How long for tailwheel endorsement?

[txflyer]

I'm a 200-hour, tri-gear PPL...

Now considering buying a tailwheel a/c, but still unsure about the amount of time a tailwheel endorsement REALLY takes. I see a flat rate course,(one for $675 in my home state) and others that get $189/hr for Champ and instruction. They say 8 hours minimum.

I need to budget this baby.

How long did it take you to get signed off?

Thanks!

Allison

The $675 coarse sounds cheap.

My story was I did about six hours (I'd have to look in my logs) with Joy Bowden down at South Houston to get the endorsement. All flying and no ground school to speak of.

I fast tracked it because I was in Houston for a week, so I went every day. Sometimes a morning and an afternoon session. I think I went there four or five days.. it was more than $675. :wink2:

 

[FastEddieB]

Here is that biplane I ferried, a real handful:

As an aside, I ended up with a horrible sunburn in a half-moon shape on my forehead!

As another aside, in 1,500 hours or so of tailwheel time, much of it instructing, I never got to see a fully developed ground loop. Lots of excitement, some minor damage from time to time and at least one "off-runway excursion", but never a full ground loop. For what its worth.

 

[LDJones]

I probably had 8-10 hours. I started to feel comfortable around 100. I have a few hundred tailwheel now and still treat crosswinds with much respect.

 

[RoscoeT]

Here is that biplane I ferried, a real handful.

Yes, if you had only flown Citabrias and Cubs. I would have hired someone with experience in sport bipes to ferry one.

As another aside, in 1,500 hours or so of tailwheel time, much of it instructing, I never got to see a fully developed ground loop. Lots of excitement, some minor damage from time to time and at least one "off-runway excursion", but never a full ground loop. For what its worth.

You can do a full ground loop without damaging an airplane, or you can damage the airplane without going all the way around. I don't see how it's relevant whether the airplane goes all the way around. Damage is damage. If you damaged a tailwheel airplane as a result of losing control, that would be considered a "ground loop".

 

[Silvaire]

You don't think it's a big deal because you've never flown one enough to get yourself in a jam such as landing in a stiff cross wind, etc. ignorance is bliss. Fly a taildragger for about three hundred hours in various conditions , you will change your tune.

I've been flying them for over 45 years and believe me you can't do that without meeting up with a few stiff crosswinds along the way .
I didn't get an endorsement because there was no such thing in 1969 and I don't think it's a big deal because it isn't.

 

[RoscoeT]

I've been flying them for over 45 years and believe me you can't do that without meeting up with a few stiff crosswinds along the way .
I didn't get an endorsement because there was no such thing in 1969 and I don't think it's a big deal because it isn't.

Dontcha love internet badasses?

 

[Jimmy cooper]

Yes and he also knows the unknown soldiers mother.

 

[coloradobluesky]

John Wayne...

 

[James331]

Yes, if you had only flown Citabrias and Cubs. I would have hired someone with experience in sport bipes to ferry one.



You can do a full ground loop without damaging an airplane, or you can damage the airplane without going all the way around. I don't see how it's relevant whether the airplane goes all the way around. Damage is damage. If you damaged a tailwheel airplane as a result of losing control, that would be considered a "ground loop".

Well if you only flew..... the XXX is WAY harder... Blah blah blah. BS!

It's fundamentals, I've thought folks from 0-CPL in taildraggers, I first soloed in a taildragger, I own a taildragger, well over 1500hrs in taildraggers. From AG planes to landing on river banks.

It's just SOLID fundamentals, none of that "dancing on the pedals" or "happy feet" crap, understanding that your approach speed is the same for a 2pt as a 3pt, understanding how to salvage a bounced 2pt, knowing when to 3pt and when to 2pt, knowing where you should be looking on landing and t/o etc.

If you get the fundamentals down properly, you should be just a comfortable doing a 2pt as a 3pt, land in a cross wind that exceeds the max demo, land off field, land with a tailwind, etc. that takes more then a 5hr course IMO.

Like I said, think of it as re-soloing.

 

[FastEddieB]

If you damaged a tailwheel airplane as a result of losing control, that would be considered a "ground loop".

Not really.

Late in grabbing the controls, getting "tippy" in a crosswind with a student and lightly scuffing a wingtip? Not a ground loop.

Let the student balloon a tad too high and come down hard on the tailwheel, forcing it into the bottom of the rudder and bending it slightly? Not a ground loop.

Letting a student bounce one too many times on a wheel landing and catching the prop tips? Not a ground loop.

I guess that makes is sound like I was a hazard teaching. But that was over many years and about 1,000 hours of dual given in tailwheels. It's a fine line between letting a student see the consequences of his or her actions or inactions and waiting a split second too long.

Which I guess I did a handful of times!

 

[FastEddieB]

As an aside, when I was first asked to ferry a crop-duster, based on my tailwheel credential, I said sure, when can I get checked out?

But with a single seat I was handed a manual to read.

Managed somehow!

 

[RoscoeT]

Well if you only flew..... the XXX is WAY harder... Blah blah blah. BS!

Nobody said harder. Nothing is hard once you've adjusted. But if you think some airplanes don't take some adjusting too, then you're wrong. For example, if you had experience with an S1 Pitts, you would know it would be foolish to hire someone to ferry it who had flown nothing but Citabrias...forget that the insurance company would have something to say about that.

 

[DesertNomad]

Mine was at about 140 total hours and 5 in TW… using a Decathlon on 9000' of concrete… and about 35-40 landings.

We don't have any grass to land on here. Come to think of it, we don't have any grass period.

 

[James331]

Ahh the pits, everyone likes to think they're Buzz Aldrin if they ever sat in a Pitts, fun airplanes but not really as much of a credential as folks like to make them out to be as long as you understand the differences.

I agree it's just adjusting, but given the proper foundation (which takes more than 5 or 6hrs) you might make some low passes, maybe a go around or two but you'd be fine to go from the 7ECA to a Pitts as far as general flying goes.

 

[ClimbnSink]

The TW ego complex crowd is getting stirred up again. 5 hours and you're good to go.

 

[RoscoeT]

Ahh the pits, everyone likes to think they're Buzz Aldrin if they ever sat in a Pitts, fun airplanes but not really as much of a credential as folks like to make them out to be as long as you understand the differences.

I agree it's just adjusting, but given the proper foundation (which takes more than 5 or 6hrs) you might make some low passes, maybe a go around or two but you'd be fine to go from the 7ECA to a Pitts as far as general flying goes.

Maybe, maybe not. Plenty of Pitts have been torn up by pilots who thought they were just another taildragger- which they are (well mostly) after you've adjusted. No reason to forego training. Curious what your experience is watching folks jump straight into an S1 Pitts having never flown anything but Citabrias?? If you actually had significant experience along these lines, then you would have seen some bent airplanes along the way.

 

[James331]

I've seen folks transition into single seat turbine taildraggers, I haven't scratched one yet, haven't heard of one of my students scratching one yet (most working pilots now).

I've also seen folks smack wing tips and bend props on tcarts and J3s on runways big enough to land width wise on, with zero wind.

It's just fundamentals.

Little stuff too, like when the wheels touch on a 2pt, "push the stick forward" or "keep her flying level" same movement, just with different purpose.

I could go on, but there are little differences which normally result in the same outcome when all things are equal, it's when chit gets real that the little differences keep you from having to spend money in the shop and/or ER.

 

[txflyer]

It takes a while to learn you can do a wheelie in a TD and stand on the brakes pretty hard and you won't nose over. The aerodynamics of the horizontal stabilizer won't allow it. A tail low wheelie done right like it's almost a three point, and almost at stall, and you stand on the brakes and work the yoke just right, and you can stop extremely short. I know of what I speak because I've seen it done on utube.

The best landings always begin with a good stabilized approach imo. If you want to talk good landings, you really should be talking about the approach more than landing. Every crappy approach that I can remember resulted in a craptastic landing.