to crack into. I hope your son has more success.
 
Instead of listening to one person and putting all your faith in what he told your son, try to reach out and make connections in NAAA.

www.agaviation.org

Career - National Agricultural Aviation Association

Where are you in your Career? Whether you are looking for your first seat or are a veteran aerial applicator, NAAA can help you connect with the people and resources...
www.agaviation.org www.agaviation.org
 
dbahn said:
. The fear of tailwheels is unfounded IMHO, and I always wonder what the difference is between a fifty hour TW pilot and a 500 hour one actually is.
Click to expand...
A world of experience is what it is. 50 hours is what it takes to get decent in any particular TW airplane. And they are alll slightly different and handle quite a bit more differently as a function of cg than a nose wheel airplane.
 
Steamflyer said:
A world of experience is what it is. 50 hours is what it takes to get decent in any particular TW airplane. And they are alll slightly different and handle quite a bit more differently as a function of cg than a nose wheel airplane.
Click to expand...
I get that, but should that world of experience have the perceived value it has for operations like towing and and cropdusting?

Shouldn't the number of landings be the parameter used for proficiency? You can fly a TW aircraft for two hours and get one landing, or fly the same aircraft practicing landings and log a dozen or more in the same time. For those pilots like the OP I feel like a lot of money is wasted building "hours" instead of proficiency.

At our local glider operation I was one of three tow pilots sharing duties in an operation doing 1500 to 1800 tows per year. This year one tow pilot had to withdraw for medical reasons then I developed brain cancer (permanently grounded). There aren't that many 500 hour TW pilots hanging around to fill the void, which is devastating to an operation like ours.

I have a lot of sympathy for the OP having to meet a standard that doesn't make complete sense to me.
 
Talk to the employer to see what model aircraft they would consider acceptable.

I assume he has a turbine Air Tractor, and around here the owners want 1500 hours of spray time to get covered in the turbine. Spray time. That means either you find someone that will stick their neck out for you, or buy a Pawnee and find someone that will let you operate it under their license. Most ag pilots are born into it, aka their father sticks neck out for them to build time.
 
Yeah it definitely a tough business to get into. Time and effort will tell if its truly what he wants to do. It would be cool to have an economical backyard plane for our 600-800' runway.
 
My only fear of the tailwheel is the insurance cost. I'll get the training until I'm proficient and maybe buy one I can afford. If i can find the right balance of cheap and janky, yet airworthy, I guess I wont need hull coverage.
 
For the price of a well equipped 172 he could buy a 188. Get some farmer to let you practice flying water on his field. When the competition sees you they will brighten up and may even invite him to join his operation.

The other thing that will help him is to take a few agronomy courses, especially pest management. This will help him pass the states aerial applicator's license for that state. Each state requires one. And some will accept others.
 
Jim K said:
Nothing better!

I have a friend who was told by the owner of a crop dustng business to get 500 hours of tailwheel. He bought a champ and did it. Then suddenly he also needed 100 hours of turbine time. Might as well have been 10,000. Tough business to crack into. I hope your son has more success.
Click to expand...

I talked to a guy that’s been doing this for 20+ years. Said he bought a piston air tractor to get his start because nobody would hire him without experience then grew that into a three plane operation with turbine ATs.

He’s looking to retire so he’s sold off two of the three and his book’s still full.
 
TCABM said:
I talked to a guy that’s been doing this for 20+ years. Said he bought a piston air tractor to get his start because nobody would hire him without experience then grew that into a three plane operation with turbine ATs.

He’s looking to retire so he’s sold off two of the three and his book’s still full.
Click to expand...
Back in the ‘80s when I was around that business, it was mostly one-horse operations. At that time, Worker’s Comp in Minnesota for an employee ag Pilot was 125% of his pay.
 
Trading the 172 for a 188 would be rad, but the Mrs would get tired of riding in the hopper. A bit smelly too.
 
You can squeeze 3 in the cockpit for emergencies but it is a little uncomfortable from what I've heard.
 
dbahn said:
I get that, but should that world of experience have the perceived value it has for operations like towing and and cropdusting?

Shouldn't the number of landings be the parameter used for proficiency? You can fly a TW aircraft for two hours and get one landing, or fly the same aircraft practicing landings and log a dozen or more in the same time. For those pilots like the OP I feel like a lot of money is wasted building "hours" instead of proficiency.

At our local glider operation I was one of three tow pilots sharing duties in an operation doing 1500 to 1800 tows per year. This year one tow pilot had to withdraw for medical reasons then I developed brain cancer (permanently grounded). There aren't that many 500 hour TW pilots hanging around to fill the void, which is devastating to an operation like ours.

I have a lot of sympathy for the OP having to meet a standard that doesn't make complete sense to me.
Click to expand...
Most tailwheel aircraft are not used for long cross countries, so one tends to do many more landings per hour than in say a 182. Like anything in flying, proficiency not regulatory currency should be the goal, so it would behoove someone building TW time to get as many take-offs and landings as possible in their 100 or 500 hours. And if possible, fly a bunch of different TW aircraft, though that's harder than it once was.

Unfortunately very high minimums and/or costs have become the norm for "unusual" operations like floats or TW and to a large degree retracts and twins. Usually because some were not proficient and broke an airplane.

Probably some of the glider ops may have to switch to 182s at some point. The bird dogs are gone (too valuable now) and the Pawnees require high TW time.
 
The two glider operation near me both use Pawnees. The one that posts requirements for tow pilots needs 25 hours TW & 100 PIC.
 
MauleSkinner said:
Oddly enough, the Pawnee is one of the easier taildraggers to takeoff and land…at least, once you get used to the sight picture.
Click to expand...
None are actually that hard IFF the pilot was properly taught in the first place to be able to control the plane right until the wheels touch the runway right above or at stall speed. In a gusty crosswind using the rudder, regardless of where the third wheel happens to be bolted on. Watch students all day in Cherokees (should they even be allowed as trainers?) land halfway down a 4000' runway flat as a pancake. But their goal is heavy iron, not low, slow and confined, so it probably won't ever matter.
 
moparrob66 said:
My son is working on his PPL in our 172B. He got a job loading cropdusters for the summer and now he wants to fly them. His boss said he needs 500 hours of tailwheel time (among other things, depending on how desperate they are at the time). Is it worth it to rent a Luscombe or Taylorcraft for 500 hours ($100/hr if we're lucky) or should he buy something?

Why couldnt he buy a 1-2 seat kit built tailwheel and log time in that? Would a prospective employer look down on that or is an N number good enough? Ive seen some comparatively sketchy tailwheel birds for cheap, some of which use premix...but theyre ASEL tail draggers with N numbers. Some of them remind me of aluminum lawn chairs though...
Click to expand...
Is there a glider club near you? A lot of glider clubs have Piper Pawnee's or some other tailwheel plane to tow the gliders aloft and are desperate for tailwheel qualified tow pilots. If you can fly a SuperCub, you can fly a Pawnee.

What aircraft is the duster company flying?
 
moparrob66 said:
We just bought the 172B and I need it to get my instrument rating. The kid should as well. Wife likes the 172 and fabric planes are unnerving to her...for now. I need to finish my Zenith 801 and then I could probably part with the 172. Mission might change by then and we might be looking for a 210. If muh ship comes in, I'll be Helio shopping. For now, I love having my own bird!
Click to expand...
Replace it with an IFR 170 or 180. Solve all your problems.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top