how long did it take you to get your tw rating?

I learned tailwheel in a Cub, then bought a Citabria, which I went on to teach in.

I then had an opportunity to ferry cropdusters Cessna AgTrucks and AgHusky's. Single seat so no checkout possible.

On the one hand, I survived - supporting those who allege they're all basically the same.

On the other hand, I recall a few pucker moments - initially from increased left-turning-tendencies on takeoff - and have come to accept each taildragger has its own personalty and gotchas, supporting that point of view.

The truth is somewhere in between, and probably not worth arguing about.
 
My own viewpoint is a little different than some of the above; taildraggers, like nose wheel airplanes, can be radically different. I currently fly three different taildraggers. The Citabria I call "almost a taildragger" with a smile. The Waco YMF (Classic Waco) is not much harder to fly. The Waco ATO (Taperwing) is a totally different animal. With about 500 hours in the Citabria including about 50 from the back seat, the YMF was about an hour and a half checkout. The ATO took 10 after 600+ in the Citabria and 200+ in the YMF, and I was not as comfortable flying it home 600 miles as I was flying the YMF 2,200 miles home. Admittedly the ATO checkout was over a month or more with commercial travel back and forth so not as efficient as it could have been. The ATO can probably handle 10 or so direct crosswind, the other two 20+. The ATO and the YMF sort of look alike and have the same engine. Different prop, different airfoil, different wing planform, different empennage, with a much smaller rudder on the ATO: totally different handling.

Ernie
 
I finally got my TW signed off last year by a friend of mine in his beautiful 180. I had probably 5 hours of TW instruction over the previous few months and we both felt pretty good with it. This week I went down to Warbird Adventures in Kissimmee, FL to go through the 10 hour T-6 course so I can start flying another friend's T-6. "Heavy" tailwheel always meant big bombers and DC-3's to me but the T-6 is definitely it's own animal. I thoroughly enjoyed the flying and it is exciting to have a new challenge; if you get the opportunity to get checked out in a Texan I highly recommend it!
 
I had a SNJ for 8 years and really enjoyed the airplane. I wish I could afford another one but prices and gas has gone up so much I can't swing it right now. If you're consistent in the T-6 the fighters are easy to fly. But beware it is always waiting for you to relax and it will bite hard as I'm sure the WA guys showed you. Here I am in 1986 before we finished all the markings. Donsnj.jpg
 
It varies by person even with the same instructor and airplane, and weather conditions. I signed off an airline guy that also does multi engine instruction about two weeks ago in just under 5 hours. He was pretty good with the rudder work because of his multi-engine instructing. The guy I signed off this week was closer to 7, but he did pretty well for a low time commercial guy.

14520395_10210845087429444_470512784634229690_n.jpg
 
Im at 3 hours working on my TW in a J3 ....my instructor says I'll be done in 5 ....I think he's maybe missed a 0 off the 5.....lol
 
Lets see, I earned my private in 1984 and still don't have my TW. I did did send an email to the chief instructor to start on the TW in the Dacathalon so may if I get it this year it has taken 32 years?
 
James331 said:
I just haven't found any student to be ready for me to ink my name and numbers in their logs at 3hrs.

3 point, power on and off
2 point power on and off
Cross wind, at least to max demo
Go arounds
Tailwind landings
Stalls and falling leaf stalls, couple spins if approved
Hard and soft field ops.

I just don't know how you get that done in 3hrs.
Click to expand...

Well no wonder... while that may make you feel all warm and fuzzy inside, it's far beyond what's required for a simple tailwheel sign off.

Sec. 61.31

(i) Additional training required for operating tailwheel airplanes.


  • (1) Except as provided in paragraph (i)(2) of this section, no person may act as pilot in command of a tailwheel airplane unless that person has received and logged flight training from an authorized instructor in a tailwheel airplane and received an endorsement in the person's logbook from an authorized instructor who found the person proficient in the operation of a tailwheel airplane. The flight training must include at least the following maneuvers and procedures:


    • (i) Normal and crosswind takeoffs and landings;

      (ii) Wheel landings (unless the manufacturer has recommended against such landings); and

      (iii) Go-around procedures.
PJ
 
SToL said:
Well no wonder... while that may make you feel all warm and fuzzy inside, it's far beyond what's required for a simple tailwheel sign off.

Sec. 61.31

(i) Additional training required for operating tailwheel airplanes.


  • (1) Except as provided in paragraph (i)(2) of this section, no person may act as pilot in command of a tailwheel airplane unless that person has received and logged flight training from an authorized instructor in a tailwheel airplane and received an endorsement in the person's logbook from an authorized instructor who found the person proficient in the operation of a tailwheel airplane. The flight training must include at least the following maneuvers and procedures:


    • (i) Normal and crosswind takeoffs and landings;

      (ii) Wheel landings (unless the manufacturer has recommended against such landings); and

      (iii) Go-around procedures.
PJ
Click to expand...
Another TW CFI here -- I agree with James331, and I read that FAR as me signing off that they're proficient in 3pt, wheel, and crosswind landings (and normal & crosswind takeoffs). There's a lot of opinions about what "proficient" means, and I have my own. Takes most tricycle folks about what it took them to solo to demonstrate proficiency to the standards I use (again, about what James said). Biggest challenges I see are folks that already have their endorsements, but haven't flown TW for a while.
 
I wonder how many of the instructors giving an endorsement in 5 hours or less are willing to rent their airplane solo right after they sign them off. Don
 
yakdriver said:
I had a SNJ for 8 years and really enjoyed the airplane. I wish I could afford another one but prices and gas has gone up so much I can't swing it right now. If you're consistent in the T-6 the fighters are easy to fly. But beware it is always waiting for you to relax and it will bite hard as I'm sure the WA guys showed you. Here I am in 1986 before we finished all the markings. DonView attachment 48275
Click to expand...
Very true. T-6 is similar to the Twin Beech in that regard. The weight of the airplane makes it nice and stable, but all it takes is for the pilot to relax, get a little overconfident and let a swerve develop and it will humble you very quickly.
 
yakdriver said:
I wonder how many of the instructors giving an endorsement in 5 hours or less are willing to rent their airplane solo right after they sign them off. Don
Click to expand...

Exactly.

Where I was giving the majority of tailwheel training, the students were coming in 0 total time and leaving CPLs, minus the complex time required for their CPL, all other training and time building was done in tailwheel, so their tailwheel solo was their initial solo and right after they were flying the plane solo on the PPL X/Cs etc, after their ticket they were building all their hours to their CPL in the our tailwheel planes.

So my endorsement was not only about them meeting the FARs, it was about protecting my cert, I trained them to the point I didn't need to worry about them in "the wild", by the time they left the school they had flown a number of tailwheels, including loaded (h2o) AG planes, one of which their first flight ever was solo (one seat). Not one of my many guys has any tailwheel issues or close calls, so I stick to my methods.

It's easy to do the FAR mins, ink a log book and send the guy along, never soloing him and probably never seeing him again, to me this isn't a tailwheel endorsement, it's pencil whipping a log after a few tailwheel "rides". If you ain't sending him out alone in the plane after, your endorsement isn't worth the ink it was signed in IM(not so)HO.
 
James331 said:
Exactly.

Where I was giving the majority of tailwheel training, the students were coming in 0 total time and leaving CPLs, minus the complex time required for their CPL, all other training and time building was done in tailwheel, so their tailwheel solo was their initial solo and right after they were flying the plane solo on the PPL X/Cs etc, after their ticket they were building all their hours to their CPL in the our tailwheel planes.

So my endorsement was not only about them meeting the FARs, it was about protecting my cert, I trained them to the point I didn't need to worry about them in "the wild", by the time they left the school they had flown a number of tailwheels, including loaded (h2o) AG planes, one of which their first flight ever was solo (one seat). Not one of my many guys has any tailwheel issues or close calls, so I stick to my methods.

It's easy to do the FAR mins, ink a log book and send the guy along, never soloing him and probably never seeing him again, to me this isn't a tailwheel endorsement, it's pencil whipping a log after a few tailwheel "rides". If you ain't sending him out alone in the plane after, your endorsement isn't worth the ink it was signed in IM(not so)HO.
Click to expand...
Totally. Proficiency is the standard. If you REALLY think you could let someone solo at three hours, it's legal, but probably not terribly smart, but I had one student that I think was safe - he was a helicopter pilot and even with a crosswind I felt safe with the way he was keeping the plane straight. Generally it takes more than that.

Here's a solo I sent off in a J-3 Cub. This was a 0-solo student.
 
FastEddieB said:
That part surprises me.

I'd think it was more like riding a bike.
Click to expand...

Getting current again after a few years was like riding a bike for me. I got my initial endorsement and flew a few hours solo in a Citabria, amassing about 12 hours total. About three years after my initial endorsement I got an opportunity to fly some Super Cubs around a bit and decided to take an hour of dual with a friend of mine to knock the rust off. At the end of that I was proficient enough that I went solo in the Cubs with no problem (my personal minimums were fairly high at the beginning though, just to be safe).
 
FastEddieB said:
That part surprises me.

I'd think it was more like riding a bike.
Click to expand...

I should've been a bit more clear -- I see a lot of folks that got their TW endorsement some years back, but never soloed, and never accumulated any time after the endorsement -- they got their endorsement from outfits that don't let them solo. These pilots never cemented the TW techniques, and have gaps in skills (doesn't really matter if that's from a shortfall in the initial endorsement, or if that set of skill just atrophied.) They come to me looking to build TW time solo.

Before I solo them, we've got to find and fill in those gaps. For folks with this background (no solo, no TW time for a while) It's about the same effort and time as a straight TW endorsement.

The pilots that have significant TW time, but no recent time, tend to do much, much better.

--Tony
 
I had 5.4 hours at endorsement time. i had a couple hundred hours of tw time spread out over a decade or so when I started flying ag. Now tailwheel is about all I log in fixed wing.
 
There were no endorsements required when I started to fly tailwheel in the 1980s... I learned to fly in a nosedragger C-150, then bought a Taylorcraft. An hour or so in the pattern with the seller (not a CFI) and I flew the T-Craft home.

But Avemco required 5 hours dual instruction in the plane before they would insure me, so I did that.
 
Learned in tail wheel and soloed J-3 in 8 hrs in 1954. As student flew J-3, Champ and Luscombe. Private check ride in J-3. Probably had 175 hrs in TW before ever flying a trike. Have time in PA-12, C-170, 180 and 190, PT-19 and T-Craft tandem (L3?). Two years ago I sold Mooney M20C and went Light Sport in an experimental Rans S6S tail dragger. 62 years as an general aviation addict and it's been a great trip!
 
I'm grandfathered, thanks to a solo in a Champ at 8 hours a long, long time ago.

But if I was to do it again I would surely want some time with a CFI.
 
I was grandfathered but got the endorsement anyway when getting RV transition training. 1 day, 4.5 hours or thereabouts, and one seat cushion. Also got it left hand stick/right throttle which messed with my head until I just gave up and started flying instead of thinking about it. Didn't have to worry about renting, I flew my own after that.

Nauga,
who has come a long way
 
Last edited:
Why would any one get a conventional endorsement unless they are going to own one and stay very proficient in it? other wise your simply a smoking hole
 
Tom-D said:
Why would any one get a conventional endorsement unless they are going to own one and stay very proficient in it? other wise your simply a smoking hole
Click to expand...

That's a rather dramatic overstatement

Not that hard to fly em, presuming you learn the fundamentals properly.

I used to go from flying trikes for work all day, go a weeks without flying mine, saddle up and I was good to go.

Haven't had my 185 on its land only gear, if I swapped them on I'd take her for a rip no prob.

Tailwheel is not hard to fly.
 
Tom-D said:
Why would any one get a conventional endorsement unless they are going to own one and stay very proficient in it? other wise your simply a smoking hole
Click to expand...

That's probably a bit over the top Tom, but I do agree with the spirit of what I think you're trying to say. I don't see why people are driven to get a tailwheel endorsement (or any of the other endorsements that are available for that matter) unless they have bought an airplane requiring that specific endorsement to fly, or they have one available to them and they want to use the plane on a regular basis. Also, spending a few hours getting a tailwheel endorsement then walking away from it for a while and thinking you'll get back into it without some coaching coaching from a tailwheel instructor (or a good tailwheel pilot) might be a bit risky, depending on how good the initial training was. But after you truly get tailwheel proficient I wouldn't lose a whole lot of sleep over going a few months without flying one, then getting back into it.
 
^^^ Sometimes pilots like to learn something new just for the sake of learning something new. For example I'd love to go get my seaplane rating, just for the hell of it. I know I'd likely never be PIC (or even fly) a seaplane ever again, but that's not why I'm doing it.

Same thing with my tailwheel, although there's probably a higher likelihood I'd continue to use it. And because it's training for the sake of training, I don't care how long it takes. In fact, I'd much rather head up to Alaska and have James331 kick my ass for however long he feels he needs to, than just take 3 hours of dual in a Citabria and call it a day.
 
James331 said:
That's a rather dramatic overstatement

Not that hard to fly em, presuming you learn the fundamentals properly.

I used to go from flying trikes for work all day, go a weeks without flying mine, saddle up and I was good to go.

Haven't had my 185 on its land only gear, if I swapped them on I'd take her for a rip no prob.

Tailwheel is not hard to fly.
Click to expand...
WE all know your the worlds best pilot.
 
Why I say what I did. I've seen three 170s go to the salvage yards in the past two years and rebuilt two engines from tip ups in the same period.

When you are not going to stay at the top of your game, take pity on the equipment.
 

Attachments

  • 20160629_122711.jpg
    20160629_122711.jpg
    149.5 KB · Views: 22
  • 20160629_122631.jpg
    20160629_122631.jpg
    110.5 KB · Views: 22
  • 20160629_122637.jpg
    20160629_122637.jpg
    122.3 KB · Views: 23
Last edited:
Tom-D said:
WE all know your the worlds best pilot.
Click to expand...

So, mearly not wrecking a tailwheel plane makes me the "best pilot", that's a sad day for aviation.
 
James331 said:
If in your mind, mearly not wrecking a tailwheel plane, makes me the best pilot, that's a sad day for aviation.
Click to expand...

no your statements say a lot about you.
 
Tom-D said:
no your statements say a lot about you.
Click to expand...

That I believe most folks can be very safe and have a fun time in tailwheel airplanes if trained properly with a solid foundation?

That I believe with said foundation a tailwheel is no more safe or dangerous when compared to a trainer trike


That I think (as a few others do) that your "smoking hole" comment was ridiculous


Guess I do make a statement sometimes ;)
 
James331 said:
That I believe most folks can be very safe and have a fun time in tailwheel airplanes if trained properly with a solid foundation?

That I believe with said foundation a tailwheel is no more safe or dangerous when compared to a trainer trike


That I think (as a few others do) that your "smoking hole" comment was ridiculous


Guess I do make a statement sometimes ;)
Click to expand...
And your statement has a lot of really big " IFs" in it. Like I've said getting a endorsement and not staying proficient is asking for trouble.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top