Typical time for tailwheel rating

There's a place real nearby where I live that charges $175/hr for the aircraft - a Super Cub.
 
I remember when the Ft Sill, OK Flying Club Super Cub was about $20/hour...and rarely flew.
 
I said this on another thread too, I just don't get all the static over PA18s costing more then lower power 2 place tail draggers.

You're talking about a 150-180hp expensive bush plane vs a 7ECA or C120, 8A, etc, it's apples to oranges, yeah a supercub costs more all around.

That said unless you're doing some specialized training, or need PA18 time for insurance the lower power, cheaper aircraft are the way to go.
 
I did my endorsement in 4.6 in an A1-B Husky on big tires. I miss that thing.

I've wondered about what airplane to use myself. I've thought about using my luscombe, but it can be a handful because of the responsiveness, and I'm wondering if the clunky maule tail wheel contributes to that. . I've got a J-3 coming available to me, and I'm thinking it may be a better option, I can let them screw up a little more before taking over.
 
James331 said:
I said this on another thread too, I just don't get all the static over PA18s costing more then lower power 2 place tail draggers.



You're talking about a 150-180hp expensive bush plane vs a 7ECA or C120, 8A, etc, it's apples to oranges, yeah a supercub costs more all around.



That said unless you're doing some specialized training, or need PA18 time for insurance the lower power, cheaper aircraft are the way to go.
Click to expand...

It's not a big deal, I was just reporting on costs. Of course I know that the insurance cost on an $80K hull value is going to be a lot more. I just don't think that Super Cub is necessarily turn out a significantly better newbie tailwheel pilot than I can with the 120. The biggest advantage would be if you know you are about to buy a Super Cub and want the hours to count towards your new aircraft's insurance requirements.
 
I think a super cub is easier than the springy-ness of a 120 on the ground, and you've got enough power to get yourself out of trouble.
 
dlsmith said:
I think a super cub is easier than the springy-ness of a 120 on the ground, and you've got enough power to get yourself out of trouble.
Click to expand...

For sure, like a Husky. OTOH in a lower powered decent airplane the student will learn a higher degree of precision at minimal extra time with decent instruction from a competent CFI. That was something I worried about when I gave the endorsement in the Husky. I told one student that as well as he was landing the plane there was no reason for me to not sign him off, but that the endorsement technically was giving him the privilege of going and flying any ASEL (or in his case multi) tailwheel and that there were a lot of basic aircraft out there like the J-3 Cub I was also teaching in at the time that I did not believe he had the skills to just jump into yet without additional dual safely. I told him that the Husky was easier to control and that some of the inputs he was giving were enough to keep the Husky straight but that it wouldn't be enough in the other aircraft.
 
denverpilot said:
Question: What do you CFI types think of the idea of trying to find a "relatively poorly behaved" taildragger to do the initial endorsement in vs something that behaves better?
Click to expand...

Honestly anything with a solid link gear is poorly behaved. I learned in a J3 cub. When you think about the way cub gear (or pitts) is designed, you can see why. The gear is inflexible if you land with a side load. The tires hook up with the runway, and there is no side to side give of the landing gear because the structure is rigid tube. So everything gets transmitted straight to the airframe, and the result is a hard dart off the runway. Similarly the plane on rollout feels twitchy.

I learned in a J3 and once I mastered that (was not an immediate process, I had some moments as whifferdill knows) everything else came easy. Jumping in a decathlon after 7-8 hours training in a J3 was no problem, the decathlon with spring gear was a walk in the park. There was no learning curve.

Flying the J3 cub so much also got me in shape for learning to fly the globe swift. The swift has no give in the landing gear also, its got big solid mains that lock down.
 
Last edited:
That was actually my point, I just didn't state it well. I would rather get the instruction in the 120 for that reason. I know the huskys forgiving nature did not prepare me for the Luscombe. It took me a few hours of transition training in it after flying almost exclusively the husky and different variants of the cub
 
It's funny. I got my endorsement with a buddy in his 120 and now I am back full circle. I really love the Cub, but the 120 for me was half the price which makes it more possible to afford the plane and the insurance.
 
I wouldn't expect to be signed off until I demonstrated some crosswind competence. Thats where the groundloops occur.

Best advice I got was "whatever you do, keep it STRAIGHT!"
 
I got mine where you are. It took me 15ish hours. A couple breaks in there (went on a couple trips, plus my work schedule was nutty). After 10ish hours he said I could have the endorsement but he wanted to see a little more for rental privileges. I wanted to at least rent the thing once so I kept going. It was seriously so much fun. I got to go out and play in the dirt every day. So it took me awhile but I'd say I'm a pretty okay tail wheel pilot now (though not comfortable instructing in them) and I think the extra experience was worth it. They really make sure you know what you're doing. So now I just take a hour flight and then I get rental privileges back (21 or 30 day currency, I don't recall).


Do it. So much fun.
 
There's no such thing as a full stall landing in a taildragger or conventional gear.

What helps is good crosswind handling discipline and airspeed management on approach.
 
Z06_Mir said:
I got mine where you are. It took me 15ish hours. A couple breaks in there (went on a couple trips, plus my work schedule was nutty). After 10ish hours he said I could have the endorsement but he wanted to see a little more for rental privileges. I wanted to at least rent the thing once so I kept going. It was seriously so much fun. I got to go out and play in the dirt every day. So it took me awhile but I'd say I'm a pretty okay tail wheel pilot now (though not comfortable instructing in them) and I think the extra experience was worth it. They really make sure you know what you're doing. So now I just take a hour flight and then I get rental privileges back (21 or 30 day currency, I don't recall).


Do it. So much fun.
Click to expand...

Where did you go to practice landings in dirt? I don't even know where any dirt strips are around here.
 
azpilot said:
Where did you go to practice landings in dirt? I don't even know where any dirt strips are around here.
Click to expand...

You just need 1000ish feet of straight land with a cool property owner, doesn't have to be charted or anything fancy like that.
 
4.7hrs in a J-3 and 7AC Champ. Rate was $65/hr for the planes, $34/hr for instructor.
 
flyingron said:
There's no such thing as a full stall landing in a taildragger or conventional gear.
Click to expand...

Of course there is. Some airplanes just do it more more gracefully than others. Some tailwheel airplanes sit on the ground at the full stall attitude. Others don't. No need to parse the language here.
 
RoscoeT said:
Of course there is. Some airplanes just do it more more gracefully than others. Some tailwheel airplanes sit on the ground at the full stall attitude. Others don't. No need to parse the language here.
Click to expand...


My Starduster Too sure did not. You could do a beautiful three pointer, pull back to stick it and find yourself flying again.


Jim R
Collierville, TN

N7155H--1946 Piper J-3 Cub
N3368K--1946 Globe GC-1B Swift
N4WJ--1994 Van's RV-4
 
The Acroduster is probably even worse. When I was getting a checkout in one before ferrying it I was initially trying to three point it close to a stall - our Tailwheel was touching the ground and the mains were feet off of the ground still and it did NOT feel good. Better off accepting that some planes aren't necessarily designed for a "full stall" three-point.
 
Last edited:
coloradobluesky said:
I wouldn't expect to be signed off until I demonstrated some crosswind competence. Thats where the groundloops occur.
Click to expand...
No disagreement on needing to demonstrate cross-wind competence, but ground loops can happen in any winds. I've seen a suprising number of tailwheel ground loop accident reports in light winds without much x-wind.
 
RoscoeT said:
Of course there is. Some airplanes just do it more more gracefully than others. Some tailwheel airplanes sit on the ground at the full stall attitude. Others don't. No need to parse the language here.
Click to expand...

I'm not really aware of any that are in a stalled attitude with the mains on the ground. About the only way you're going to full stall one is to hit tail first (which some like Maule advocate).

I certainly know of no tricycle gear that you can stall with the mains on the ground.
 
Last edited:
flyingron said:
I'm not really aware of any that are in a stalled attitude with the mains on the ground. About the only way you're going to full stall one is to hit tail first (which some like Maule advocate).
Click to expand...

When I say stall attitude, I mean the attitude you end up with when the stick is on the aft stop, power off. Not sure how you can get more deeply stalled power off than that. There are a number of tailwheel airplanes that will touch down at 3-point attitude (or even short of) with full aft stick. The J-3 Cub and Stearman pretty much touch down perfectly 3-point with full aft stick. A Champ with the "no-bounce" oleos definitely does. A Husky can actually touch down a bit mains first with full aft stick unless you give it a touch of power. An RV-8 flown solo tends to hit mains first with full aft stick. That's why most people wheel land those. Those are the ones I know of, I'm sure there are plenty more. As mentioned, there are also lots of tailwheel airplanes that will touch down with the mains a foot or so in the air with full aft stick. Tailwheel airplanes vary widely. Not sure why you're so adamant about universally claiming that no tailwheel airplanes can touch down 3-point full-stalled.
 
I agree about Cubs and Stearmans...three point landing is a full stall landing in all that I have flown.
 
I had no tailwheel training. I bought a maule on the west coast when I was a kid and flew it home. Luckily I dint kill myself. I asked a few old timers for advice and they said if it starts to drift to one side don't give it too much rudder and get the rigomortis out of your legs. Around here seems like some instructors have a minimum of 10 hours and have seen some students go as much as 25 hours.
 
RoscoeT said:
Not sure why you're so adamant about universally claiming that no tailwheel airplanes can touch down 3-point full-stalled.
Click to expand...

Because he is Ron...he thinks he knows everything. If you don't believe me, just ask him!
 
When my planes stall the nose drops immediately. I can't come close to maintaining a 3-point attitude. That's a STOL pilot's concern when flying final on the ragged edge of a stall.

Tailwheel training time depends a lot on the quality of the pilot and the type of plane he's being trained in. Some taildraggers are more docile than others. To be trained and signed off in a PA-11 does not make you qualified to fly a 185 even if you logbook allows it. Some guys get trained in 185s. A high time pilot transitioning in a Cub will need just a couple of hours. A low time guy in a 185 will need more.
 
Since the root of the wing stalls first, "full stall" may not mean the entire wing is stalling at the same time.

In my Citabrias, it seemed like a "full stall" landing had the tailwheel rolling on slightly first, with the mains then dropping a foot or so with a "thump" as the stick hit the rear stop.

Not "3-point". In fact, I found "3-point" landings led to a more squirrelly rollout, as the wings still had a modicum of lift, and the extra speed made swerves more problematical.
 
If the tail wont come down, give it just a touch of power. That will activate the elevator. A lot of this depends on how the plane is loaded.
 
azpilot said:
The FBO I am flying at now charges $77/Hr for tailwheel instruction. That seems pretty steep to me. Thoughts???
Click to expand...

Look at the insurance rates for instruction in conventional gear.
 
Tom-D said:
Look at the insurance rates for instruction in conventional gear.
Click to expand...

Well finding a real tailwheel CFI is like finding hens teeth, so I wouldn't be too offended by that rate as long as the CFI had like 700+ hrs tailwheel instruction given.


That said I'm 50hr cash or trade. But I'm weird ;)
 
Tom-D said:
Look at the insurance rates for instruction in conventional gear.
Click to expand...

Yup. Pretty close to $3K for a $18K value for dual only. If you don't get real decent volume that's a lot of overhead per hour flown.
 
James331 said:
Well finding a real tailwheel CFI is like finding hens teeth, so I wouldn't be too offended by that rate as long as the CFI had like 700+ hrs tailwheel instruction given.



That said I'm 50hr cash or trade. But I'm weird ;)
Click to expand...

That's about right and I charge the same. I'm close to that number of dual given in tailwheel and I've seen some rookies ruin expensive planes. I came close a couple of times.
 
RyanShort1 said:
Yup. Pretty close to $3K for a $18K value for dual only. If you don't get real decent volume that's a lot of overhead per hour flown.
Click to expand...
Yes, but the insurance premium should be factored into the aircraft hourly rate, not the cost of the instructor.

$77 for a basic tailwheel instructor is excessive.

For perspective, I pay $75/hr for dual in my Twin Beech to a guy who is a highly respected warbird pilot.
 
RyanShort1 said:
That's about right and I charge the same. I'm close to that number of dual given in tailwheel and I've seen some rookies ruin expensive planes. I came close a couple of times.
Click to expand...


How close did you get when you were a rookie? Honest question.
 
Fearless Tower said:
Yes, but the insurance premium should be factored into the aircraft hourly rate, not the cost of the instructor.

$77 for a basic tailwheel instructor is excessive.

For perspective, I pay $75/hr for dual in my Twin Beech to a guy who is a highly respected warbird pilot.
Click to expand...

What if the instructor is also paying for CFI non-owned insurance covering a high-dollar amount so he can instruct in students personal Huskies, Super Cubs, whatever? I know of two CFIs fairly close to me that charge in the $75/hr range and I don't think they are hurting for business. I was paying for that insurance for several years and it was $800/yr for about $40k hull value I think.
 
denverpilot said:
How close did you get when you were a rookie? Honest question.
Click to expand...

Stuff like a student shaving off two inches of the prop on a J-3 Cub because he decided to very suddenly shove the stick forward on a wheel landing attempt... stuff you didn't even realize a student was capable of until it happens. That was an ouch.
 
RyanShort1 said:
What if the instructor is also paying for CFI non-owned insurance covering a high-dollar amount so he can instruct in students personal Huskies, Super Cubs, whatever? I know of two CFIs fairly close to me that charge in the $75/hr range and I don't think they are hurting for business. I was paying for that insurance for several years and it was $800/yr for about $40k hull value I think.
Click to expand...
$800/year for say a hundred hours of instruction works out to $8 an hour. That in itself does not justify $75/hour. You need far better credentials to command that rate than saying it's because you are carrying a CFI non-owned policy.

There are indeed some that I would gladly pay that much.....but they are few and far between.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top