Doing my primary in a tailwheel?

S

smoore

Pre-takeoff checklist
Joined
Aug 9, 2007
Messages
136
Location
Lakewood, CO
Display Name
Display name:
Sean Moore
After reading this article (reprinted from Flight Training on the Bearhawkin' site) I'm considering seeking a tailwheel aircraft in which to do my primary training.

Am I nuts? Will I even find someone willing to do this?

I live in the suburbs of Denver, CO and the only tailwheel airplane I can find for rent at the local FBOs is a Citibra (under $100/hr wet!). Not exactly known as a primary trainer.

I know in the past quite a bit of training was done in tandem aircraft but there's a reason trainers are made side-by-side these days. Anyone have comments about the safety of such a venture?

Does anyone have any suggestions? Anyone know a CFI who owns an old 150/170/etc near Denver?
 
smoore said:
After reading this article (reprinted from Flight Training on the Bearhawkin' site) I'm considering seeking a tailwheel aircraft in which to do my primary training.

Am I nuts? Will I even find someone willing to do this?
Click to expand...
I'd talk to the people who have the Citabria for rent ;)

smoore said:
I live in the suburbs of Denver, CO and the only tailwheel airplane I can find for rent at the local FBOs is a Citibra (under $100/hr wet!). Not exactly known as a primary trainer.
Click to expand...
Seems like a good primary trainer to me...it's just a Champ with a little bigger engine and an electrical system, and the electrical system is almost a necessity for a Private Pilot checkride anymore.

smoore said:
I know in the past quite a bit of training was done in tandem aircraft but there's a reason trainers are made side-by-side these days. Anyone have comments about the safety of such a venture?
Click to expand...
Unless you're planning on cuddling with your instructor while you fly, there's no really compelling reason to learn to fly in a side-by-side airplane. All airplanes have blind spots and negative traits. A decent instructor knows about them and teaches you about them, so there really aren't any safety issues there.

Fly safe!

David
 
Last edited:
I think it's an excellent idea! There's a flight school in NW New Jersey that starts primary students out in an L-4. After they solo, they transition them to a 172. They basically come out of the box with a tailwheel endorsement and knowing what the rudder pedals are for!
 
smoore said:
I know in the past quite a bit of training was done in tandem aircraft but there's a reason trainers are made side-by-side these days. Anyone have comments about the safety of such a venture?
Click to expand...
In days of yore side-by-side seating made verbal communication between instructor and student much easier. With tandem seats it was hard to be heard over the din of the engine.

With modern intercoms and headsets, that's no longer an issue.
 
Alright, I see that perhaps my "fear" of tandem aircraft may be misplaced. I assumed that the instructor wouldn't have access to all of the controls or gauges from the back seat (I know that j-3 cubs are soloed from the back so thats where they usually put the student).

I'll be out east tomorrow... perhaps an after work trip to KFTG is in order!

edit: hmmm! found another citibra at Centennial I think. That's much closer.
 
Last edited:
Sean, I wish I had that option during my primary training. Unfortunately there was not a tail dragger available for primary training.

My thought is GO FOR IT!
 
There is a draw back to learning in a T/D, the first time you land a nose wheel aircraft, when the nose goes down after landing you will pull the yoke out by the roots.

BTDT really funny to watch.
 
You folks must remember there was a real good reason to put the wheel on the front, the students were wrecking aircraft faster than the flight schools could replace them.

It is a fun way to fly, but it really isn't the safest way to learn.
 
OK, some dissent. Good. (I appreciate all of the encouragement but want to hear the flip side)

Anyone else think it might not be the best idea in the world?

On a slight tangent, is it a bad idea to try to "hop around" aircraft type when doing primary? I feel in my bones the answer to this will be a resounding, "YES, BAD IDEA!"
 
smoore said:
OK, some dissent. Good. (I appreciate all of the encouragement but want to hear the flip side)

Anyone else think it might not be the best idea in the world?

On a slight tangent, is it a bad idea to try to "hop around" aircraft type when doing primary? I feel in my bones the answer to this will be a resounding, "YES, BAD IDEA!"
Click to expand...

Depends what you mean by "hop around". My primary training was mostly in a Warrior but I also had some time in an Archer. Same basics with 20 more ponies up front. On the other hand, I postponed transitioning to a high wing until I received my ticket.

Speaking for me, going from a Piper to a Cessna would have set me back several hours at that time. However, once you learn the skills to fly one, transitioning to the other only takes about an hour.

If you're talking about starting in a conventional gear and then going to a tricycle gear or vice versa, I would think the time frame would increase.

YMMV.
 
i think it would add a lot more time to transition from taildragger to tricycle than it would to go the other way.
 
tonycondon said:
i think it would add a lot more time to transition from taildragger to tricycle than it would to go the other way.
Click to expand...

Huh? 'splain that one to me.

I bought a Citabria as a primary trainer. It worked flawlessly. You may want to get chutes too, so you can do some acro while you're learning. My landings are much better than my peers that started out on tricycles. You will fly from the front seat, and solo from the front in the Citabria. The instructor will sit in back. He/she has access to all flight controls, except carb heat and elevator trim on some very early models. You will have the only access to the radio knobs, and of course, the panel switches and buttons, but most of the important stuff is on a panel above and to the left rear of your head.

I recommend it without reservation. Get renters insurance if you rent one.
 
we are on the same page doc. what i was saying was that if you flip between taildragger and tricycle during trainer that the switch from taildragger to tricycle would add less time to your training than if you were to switch from tricycle to taildragger. I cant, off hand, think of anything a taildragger will let you do that would be bad to do in a tricycle, but a tricycle will let you do lots of stuff that would be bad in a taildragger.
 
tonycondon said:
i think it would add a lot more time to transition from taildragger to tricycle than it would to go the other way.
Click to expand...

You think so? ;)

How many hours would it take to explain to a tailwheel pilot that, while taxiing a nosewheel plane one simply needs to depress the left rudder peddle to turn left instead of the twelve steps they are accustomed to?

Or that, when landing, one can simply rest one's feet on the floor in a comfortable position instead of actually managing the rudder?

Or when taking off, right pedal is really only needed for style, rather than survival?

:D
 
ah now i actually read what i said. obviously i meant it would take longer to go from trike to taildragger than vice versa.

richard you make some excellent points though :)
 
I don't see anything wrong with learning in a taildragger, but I do not like doing primary instruction in a tandem plane, whether it be conventional or tricycle gear. The points discussed above about the instructor's reduced access to various controls and instruments and inability to use nonverbal communication are, IMO, telling. Thus, I'd have no problem (assuming I regain some proficiency in taildraggers) doing a primary training program in side-by-side taildragger such as an Aeronca Chief, Piper Pacer, Cessna 120/140, or Luscombe 8, but I would not want to do it in a tandem tri-gear plane like the T-34 or Varga Kachina.
 
Well, not surprising, I find myself in direct disagreement with our good Captain. with an intercom, there was never any problem of comm between me and the CFI. Now, as far as the occasional non-verbal communication, I would get a short whack on the back of my head with a chart if I screwed up too badly.

For the front seat accessible controls only, we did about an hour of ground prep that consisted of 'this is the altimeter setting window, turn it thusly, this is the radio knob turn it this or that, this is the volume control, right is louder, this is the starter button, shout "clear" before you push it, this is the mag compass, if you turn left, the numbers go down and vice-versa, let's go fly'. Rocket science it is not.
 
smoore said:
I'll be out east tomorrow... perhaps an after work trip to KFTG is in order!

edit: hmmm! found another citibra at Centennial I think. That's much closer.
Click to expand...
I assume you are thinking of either Daedalus at KFTG or Aspen at KAPA. I would check to see what their solo policy is in Citabrias and how their instructors feel about the whole thing. They may have a higher hour requirement than in a nosewheel airplane or may not allow student solo at all. Some of these things are dictated by their insurance company or how much they feel they want to pay for insurance.
 
Ahh, the evening crew got home and is now discussing my question, I love it!

I'm interested in Cap'n Ron's viewpoint (he's quite the instructor from what I've read here) and would very much like him to expound on the subject. What are the problems with tandem training? Is it a big safety issue? I sure don't want to die learning how to aviate.

docmirror said:
I would get a short whack on the back of my head with a chart if I screwed up too badly.
Click to expand...

I respond very well to this type of training. I guess I'm like a dog.

Thanks to everyone for their input, please keep it coming. I'd be honored if this turned into a marathon thread that others could refer to when considering the same question.
 
Everskyward said:
I assume you are thinking of either Daedalus at KFTG or Aspen at KAPA. I would check to see what their solo policy is in Citabrias and how their instructors feel about the whole thing. They may have a higher hour requirement than in a nosewheel airplane or may not allow student solo at all. Some of these things are dictated by their insurance company or how much they feel they want to pay for insurance.
Click to expand...

Quite correct. I had already anticipated your concerns and would be blunt about my intentions when contacting the schools in question. Honestly, there may be better options for me if I must use a 152.
 
So one thing no one has addressed (I didn't really stress it) and I'm quite curious about:

Are there truly independent CFIs who own and operate their own airplanes in Denver? Do any of them do primary? Perhaps this would be my best shot of getting primary/solo/PPL check ride in a taildragger.

Are any of them any good or did they get run out of the industry for being mavericks?
 
docmirror said:
Well, not surprising, I find myself in direct disagreement with our good Captain. with an intercom, there was never any problem of comm between me and the CFI. Now, as far as the occasional non-verbal communication, I would get a short whack on the back of my head with a chart if I screwed up too badly.
Click to expand...
I was told I had to stop beating my students when they failed to perform to my standards -- some kind of 21st century political correctness or something.:dunno:

Seriously, while the military has for decades been successfully using tandem trainers for primary training, I strongly prefer side-by-side simply because it's more effective and more efficient. I would not rule it out if that's the plane the trainee owned, but I would not want to do it if there was a side-by-side alternative. Consider it a preference (albeit a strong one), not an imperative.
 
ive done a little tandem training. mostly in gliders. no intercom needed there! i like to be able to follow very closely on the controls without the student knowing that i am hovering. another thing, if you are teaching in a J3 or something like that with the student in back the instructor can put his hands up on the frame, showing the student that he is in complete control. likewise i have done something similar from the back seat of some gliders. The schweizer 2-22 in particular, i can rest my hands on the students shoulders, then they know when they have succesfully controlled a tricky situation on their own.
 
smoore said:
What are the problems with tandem training?
Click to expand...
As discussed above, there are times when it is more effective for the trainee and the instructor to be able to see and touch the same things, be they controls, instruments, maps, hands, feet, eyes, etc. For example, if we're on a cross-country, how can I be sure exactly which town on the map the trainee is looking at when s/he points to one on the ground (even if I can see from the back seat where s/he's pointing). It's a lot easier if I can see the trainee's finger on the map.

Also, I would note that I get a lot of feedback on what my trainee is doing right/wrong just by watching his/her eyes. Likewise, I can point out a lot of things in the cockpit by using my hands/fingers whereas in a tandem plane I have to create a verbal picture, and even then, I'm never 100% sure the trainee up front is looking at the same instrument marking I'm trying to describe.

Is it a big safety issue?
Click to expand...
That depends on what controls/instruments the instructor can reach/see from the back seat, and how much ground training (including things like blindfold cockpit checks and emergency procedures drills) is accomplished before the first flight. For example, it could get real exciting real fast if the trainee grabbed the mixture instead of the carb heat on pattern entry -- in a side-by-side, you can see the hand reaching for the wrong control, but in a tandem, you don't know about it until the mixture comes back and maybe the engine stops. As an example, the Navy ran its pilot trainees through six weeks of ground school and cockpit procedures training before first flight in the T-34, and there isn't much the instructor can't do from the back of one of them.

Another issue for me as an instructor is inability to see out front, especially with a new trainee who hasn't really learned how to see other planes. OTOH, if you're learning from the back seat of a Cub, the trainee can't see much of anything out front when flying dual, and that's not good, either.

I sure don't want to die learning how to aviate.
Click to expand...
Not likely if the instructor is competent, but you'll probably learn faster in a tandem plane.

I respond very well to this type of training. I guess I'm like a dog.
Click to expand...
We don't even use this in dog training any more -- our current dog training instructor is adamant about using praise for proper responses rather than punishment for improper ones -- the old flies, vinegar, and sugar business.
 
Ron Levy said:
As discussed above, there are times when it is more effective for the trainee and the instructor to be able to see and touch the same things, be they controls, instruments, maps, hands, feet, eyes, etc.
Click to expand...

This is exactly my concern. I'm currently showing my stepson the basics of driving a car and even in the church parking lot I can't IMAGINE being in the back seat doing it. The front right is scary enough without any (OK, very little) control.

We don't even use this in dog training any more -- our current dog training instructor is adamant about using praise for proper responses rather than punishment for improper ones -- the old flies, vinegar, and sugar business.
Click to expand...
Bah! Fire that instructor! Alpha dogs punish other dogs for the most minute of offenses. That's what makes them dominant. There's no reason to "spare the rod" when it comes to a creature as simply built as a dog.

Dog lovers, don't lambaste me. I've never caused injury to a dog that wasn't attacking and I never intend to. Sometimes you just gotta "kick some ass!" in the dog world and make them submit. I don't beat them, that's for sure. Just some swats on the nose or rear combined with my wonderfully overbearing personality does the trick. Ask any of my dogs, they'll tell ya! ... ("wag wag" they say)

How did I manage to tangent onto dogs? Silly smoore.
 
I learned to fly in a J-3 cub, flying from the back seat. It's the best thing that ever happened to me.

That airplane teaches you to fly!

We didn't have intercoms, and it just wasn't a big deal. The hundreds of thousands of P-51, DC-3, and B-17 pilots who learned in a J-3 had didn't miss the intercom either.

I did fly out of a grass strip. Grass is a lot more forgiving than pavement when it comes to tailwheel operations.

There is no better trainer than a J-3.
 
JimNtexas said:
I did fly out of a grass strip. Grass is a lot more forgiving than pavement when it comes to tailwheel operations.
Click to expand...

Would you care to elaborate on this, sir? I don't know of a grass strip to train from but am certainly curious as to why you know this.
 
<Sigh>, I'm a throwback. TW Solo in 14 hours(could have been 12, but we did a 2 hr xc to see his wife in LA), PPL in 42.5. I don't know how much quicker it would have been in a trike, maybe 2.5 hours? I still think I am a better pilot for having learned in the Citabria.

If you don't feel comfy, use a Cessna 150/172. I don't care, but the nay-sayers are all wrong, and I'm living proof. I will guarantee that you'll be able to land better if you learn in a TW plane.
 
I think I'm with ya, doc... I want to be an anachronistic throwback in this day of glass panels. I want to LEARN. I want to be that guy that can fly a durn Volksplane with no gauges, then hop into the latest 182 and find the checkout to be a "breeze".

I guess I want it all.
 
The current AF is replacing the T-37, which is side by side, with T-6 Texan II's, which are tandem seating. The Navy uses T-34C's with tandem seating, and they're also being replaced by the T-6 Texan II.

Seems to work for them.
 
Steve said:
The current AF is replacing the T-37, which is side by side, with T-6 Texan II's, which are tandem seating. The Navy uses T-34C's with tandem seating, and they're also being replaced by the T-6 Texan II. Seems to work for them.
Click to expand...
If I could have the trainee for six weeks of full-time, 8 hours per day, five days a week ground training including cockpit procedures trainers and a full motion-base simulator before the first flight, a tandem cockpit would work for me, too. Unfortunately, there aren't too many J-3 or Champ sims, and not too many civilian students are willing to spend six weeks on ground school prior to first flight, so I prefer a side-by-side trainer for primary training in that environment.
 
Good for you Sean. The masters of the stick and rudder are few and far between. When I hear about guys spending hours of ground and flight instruction on a display (G1000), I just can't see the point. The glass isn't going to fly the plane when the fecal matter hits the rotating air moving device. However, I will admit that the glass may/will help avoid said fecal matter being flung about. Good judgement, coupled with solid flying skills, should get you out of any situation, be it spin, IMC, spin-in-IMC, or engine out.

I didn't want to rent, so I just went and bought the darn thing. My CFI was a Naval Aviator(but he was still a cool guy), and at 6 hours we were out doing aileron rolls and hammerheads. Looking back, I envy myself for the primary training I received. It has served me well over many flights, and a number of situations that may have turned out badly without the flight training I had.

Since you're in CO, you may know of the Salida airport. It has a reputation as having strong x-winds in the afternoons. I fly in there for skiing in the winter, and have been congratulated on getting on the ground when the wind was iffy. In my book, it was annoying but not difficult. I've also flown with others that were trained, but never mastered or even used the slip to get down quick. When I was going into PHX a few months back, they had me come in over the top from the north and 'make short approach' when I was abeam downwind. The controller was rather complimentary as I slipped it all the way around, and was off the runway at the first exit. Yes, I slipped a Bonanza with flaps. It can be done safely if you know what you're doing. Citabria primary training taught me that, and so much more.

Best of luck.
 
Steve said:
The current AF is replacing the T-37, which is side by side, with T-6 Texan II's, which are tandem seating. The Navy uses T-34C's with tandem seating, and they're also being replaced by the T-6 Texan II.

Seems to work for them.
Click to expand...
But before they get to the tandem seat planes, they all learn in a 172 or katana.
 
The nonverbal communication issue, just like any other, has a negative side as well. As instructors, we also have "unintentional" nonverbal communication. We often find students doing things not because it's time to do them, but because when WE think it's time to do them, we shift our hand, fidget, whatever. Examiners will comment on this periodically...an applicant who can do things perfectly with the instructor on board can't figure out how to do them on their own.

I know a guy who got his instrument rating without ever timing an approach...both his instructor and the examiner were so proficient at nonverbal communication that they clearly communicated when it was time to execute the missed approach.

Personally, I've found that the times I feel nonverbal communication is "better" come about largely because of my lack of ability for clear verbal communication.

As far as access to various controls and indicators, the ones that are important can be emphasized..."OK...you changed fuel tanks. Lean over so I can see the fuel valve."

Familiarity with the aircraft can take care of the rest..."Your pitch attitude looks a little high...what's your airspeed/altitude?" The plus side to this, of course, is that the student realizes that it IS possible to fly the airplane with failures of these instruments.

The bottom line is that good instructors an teach you to fly in any airplane. They take the advantages of a particular airplane and emphasize them. They take the disadvantages of a particular airplane and compensate for them to increase safety and use them as a tool to teach YOU how to operate more safely.

The key is to find a good instructor, regardless of what you learn to fly in.

Fly safe!

David
 
tonycondon said:
we are on the same page doc. what i was saying was that if you flip between taildragger and tricycle during trainer that the switch from taildragger to tricycle would add less time to your training than if you were to switch from tricycle to taildragger. I cant, off hand, think of anything a taildragger will let you do that would be bad to do in a tricycle, but a tricycle will let you do lots of stuff that would be bad in a taildragger.
Click to expand...

LOL! So far (six hours of Champ dual on top of 200+ hrs in trikes) I'm inclined to agree.

My instructor (who's flown many different types) pointed out that students generally solo just as soon in taildraggers as in trikes, but trike flyers require about the same amount of time again to transition to taildraggers, whereas taildragger students have no problem learning to fly (land) trikes.

Again, I'm a noob, but I'd recommend starting in a tailwheel aircraft. I kinda wish I had started in the Champ!

To me, a full-stall landing in a taildragger is pretty much the same as in a trike- the only big difference is what happens as you roll out (and sometimes during the takeoff roll).
But it you've never flown anything else, you wouldn't notice anything odd about it, and if you switch to a trike some day, it will just seem very easy to handle.

And regarding instruments: as others have pointed out, it's no big deal. This Champ I've been flying does have an intercom, so if we need to talk it's easy enough. The first two flights, the CFI would occasionally ask me my airspeed or heading.

As for flying from the back, as you would solo in a Cub, it's not like you can't see the panel at all if nobody's sitting there, and of course if you took a passenger up they would sit in the back. And I have definitely noticed, flying something with just turn&slip, altimeter, ASI and wet compass that I am flying a lot more by looking outside, listening and feeling it out... eay because it's very slow, etc. but it definitely reinforces good basic habits.
 
Last edited:
tonycondon said:
I cant, off hand, think of anything a taildragger will let you do that would be bad to do in a tricycle, but a tricycle will let you do lots of stuff that would be bad in a taildragger.
Click to expand...
I have flown my Lance only about 30 hours since I got it (several hundred Lance hours before entering my taildragger phase), and every so often I find myself putting the airplane into a 3 point attitude rather than flaring for landing. It has led to some rather firm arrivals, so for now I fly it onto the runway like a twin.
 
i suppose that would be a problem Ken. most of the taildraggers ive landed still have a roundout and flare to 3 point that would be quite analagous to roundout and flare to full stall landing in trike. I have a feeling the Pitts lands a little different.
 
Tony touched on it, but I'll add some to the comparison with glider training. I learned to fly in gliders and for a number of years I actively instructed in gliders. All of that of course was in a tandem arrangement. To me, both as student and instructor, it worked fine.

By shadowing the student on the controls the instructor knows what the student is doing. True you can't see his eyes, but I insisted on seeing the student turn his head for scanning so I knew what he was doing in that regard too.

I'm looking forward to getting an airplane tailwheel endorsement, just haven't gotten around to it yet.
 
In any event, you're going to have to do at least three hours in a side-by-side, as there's no way for the instructor to be safety pilot from the back seat for the hood time you need (unless you plan to do it under IFR in actual instrument conditions).
 
why cant the student in the front fly under the hood? if the front seat has necessary instruments? am i forgetting something?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top