Learning to Fly a Tail Dragger!

[Baron 55]

Our school had a taildragger for a while [Super Decath'] and wouldn't allow any solo flight in it. Ever. Except for the owner [leaseback] who was also the CFI doing training in it. After a few pilots flew enough dual to get the endorsement, business dropped off and eventually it left the school. The reason given for the no-solo policy was insurance, and I don't recall whether it wasn't available or it was prohibitively expensive. It is true that our airport experiences frequent [almost regular] gusty and variable. However, I have heard many other CFIs say their schools have the same policy.

In any case, if the insurance thing doesn't change, then I doubt many places will offer conventional-geared planes for solo rental.

 

[Missa]

BTW, Jean are you teaching for Bary as well? Do you teach in the Citabra? My weekend is tightening up so I doubt I can come fly... : (


No I am working on my instrument right now, but I am working off my flight time by doing his billing and advertising and schedeuling... that stinks you can't come out...

I'll still be in town, I just don't know how to squeaze a little tailwheel time into: Watching the Red Bull Races, Getting a Haircut, Seeing Dad (he's not doign so hot), Dinner with Razor, Dave, Lesile, Grant, Mark, Todd, etc..., Breakfast with Terry, spending a little time with Ma (other then when I'm sleeping) Just too much to do and too little time... Specially with the driving from Downtown to Ann Arbor to North Oakland...

 

[tonycondon]

Scott - from the instructors standpoint, there is no difference between getting the endorsement and soloing. Issuing the endorsement is saying you are safe to solo the taildragger with passengers, even if you dont physically go out and fly on your own.

 

[nosehair]

I told them I was not interested in soling just getting the endorsement and if I was able to prove I could handle a tail dragger in less then 10 hours would I get the endorsement signed.

Maybe I'm not understanding you completely here, but, to get an endorsement means that the instructor is signing you off to solo.
Doesn't mean you have to solo, but you are not gonna get an endorsement without the actual ability to solo.

And,...while you may be standing on principle that you want an endorsement if you can prove you can handle the tailwheel with less tha 10 hours, it would be a rare, very rare, individual who can do that, so...it becomes a business necessity to be 'upfront' about it.

Instructors are plagued with individuals who want a 'quickie' sign-off, a flight review, a rental check-out, and such with 'minimum time'.

If you get a sign-off, even though you don't intend to solo, the sign-off has to be to that standard.

...aaand, I'll bet you will want to solo, once you get tha dance down...

 

[rottydaddy]

Scott - from the instructors standpoint, there is no difference between getting the endorsement and soloing. Issuing the endorsement is saying you are safe to solo the taildragger with passengers, even if you dont physically go out and fly on your own.

Right... but assuming (perhaps incorrectly) that if the insurance co. allows solo flight by the renter, the minimum time allowed for the policy would be 10 hrs...

In my case, it should be noted that I was still making slightly bouncy wheel landings- and got into my one ground loop so far- somewhere around the 10-hr mark.

There was a tailwheel spring problem, a crosswind, and I was landing into nasty sun glare during that lesson, but I decided then that I needed more dual. I was pretty confident in myself, but not in my excuses.

The instructor was not worried about my ability, though, and didn't do much other than observe and debrief during the next lesson, which had me signed off at a total of about 11.3 hrs dual.
Maybe I'm just incompetent, but it seemed like just enough time, and not all of it pattern work... doing a little traveling on those lessons was also very important. A tailwheel also usually means a lighter ship with less power, so all aspects of flight are affected to some degree.

 

[Ken Ibold]

Right... but assuming (perhaps incorrectly) that if the insurance co. allows solo flight by the renter, the minimum time allowed for the policy would be 10 hrs...

Virtually all of the commercial policies I've seen have a provision for solo rental that says "XX hours or at the discretion of the operator..."

I have had make/model minimums waived on several occasions when I showed the checkout instructor that I had the goods. Like most other things in life, checkout minumums are usually negotiable.

When I had my taildragger on leaseback, I did not allow solo rental except for a specific list of onlyl a handful of individuals, mostly FAA safety inspectors who needed/wanted to stay current in every category/class they were rated for, and mine was the only rental taildragger in the area. It would also get used for the occasional 709 ride...

 

[Everskyward]

The reason given for the no-solo policy was insurance, and I don't recall whether it wasn't available or it was prohibitively expensive.

This was how it was where I rented a Super-D last year. In their case the insurance was something like $2,000 more for solo and the owner didn't feel that he had enough customers who wanted to solo to make it worthwhile. I didn't care about getting a tailwheel endorsement because I am grandfathered from back in the day when they would let a <100-hour new private pilot solo a TW (Citabria) with about a 5-hour checkout.

 

[shippjean]

Our school had a taildragger for a while [Super Decath'] and wouldn't allow any solo flight in it. Ever. Except for the owner [leaseback] who was also the CFI doing training in it. After a few pilots flew enough dual to get the endorsement, business dropped off and eventually it left the school. The reason given for the no-solo policy was insurance, and I don't recall whether it wasn't available or it was prohibitively expensive. It is true that our airport experiences frequent [almost regular] gusty and variable. However, I have heard many other CFIs say their schools have the same policy.

In any case, if the insurance thing doesn't change, then I doubt many places will offer conventional-geared planes for solo rental.

The insurance is absolutly available, and its not all that expensive when the aircraft gets the proper utilization! In fact the airplane with an average of 40 hours per month or more can make money even with the renters insurance on it....we don't even have any hour requirements for a check out or for rental...when you are ready you are ready...you pay by the hour...no blocks or packages and the day you get signed off you can take your family and go flying...also we make sure that every student planning to fly the airplane as a returning renter gets at least 2 hours of direct crosswind practice of at least 20 knots or more, so you are well prepared when you get your endorsement!

 

[Dave Krall CFII]

Goodness, where did that come from?

A conventional gear airplane is a tool for a specialized toolbox, they still make them new today for very important reasons. If they are antiquated it is for the pavement - to - pavement types such as yourself.

Well goodness, it comes from my previous statement, a long and consistently lengthening history of experienced underwriters' odds derived from predictable losses by FBOs and individuals, plus hundreds of landings I've experienced in Super Cruisers & Cubs, C170-Bs & Arctic Terns in AK, ID and the PacNW (none of which I remember as being paved but you apparently think you know better) and more if that's not enough.

The TD pilot typically develops more rudder awareness because the ground handling weaknesses of the TD demand it. As a machine it is no better at getting in and out of rough strips than a nose dragger is, as shown by those few that do safely take nose wheels in & out of the same short, rough strips. The tail wheel planes are however, better able to withstand certain landing errors by those TD pilots, and are typically more easily repaired after sustaining those incidents.

That is the real underlying reason why they are and will continue to be favored by so many pilots that can not safely take a tricycle gear in & out of the so called "tail dragger strips".

Also, how in the ef! do you suppose you have any idea what type of pilot I am?

 

[alaskaflyer]

Get over yourself Dave.

The only thing that is antiquated about taildraggers is the ones that are truly antique. I agree that nosewheel airplanes are a superior design for many, BUT NOT ALL, applications.

I'm not going to get in a ****ing match here, no doubt you are a much better and more experienced pilot than I am (and I mean that without the least bit of sarcasm) but your statement was curious and technically incorrect. I will assume with your resume that you are aware that people land airplanes where there is no strip at all, and where (whether your nosewheel assembly is attached to the firewall or some stronger point) there is no way you will be able to put a nosewheel on the ground before coming to a full stop without a very real chance of damage one way or another. I simply disagree with your statement, as well as much of the above post, though we could each throw rocks at each other's opinions all day long and be no better for it.

BTW Put a nosewheel on skis and see if it is equally efficient as a taildragger on skis

Different strokes for different folks. You keep landing your tri-gear airplane on the open tundra, and I will keep landing my taildragger on the pavement

 

[MauleSkinner]

Check with Diana before you get that Texas Taildragger...

I second that...Not a good "training" airplane, IMO (although it'd probably be better with the 140 gear under it), and it's got some serious crosswind limitations.

I'd look for something else if you want to train 'em "right".

As to Jeannie's OP, I think the operations that have busy taildraggers either built or inherited a "culture" that taildraggers are cool, whatever the reason. There used to be one at FCM that kept two Citabrias heavily scheduled, and I think part of that had to do with the idea that only the "elite" instructors taught the taildraggers. Not everybody bought into the "elite" thing, but enough did to make the airplanes worthwhile.

On the other hand, that was when instructors got 1500-2000 hours of instruction given before moving on. It's probably a different situation when the vast majority of instructors are simply working to maximize the instrument and multi instruction in their 300 hours of dual given before going to a regional. That was probably a big part of it, too...the same instructors were around for quite a while, talking up the airplanes.

I think time is going to be the biggest factor for making it successful...if you can keep it on the line long enough, people are going to "discover" it when they're ready, and word will spread. There's a moderate-sized town near where I grew up that has had 2-3 instructors on staff as long as I can remember, and they have no real shortage of people who want to learn to fly. But the airports nearby with sporadic instructor coverage seem to be able to find no local interest in learning to fly. Build it, and they still may not come; but let it become a part of the normal landscape, and you may see some traffic.

Fly safe!

David (on whom marketing is almost completely wasted)

 

[nosehair]

Put a nosewheel on skis and see if it is equally efficient as a taildragger on skis

BTDT

 

[rampeyboy]

I would think with the popularity of the RV series, and so many of those being tail wheel, that tail wheel instructions would be in higher demand now than it was 20 yrs ago.
Personally, I am building a tail wheel Mustang II, and will be seeking the tail wheel endorsement as I get closer to being finished. I don't know anyone in my immediate vicinity (Columbia, SC) that offers tail wheel instruction. There are however lots of RV's so someone here must be doing it.

 

[rampeyboy]

I would think with the popularity of the RV series, and so many of those being tail wheel, that tw instructors would be in higher demand now than they were 20 yrs ago.

Personally, I am building a tail wheel Mustang II, and will be seeking the tw endorsement as I get closer to being finished. I don't know anyone in my immediate vicinity (Columbia, SC) that offers tw instruction. There are however lots of RV's so someone here must be doing it.

Anyone else near Columbia, SC? Any suggestions on where to go for the endorsement? Thanks in advance!

Boyce

 

[supercub185]

Up here the local fbo's with taildraggers stay busy. I think a big problem in some parts of the country, is pilots who have never flown one scare off new pilots. You do not hear the comments about evryone will eventually ground loop them and they are impossible to fly in crosswinds. My area has more taildraggers than nosewheels. Most people dont have the pre conceptions as other parts of the country. Little women fly cessna 185's in very stiff crosswinds. Beleive it or not some around here have flown them for 50 years without wrecking one. With proper training and common sense tailwheels can be as safe or safer in some instances than nose draggers. Good thing the first 40 years of flying people didnt have all these fears. Not much flying would have gone on. Taildraggers are very safe with a proficient pilot. I know several out of staters leave their taildraggers on floats. I think some are scared to fly on wheels. They are left in hangars all winter, till they return in spring to go to their camps. Get some good training and you will greatly enjoy the fun you have been missing. This is an extreme case, but i do not beleive a nosedragger could safely operate at all places a tailwheel could.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A4bYAGBZrME The better handling tailwheel planes are really very docile. With the center of gravity shifted back, you can really stomp on the brakes as well. One of the best stol mods that is hardly mentioned is good brakes. With the weight in the right place you can really brake some tailwheel planes.

 

[Ken Ibold]

With proper training and common sense tailwheels can be as safe or safer in some instances than nose draggers. Good thing the first 40 years of flying people didnt have all these fears. Not much flying would have gone on. Taildraggers are very safe with a proficient pilot.

I wholeheartedly agree. In fact, one thing the wheel in the back does is connect you better with the airplane. I don't know how else to describe it. The need to worry about the rudder on the ground translates throughout your flying, making turn coordination more automatic as well. The upshot is that in any kind of flying, your feet and hands react more naturally to the sight picture you have vs the sight picture you want.

The difference between taildraggers and nosewheels are due to more than the location of the 3rd wheel, of course. I dare say that a tailwheel 206 would be just has heavy in handling as the real version in the air. But the old designs that had tailwheels are different airplanes all around than the newer designs.

I would like to fly an RV-7 and an RV-7A back to back. Anyone done this?

 

[TangoWhiskey]

Bingo!! Your insight astounds me.

At my FBO, the Citabria is [oops, was] a more affordable flying option than the 172's, so "not being willing to pay for the experience" isn't a valid argument for a penny pinching aviator at this particular FBO.

http://www.marcairaviation.com/open.aspx?id=prices

It used to be that the Citabria was $85/hour, I see now it is the same as the 172's, don't know why it went up. The Decathlon, however, is much more.

As with Grant, it's the W&B issues for me. We can go do the tailwheel endorsement, but not spins (I'm mid 200's).

 

[Saville]

When I was a teenager, in the 70's, I was talking to a retired USAF colonel who lived across the street. He knew that I was airplane crazy and one day would fly. His advice:

Get your PPL in a taildragger. It's like learning to drive with manual transmission first...going from manual to automatic is easy. Not so the other way.

Well like a lot of teens I ignored his advice.....well sort of as my first flying lessons were with the AFROTC and I didn't have much say in the choice of a/c.

Then one day I, was flying a DE back to his base after a successful practical test and a Waco flew underneath us. Was a cool view. I told him that my next move was to get a taildragger endorsement up at Hampton, New Hampshire.

His comment was:

"Ah. So you are going to learn what the rudder is for."

Indeed I did. The checkout/endorsement at Hampton, in J-3's, was some of the most fun I had flying even though it was challenging and we rarely left the pattern. Part of it was the J-3, the open doors, the grass strip, the ratty but serviceable FBO shack/restaurant, the family atmosphere.

First we began on a grass strip, and then we flew over to a strip of asphalt perched on a little plateau and oriented such that you had this very astonishing updraft over the end of the runway which made hash of your nicely set up approach. I sweated out the landings. Part of the problem was that I was told that grass strips are more forgiving (they are) but that asphalt strips were a much bigger deal with TD's (they are bigger deals but not the bogey man I was led to believe).

The reason I wanted the TD endorsement was my next move: learning aerobatics in a Super Decathlon. Which is what I did. Got some aerobatic training and got signed off to solo the Decathlon and play around with loops, spins, rolls, hammerheads, cuban 8's etc.

I do that at Hanscom Field, Bedford, Ma. Recently my FBO in Beverly, Ma got a Citabria as a leaseback so I ran right over there for the one hour check ride, and got signed off on that. I was pretty proud when the CFI told the owner, "He clearly knows what he's doing."

Aside from the fact that I fly acro in a Super Decathlon and a Citabria and so therefore I need to be TD proficient, I cannot say getting TD training is vital. Nor can I say why I like flying TD's so much - but I really do.

I really do.

And I intend to work my way up the power food chain in TD's til I get to the Warbirds.

 

[Saville]

I wrote this up after I had just begun my TD training in a J-3 Cub:

Last Saturday I drove to Hampton New Hampshire, where you can get a tailwheel endorsement. There, I was introduced to my CFI and the J-3 Piper Cub.

I really couldn't stop smiling. I was in a different universe from the Beverly Ma. airport I normally do my flying in what with a tower, biz jets on the line, and a flight sim for IFR training etc.

Here, at Hampton Airport there was a 2000 foot dirt strip, a shack, with the paint peeling off, holding the training office and a cafe, and an interesting collection of aircraft.

To get to my Cub I walked across the runway ....that's what I was told to do - I asked if that was really ok.

Sure.

I was shown how to preflight the thing. different but not different - I mean never before had I had to thump flying wires for sound.

I'm shown the procedure for hand propping, and I get in and the CFI props the plane. Also a trifle different from turning the key.

The other thing you notice is the instrumentation: Whereas with the Warrior you have this vast wall of instruments on the panel - complete with dual radios and dual nav comms, with the J-3 you get.....

4

Airspeed, alt, tach, compass. Oh, well, you also have oil pressure and temp.

One solos from the rear seat. My particular plane was built for the Army in early WWII so the backseat had a great birdcage and the visibility was fantastic.

Mags? upper left ceiling

Carb heat? To the right of the front seater.

Want to turn on the carb heat?

Pull on the string tied to it.

Want to shut it off? loosen your shoulder harness and lean WAAAAAAAY forward... (I think I'm going to bring a backscratcher with me next time so I can keep my harness tight).

Elevator trim? To the left of the front seater..lean forward to adjust and DON'T let your shoulder hit the throttle when you crank it (like I did twice).

Taxiing: ahhh yes ....gentle S turns as you all know. But don't push too hard on the rudder or you pop the tailwheel out of detente and the pedals no longer turn the tailwheel. Took a few tries to figure that out.

Get to the end of the runway, runup, line up.

Hey! I can't see nuthin'!


"Ok take off," says the CFI.

Now this is the way god meant us to fly- stick in the right hand and throttle in the left. I gun it and off we go. Nothing to a takeoff but then - we had maybe 3 kts wind.

Some familiarization..turns first. Do a steep turn.


Not bad but this is no Warrior or C152.....RUDDER! this thing has REAL adverse yaw. Couple turns later I have that down. Some stalls - you can really feel the controls mush out on you.

And now the CFI directs me to this private strip where he takes newbies to get a lot of taxi practice. I land - not totally awful but not great.

Back and forth I taxi. The field has an upgrade and on the high end there is a 30-40 foot, very steep hill. Great sledding hill. Two old guys standing on top of the hill watching me and smiling. After I get the taxi thing down the CFI takes it and guns her up the hill. I wondered why........ The two old men smile and wave.

He spins it around and says, "Ok take off."

WHAT?

Down the hill?

Yeah.

But the wind sock puts the wind on our tail! Yeah but that's better than trying to take off on an upgrade with the hill in front of you. I thought about suggesting we start at the bottom of the hill but, instead.....


I gun it and tip the thing over the cliff, down the hill and up into the air. Seems we made it ok.

Now I thought I was centered on the runway during the t/o roll but the CFI told me to keep it centered - meaning I wasn't. So I'll have to look more closely on either side.

We head back to Hampton, get into the pattern, I pull the throttle back, pull on the carby heat string, start cranking that darned elev trim - hitting the throttle with my shoulder - bring it in to a real bouncer. But we make it in one piece.

I'll be working on those landings I guess ;^)

 

[rottydaddy]

Great writeup, Saville...
It's true about TDs: you learn what the rudder is for, and what wind correction is for, etc... but it's not stuff you can't learn in a nosewheel plane- for nosewheel flying, anyway. Maybe everybody "should" start in a TD, the simpler the better... but that's like saying everyone should start in a hang-glider... the benefits may not be there for every pilot.

You either love it or you're indifferent. I love it, as you do.

Be sure to try some falling-leafs in the J3... that will really wake up your feet!

 

[N3368K]

I'm a tailwheel type. I learned in a J-3 and have 90% of my time in tailwheels. All three of my planes are taildraggers. It just doesn't get much more fun than a tailwheel, in my opinion. Not only do you learn to use the rudder, in some, you learn to use brakes along with rudder. The Swift has a small rudder and brake on t/o is necessary in strong left crosswinds.

I still love my Swift.

JimR

 

[rstowell]

When I learned to fly a taildragger in 2000, after 12 years of nose dragging, I thought it was great...

Hi Ken!

CP Aviation does great in this regard -- they've got (2) Citabrias available for solo flight, plus (2) Decathlons (one solo; one dual only).

The Citabrias are ALWAYS flying (and always have) -- we've got to shoot those suckers down at the end of each day, even as 100LL is on the brink of $5/gallon here. Of course, it doesn't hurt that we're in Southern California with excellent flying weather year round, and 10 percent of the licensed pilots in the U.S. are in the area, and Santa Paula Airport is a rather unique place in its own right.

The biggest reason adding a taildragger often doesn't work at flight schools has to do with mindset -- many schools add it on the line and then treat it the same as a nose-dragger. The schools often fail to develop the proper expertise in the instructors for the tailwheel airplane, and they don't fully develop the tailwheel and/or spin training programs to complement the equipment.

Patience is a virtue with such things, too. And word of mouth advertising is critically important. That and working hard to carve out a local niche for the taildragger.

Rich
www.richstowell.com

 

[Dudley Henriques]

Hi Ken!

CP Aviation does great in this regard -- they've got (2) Citabrias available for solo flight, plus (2) Decathlons (one solo; one dual only).

The Citabrias are ALWAYS flying (and always have) -- we've got to shoot those suckers down at the end of each day, even as 100LL is on the brink of $5/gallon here. Of course, it doesn't hurt that we're in Southern California with excellent flying weather year round, and 10 percent of the licensed pilots in the U.S. are in the area, and Santa Paula Airport is a rather unique place in its own right.

The biggest reason adding a taildragger often doesn't work at flight schools has to do with mindset -- many schools add it on the line and then treat it the same as a nose-dragger. The schools often fail to develop the proper expertise in the instructors for the tailwheel airplane, and they don't fully develop the tailwheel and/or spin training programs to complement the equipment.

Patience is a virtue with such things, too. And word of mouth advertising is critically important. That and working hard to carve out a local niche for the taildragger.

Rich
www.richstowell.com

Hi Rich;
Glad to see you here.

As an instructor who specialized in tailwheel airplanes throughout my career I would second what Rich has said. Tailwheels are unique unto themselves and FBO's putting one on the line are well advised to market them as a totally seperate aspect of their overall training and rental activities.

Marketing in this manner dictates a tailwheel program from the ground up including instructors completely familiar with the differing training aspects
unique to the type.

Creative FBO's willing to design a program AROUND their newly acquired tailwheel airplane rather than simply adding it to their existing fleet in my opinion stand a very good chance of achieving success.

It goes without saying that if an FBO is considering adding a TW aircraft to the fleet, adding an aerobatic TW as the type chosen should be given serious consideration.

Upset and spin training, not to mention aerobatics generally, can open a whole new market for a creative FBO. Naturally this means adding highly specialized instructors to the workforce.

The bottom line is that adding a TW to an existing fleet can be an iffy proposition without adding the ingredients that make the addition of that aircraft a total package. If done correctly however, a TW airplane can add a whole new dimension to the FBO's business model.

 

[rottydaddy]

I'm a tailwheel type. I learned in a J-3 and have 90% of my time in tailwheels. All three of my planes are taildraggers. It just doesn't get much more fun than a tailwheel, in my opinion. Not only do you learn to use the rudder, in some, you learn to use brakes along with rudder. The Swift has a small rudder and brake on t/o is necessary in strong left crosswinds.

I still love my Swift.

JimR

A Swift... lucky you. I'd like to buy one, but it's a little out of my league.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

A Swift... lucky you. I'd like to buy one, but it's a little out of my league.

Me too! But now I need to find a new job first.

A nice 145hp Swift can be had for $40K or less... And I was surprised at how low the insurance requirements were. I think when I called I had 550TT, 40 retract, <10 tailwheel (and no endorsement), and 0 in type. They said I needed 10 hours of dual, to include the tailwheel endorsement and at least 25 full stop landings. Not too shabby.

 

[Flyfishingpilot]

I don't see it. I had 25 hours tailwheel when I bought my Citabria. $1200/year on a 92K hull value. And when it went into the commercial fleet coverage the premium was exactly what it was for the other fixed gear airplanes of similar hull value.

How many total hours do you have?

That's a big determining factor. I looked at getting a Supercub when I had about 100h total with 12h in taildraggers, 0 hours on type. .I called around and the best rate I got was $4300/year with 10h dual instruction minimum. Hull at $70K, 1M/accident, 100k/person.

 

[rottydaddy]

Me too! But now I need to find a new job first.

A nice 145hp Swift can be had for $40K or less... And I was surprised at how low the insurance requirements were. I think when I called I had 550TT, 40 retract, <10 tailwheel (and no endorsement), and 0 in type. They said I needed 10 hours of dual, to include the tailwheel endorsement and at least 25 full stop landings. Not too shabby.

It's a lot of airplane for the money, including the fixed costs... still a bigger purchase price and fuel bill than I'd like to deal with, but I'd rather have a $40K Swift than many other planes in the same price/operating cost range.
It really is the "poor man's P-51"...
Actually, it would be a great plane for me in a partnership... hmmm...