I get off shorter than that in the 170.
PS. sorry for being so rude and cutting in between your conversation like that,.
G.
On grass in a large circular field when you can always land straight into the wind.
Hi everyone, I am new to this site and still can't figure out how to start a new post,
can someone tell me how it's done?
Many thanks
George,
At the top of every page you will see a list. Click on Pilots of America Message Board.
Click on a topic, we will use hangar Talk. Look at the top of the page and it will say..New Thread...Click on this and start your topic.
2 Grand for a tail wheel endorsement.....WOW.
I would tell anyone wanting one of these to go get an ultralight, Tail wheel airplane, something like a legal eagle and teach yourself.
Then find an instructor and get the sign off for hardly nothing.
How I did it.
Tony
I'm guessing, but I bet the FBO's insurance requires 10 hrs to solo. Therefore, the $2000 figure.
FWIW, I used to rent a Citribra in Vermont. 5 hrs min for insurance. Could have been signed off in 2.
I'm guessing, but I bet the FBO's insurance requires 10 hrs to solo. Therefore, the $2000 figure.
FWIW, I used to rent a Citribra in Vermont. 5 hrs min for insurance. Could have been signed off in 2.
The whole tailwheel vs. tricycle gear thing is so fuggin' stupid! Look, it's easy-
If you have no interest in backwoods flying, or vintage airplanes and you successfully manage a 30-40 year, 5,000 hour flying career in nothing but trikes, who cares about all the tailwheel flying you never did? You flew, you had fun, you accomplished the mission.
- Figure out what kind of flying you want to do. Flying into gravel sand bars and mountain tops, or going Miami to Key West? Doing loops and hammer head stalls, or sight seeing with the kids?
- Buy which ever airplane does the mission you defined in step one the best.
- Become proficient in that airplane.
- Enjoy flying.
The reason this discussion goes on for so long is, tailwheel pilots won't give it a rest. They keep going on about how a tailwheel pilot is a better pilot. Don't think so? Just ask one, they'll tell you.
The tailwheel endorsement does not make you a better pilot. It makes you a more versatile pilot. You can fly more types of airplanes than the guy without the endorsement. That's it. That's all.
So, in that light, which is the better pilot?
Basic PPL + Tailwheel endorsement?
Basic PPL + Seaplane endorsement?
Basic PPL + Complex endorsement?
All are more versatile than the basic PP, but that's about it. Until someone can show me one single shred of statistical evidence that earning a tailwheel endorsement makes you less likely to be in an accident, I maintain the "better pilot" theory is BS. Tailwheel pilots screw up a lot, just like they did back in the good ol' days and just like the rest of us do now.
The only way you could claim getting a tailwheel endorsement might make you a better pilot is, you are engaged and learning something new about aviation and this is good, but this is true of all the endorsements and ratings. Conversely, there are those that will learn a new skill and still go out and screw up anyhow.
It's just an endorsement. Get it if you need it, want it, are just sick of doing yet another BFR, or skip it for life. Makes no difference.
The reason this discussion goes on for so long is, tailwheel pilots won't give it a rest. They keep going on about how a tailwheel pilot is a better pilot. Don't think so? Just ask one, they'll tell you.
Actually, this thread has been really quiet for the last week or more. Before that, much of the argument was from trike guys who felt that tailwheel flying was overrated or useless or stupid. The thread was started by one such person.
Sure, tailwheel guys often make noises about their flying, but pilots as a whole usually like it made known among the groundbound crowd that they're pilots, right?
Maybe tailwheel flying is one of those subjects that belong in the Spin Zone. It annoys too many people.
Dan
Actually, this thread has been really quiet for the last week or more. Before that, much of the argument was from trike guys who felt that tailwheel flying was overrated or useless or stupid. The thread was started by one such person.
Sure, tailwheel guys often make noises about their flying, but pilots as a whole usually like it made known among the groundbound crowd that they're pilots, right?
Maybe tailwheel flying is one of those subjects that belong in the Spin Zone. It annoys too many people.
Dan
The reason this discussion goes on for so long is, tailwheel pilots won't give it a rest. They keep going on about how a tailwheel pilot is a better pilot. Don't think so? Just ask one, they'll tell you.
The tailwheel endorsement does not make you a better pilot. It makes you a more versatile pilot. You can fly more types of airplanes than the guy without the endorsement. That's it. That's all.
What I was trying to establish was whether learning to fly a conventional gear airplane was indeed particularly valuable to those of us who are not planning on flying them after we got the endorsement. My conclusion is that it would not be. YMMV.
Exactly, it's an ego thing. Flying isn't difficult, tail wheel flying isn't difficult. Because each is an 'exclusive' activity though, people like to define themselves by it setting themselves apart from others.
iHenning posted this on another thread:
Unless you count a Schweitzer 2-33, I've never flown a taildragger, so my frame of reference is limited, but I'm not getting what the big deal is about flying (or maybe I should say landing) a taildragger. How is it supposed to make you a better pilot? We all have made good landings and not so good ones, and I could always tell you my good ones from my bad ones.
Picking out an airplane to fly to me is a little like finding a spouse. Choosing a taildragger seems much like finding a woman with a bad temper. If you are flying out of rough field conditions, I see where the extra prop clearance would be beneficial, but other than that I'm not seeing what the advantage would be to flying a taildragger. For those of us who fly off of paved runways, it seems like obsolete technology.
This guy gets it.Until you've done it you have no idea.
And again.The deal is that taildraggers force precision during the landing process that trikes do not. Trikes allow some pilots to be lazy with drift, alignment control, and descent rate at touchdown. It takes a lot more diligence on the part of a trike pilot (and trike instructor) to maintain these precision landing skills that a taildragger forces. But as mentioned, these same skills can (and should be) applied to trikes. The reality is a little different, though. Generally speaking, trike pilots do not maintain these skills as well as taildragger pilots do. Flying a taildragger wakes them up. It's a small added potential benefit, but it's not like flying a taildragger is going to totally transform your skills as a pilot, assuming you were basically competent before.
The tailwheel configuration exists for good reasons. It's not like they're still making tailwheel airplanes in an effort to force pilots to develop more skill. The tailwheel configuration is more rugged, lighter, mechanically simpler (easier to build), aerodynamically cleaner, cheaper, and allows more prop clearance than trike gear. These various factors play a part in why the majority of Experimentals are taildraggers. Same for aerobatic airplanes and bush planes.
Lots of people fly taildraggers for the pure satisfaction and increased challenge. The airplane doesn't do it for you like a trike partially does. Others fly taildraggers because all the cool airplanes have tailwheels.
It's sorta like a manual vs. automatic transmission. The automatic is easier. The manual takes skills that are not required in an automatic. Both accomplish the same thing. One is not necessarily a better driver. Some enjoy the technique involved with smoothly operating a manual. Same for taildraggers. To each their own. I happen to think they're more fun to fly than trikes. Again, most of the fun cool airplanes have a tailwheel.
The whole tailwheel vs. tricycle gear thing is so fuggin' stupid! Look, it's easy-
[.
So, in that light, which is the better pilot?
Basic PPL + Tailwheel endorsement?
Basic PPL + Seaplane endorsement?
Basic PPL + Complex endorsement?
The only way you could claim getting a tailwheel endorsement might make you a better pilot is, you are engaged and learning something new about aviation and this is good, but this is true of all the endorsements and ratings. Conversely, there are those that will learn a new skill and still go out and screw up anyhow.
It's just an endorsement. Get it if you need it, want it, are just sick of doing yet another BFR, or skip it for life. Makes no difference.
You answered your own question with the best answer so far. As long as you are continuously seeking out new skills and polishing the ones you've acquired, you are making yourself a better pilot.
There are some back country strips where inside half a mile final you're committed because abruptly rising terrain make a successful abort inside that unlikely.Okay but are you really gonna make that call a half mile out?
I'm guessing, but I bet the FBO's insurance requires 10 hrs to solo. Therefore, the $2000 figure.
FWIW, I used to rent a Citribra in Vermont. 5 hrs min for insurance. Could have been signed off in 2.
You might try slowing the airplane down a little before deploying the flaps.I'm not following the proficient argument.
It takes brute strength to pull 40 degrees with the manual handle with one arm. Many pilots have a hard time with it. Many posts about it on the 180/185 site prove this out.
One lady simply could not do it. We recommended the handle extender thing for her. When I'm old and give out, the 180 will have to go. You have to wrestle the airplane.
I'd have one and a Stinson 108 with a 180 lycoming conversion.
Why would you want to ruin a good aircraft?
Your wrong. I've seen one take off many times with a 180. Great performance. Used on many aircraft. The engine is proven. The franklin is old news and always in question as to who's building it, parts availability, etc. the fellow who I saw with the 180 conversion claimed it was a perfect fit. I'm going with him. He had owned it a long time.