Typical time for tailwheel rating

azpilot

azpilot

Line Up and Wait
Joined
Jul 27, 2015
Messages
823
Display Name
Display name:
azpilot
I know there are no "normals" when it comes to this stuff, and I know "your mileage will vary", but all of that being said, how many hours of instruction is normal to get a tailwheel endorsement?

As of my flight today, I am at 85.3 hours. I got my private back in July. I am flying about twice a month. My near term goal is to take a bunch of friends and family flying and fly on short little trips around Arizona. As I was walking back from the ramp to my car today, I walked past a Super-Cub. I felt it calling to me :D.

Originally when I started off flying, I was thinking of starting in a tailwheel airplane from the very beginning, but ended up doing most of my preliminary training in a 150 before switching over to a 172.

I figure I'll fly about 40 hours by the end of the year. By that time, I'll have taken all the people on my list up, and will want to tackle something new. The tailwheel endorsement seems like a good next step. Thoughts?
 
I'd say 6-12 hours depending on how fast you learn, bad habits to correct, and aptitude. I did have one helicopter guy figure it out in 3 hours... he was REALLY good. Scary in fact.

I usually quote people about 8 hours with the usual disclaimers.
 
The FBO I am flying at now charges $77/Hr for tailwheel instruction. That seems pretty steep to me. Thoughts???
 
Figure it as soloing again.

Usually it's a little under that, but it's a good starting point for a real endorsement, just just some dual, ink in your log and a laugh when you ask to take it solo.
 
I've done dozens of tailwheel transitions and used a 5 hour syllabus.

That was plenty for most people.

Roughly, the first hour was a familiarization flight in the Citabria. Slow flight, stalls, steep turns and the like. For many pilots it was their first flight in both a tandem aircraft and using a stick. Maybe a few landings at the end.

Second and third hours were mostly full stall landings. Maybe an introduction to wheel landings at the end of the third hour.

Fourth and fifth hours were for practicing wheel landings, working on weak areas, soft and short field techniques, that sort of thing.

If a pilot was already used to "full stall" landings in a tricycle, it was a whole lot easier.
 
Last edited:
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...

Depends on what the airplane is. 8gph, half that cost is just fuel, plus insurance, plus maintenance, plus investment cost, plus profit. $77/HR is cheap.
 
James331 said:
Figure it as soloing again.

Usually it's a little under that, but it's a good starting point for a real endorsement, just just some dual, ink in your log and a laugh when you ask to take it solo.
Click to expand...

Depends if you get any crosswind exposure, flying off grass, gravel or pavement. Tailwheel full stall landings plus wheel landings.

When dinosaurs roamed the earth, I got my J-3 checkout on grass and admonished to "keep it on the grass", in a couple of hours, more dual for pavement.
 
I got mine in 6 hours. I wasn't comfortable in anything other than absolutely benign conditions until many hours later.
 
I got mine in 4.5 last summer in an Aeronca Chief. I don't have a TW to fly regularly YET (some possibilities upcoming) so I will need a refresher I am sure when I do.

I would echo Kyle's comment. I am sure once I do have access to a TW it will be many more hours before I really feel comfortable.
 
For the average tailwheel solo, off the top of my head.

After air work, including falling leaf stalls and a spin or two if able.
Start off with low passes
Two points with power
Then three points with power
Two points without power
Three points without power
Cross wind 2pts
Cross wind 3pts
Tailwind 2pts
Tailwind 3pts
Precision landings, power in and off
Soft field work.
Obviously this all would involve slips, flaps if equipped and just straight in energy management stuff.

I wouldn't sign someone off without some decent crosswind work, it's like getting a float addon and never doing a real glassy water, or getting your instrument ticket and never being in actual or pulling a clearance, you're just setting the guy up to have a really bad time at some point.

Most all of this was touch and goes, ranging from just the mains, till the tailwheel is all the way down, we would average about 1 touch and go per .1hrs or less.
 
Last edited:
Mine took 15 hours. Couple of reasons for that:
Did it in a Luscombe. On asphalt. In crosswinds. Did it after taking a 34 year break from flying after getting my PPL. I'd gone up with a few instructors after starting up again but they were all lax as far as breaking my bad habits and addressing my bad stick and rudder skills until I went up with my tailwheel instructor. I also pushed too hard and got into a diminishing returns situation that wasted a few hours.

BTW, the guy that did my tailwheel endorsement mainly instructs in helicopters. He also instructs in seaplanes, ultralights, and just about anything else that can fly. But he made a point that there was a similarity between flying helicopters and tailwheel aircraft in the degree of alertness required and in the way that you make your corrections.
 
It took me 12 hours to endorsement, but as it turned out later, I didn't learn much -- only went through the motions enough to fool the CFI. Could do a wheel landing, but did not understand how it worked. When I got into my own airplane, its characteristics were different enough that I was completely helpless. But eventually I learned to fly it by watching Youtube videos.
 
BillTIZ said:
Depends on what the airplane is. 8gph, half that cost is just fuel, plus insurance, plus maintenance, plus investment cost, plus profit. $77/HR is cheap.
Click to expand...

I think he meant 77 just for the instructor alone, and yes, to me that is high.


I did mine in 5 hours in a J-3. We didn't do any of the air work(Stalls, Steep Turns, etc) just did take-offs and landings. Last lesson I wanted to do a 12 mile "cross-country" to my home airport. In a J-3, that 12 miles took a long time, especially with a headwind.
 
I got mine in about six hours with no previous TW time.

I learned to land and handle our C180 in all conditions in about sixty hours.

A strong X-wind will take me back to six hours sometimes .... :goofy:
 
There is a learning curve involved for sure, but there are planes that are easier to learn in and others that are not. For instance I would prefer to never try to give an endorsement in a Piper Vagabond again, personally. On the other hand I thought that a Husky with larger tires was a very easy plane to teach tailwheel in.
 
Walboy said:
I know a 2000+ hour C-210 owner who went to Chandler Air Service for a tailwheel endorsement. The instructor said he was ready before the end of the syllabus, but the school's policy said he had to complete the whole course. He was somewhat miffed about that.

On the other hand, once you complete a course with CAS, you can rest assured that you're ready to go. They do give very good instruction there.

I have also heard from several instructors it is easier to to teach someone to fly a tailwheel from scratch than it is to transition someone from trike gear.
Click to expand...

Truth. :yes:
 
Don't know yet. After 8 hours I am still having issues with the correct amount of input when the PT19 tries to make a left turn as soon as the tail wheel come up.
 
Gucci Pilot said:
I think he meant 77 just for the instructor alone, and yes, to me that is high.


I did mine in 5 hours in a J-3. We didn't do any of the air work(Stalls, Steep Turns, etc) just did take-offs and landings. Last lesson I wanted to do a 12 mile "cross-country" to my home airport. In a J-3, that 12 miles took a long time, especially with a headwind.
Click to expand...

That is high for a CFI.

I'm thinking if you're qualified ASEL and just getting the tail wheel endorsement. Should not be much time spent on stalls and steep turns, unless that pilot really has no idea what his feet are for.

Tough part in most places is finding a runway for good crosswind work.
Around here we use a lake bed, so you can land into the wind and 90degrees to the wind. But then you need a good line on the lakebed to track that straight centerline.
 
It varies by the person. I've seen folks who "get it" in 2-3 hours and others who just can't. Had a friend who flew with four different t/w CFIs and two longtime T/w non-CFIs. None could ever get him consistent enough to ever think of turning him loose. Too bad since he had bought a Skybolt he never got to solo. We tried in Cub and Skybolt and he just never could get it in either. He was, an anomaly. Most folks seem to take 6-8 hours.

I think starting in t/w is likely easier than learning in trike and transitioning.


Jim R
Collierville, TN

N7155H--1946 Piper J-3 Cub
N3368K--1946 Globe GC-1B Swift
N4WJ--1994 Van's RV-4
 
Luvrv8 said:
Don't know yet. After 8 hours I am still having issues with the correct amount of input when the PT19 tries to make a left turn as soon as the tail wheel come up.
Click to expand...


You are forcing the tail up too quickly. Hold the tail down longer and build more speed and let the tail fly off with neutral stick. My Swift does that really badly if you pick the tail up while slow.


Jim R
Collierville, TN

N7155H--1946 Piper J-3 Cub
N3368K--1946 Globe GC-1B Swift
N4WJ--1994 Van's RV-4
 
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?

I know they'll all bite you in the butt if you aren't paying attention, but say you had access to (I don't, just an example) a Husky and say, a Pitts and/or an O-1.

Would the student who tackled and mastered the Pitts/O-1 (name any squirrelly TW airplane) end up better off than the Husky driver?

Just a thought I've had banging around my brain for years, and never asked...
 
I did mine in an hour, and then had two students who learned to fly in taildraggers. My logbook has 1 hr dual received and 65 hours dual given. That's all the taildragger time I have.
 
BillTIZ said:
Depends on what the airplane is. 8gph, half that cost is just fuel, plus insurance, plus maintenance, plus investment cost, plus profit. $77/HR is cheap.
Click to expand...

That is just the instruction. The plane is another $108/hr on tips of that.
 
It's just the fundamentals, if you get that down and are a take it easy type of guy, it's all gravy. The only thing I think makes it a slight difference is flying a plane without the rudder aileron interconnects. Still, it's just fundamentals.
 
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?

I know they'll all bite you in the butt if you aren't paying attention, but say you had access to (I don't, just an example) a Husky and say, a Pitts and/or an O-1.

Would the student who tackled and mastered the Pitts/O-1 (name any squirrelly TW airplane) end up better off than the Husky driver?

Just a thought I've had banging around my brain for years, and never asked...
Click to expand...

Squirrelly is not good for initial instruction. The instructor needs to let the student make mistakes and recover. You need a tail wheel airplane with a large margin for error. After getting the sign off in say the Husky, then move on to the Pitts.

Dave
 
James331 said:
For the average tailwheel solo, off the top of my head.

Tailwind 2pts
Tailwind 3pts
Click to expand...

I never did tailwind landings during my T/W training. I actually feel like I missed out. Might take a CFI up to go do this sometime.

My T/W endorsement took 6-8 hours, but looking back after being very proficient in it I wonder how did it take so long? it feels so easy!...now (Citabria)
 
Pitts aren't squirrelly, but they are extremely responsive requiring little input and acting immediately to those inputs. Consequently, they are easy to over control. This is what gets new Pitts pilots in trouble. Because they are very short coupled, corrections cannot wait for a situation to get too developed before it gets beyond recovery, at least without a combination of multiple measured simultaneous control inputs. I've flown three different S-1S with bungees and tapered steel rod gear and found the above true of all, though the steel gear is somewhat easier to land without a bounced. Never flown an S-2 but assume them to be close enough to the same, though slightly longer should help with over controlling.

A Cub is still one of the best tailwheel trainers flown from the back seat. Correcting for directional deviations is as much feel as sight. You pick up the feeling of a swerve or direction change much better in the back being further from the CG.
 
After getting tailwheel endorsed, does the CFI allow you to solo/rent the aircraft or do they just say "good luck" and send you on your way? I seem to remember that insurance companies tend to charge excessively high premiums to individuals that decide to rent out their tailwheel aircraft. The net result is, you get the endorsement and then can't find anyone that will rent a tailwheel aircraft to you. This was especially true for low-time tailwheel pilots. Times might have changed. Not sure.
 
Maxed-out said:
After getting tailwheel endorsed, does the CFI allow you to solo/rent the aircraft or do they just say "good luck" and send you on your way? I seem to remember that insurance companies tend to charge excessively high premiums to individuals that decide to rent out their tailwheel aircraft. The net result is, you get the endorsement and then can't find anyone that will rent a tailwheel aircraft to you. This was especially true for low-time tailwheel pilots. Times might have changed. Not sure.
Click to expand...

I find that most of the tailwheel shops will allow you to rent at least some of their aircraft solo if you do your endorsement with them. You might have to go to 10 hours dual. The place I believe he flies out of will also rent you a Great Lakes solo. That's something I would love to do.
 
Sgu2-22 said:
Squirrelly is not good for initial instruction. The instructor needs to let the student make mistakes and recover. You need a tail wheel airplane with a large margin for error. After getting the sign off in say the Husky, then move on to the Pitts.



Dave
Click to expand...



N3368K said:
Pitts aren't squirrelly, but they are extremely responsive requiring little input and acting immediately to those inputs. Consequently, they are easy to over control. This is what gets new Pitts pilots in trouble. Because they are very short coupled, corrections cannot wait for a situation to get too developed before it gets beyond recovery, at least without a combination of multiple measured simultaneous control inputs. I've flown three different S-1S with bungees and tapered steel rod gear and found the above true of all, though the steel gear is somewhat easier to land without a bounced. Never flown an S-2 but assume them to be close enough to the same, though slightly longer should help with over controlling.



A Cub is still one of the best tailwheel trainers flown from the back seat. Correcting for directional deviations is as much feel as sight. You pick up the feeling of a swerve or direction change much better in the back being further from the CG.
Click to expand...


Good info. Thanks.
 
Maxed-out said:
After getting tailwheel endorsed, does the CFI allow you to solo/rent the aircraft or do they just say "good luck" and send you on your way? I seem to remember that insurance companies tend to charge excessively high premiums to individuals that decide to rent out their tailwheel aircraft. The net result is, you get the endorsement and then can't find anyone that will rent a tailwheel aircraft to you. This was especially true for low-time tailwheel pilots. Times might have changed. Not sure.
Click to expand...

The place I did required 10 J-3 hours to rent solo. So he said I could just do the endorsement, but if I wanted to rent, I would have to fly with him an additional 5 hours. But we didn't have to spend the hours doing just take-offs and landings, we could do a cross country to lunch or something to get the hours. I opted for just the endorsement cause I was just crossing off a bucket list item. I was also saving my money for my instrument training.
 
N3368K said:
Pitts aren't squirrelly, but they are extremely responsive requiring little input and acting immediately to those inputs. Consequently, they are easy to over control. This is what gets new Pitts pilots in trouble. Because they are very short coupled, corrections cannot wait for a situation to get too developed before it gets beyond recovery, at least without a combination of multiple measured simultaneous control inputs. I've flown three different S-1S with bungees and tapered steel rod gear and found the above true of all, though the steel gear is somewhat easier to land without a bounced. Never flown an S-2 but assume them to be close enough to the same, though slightly longer should help with over controlling.
Click to expand...

That's about right Jim. I've flown six S-1 Pitts', both with the bungee and rod gear. All but mine had API tailwheels. The rod gear is about as easy as an RV to land and control on the ground. Never flown one with a locking tailwheel, but combined with the rod gear, it must be a real no brainer. My factory S is the only one I've flown that I'd call borderline "squirrelly". It just wanders around more on the ground than any other S-1 I've flown. All the others were very well behaved, but characteristically responsive as you mention. A rod tailwheel spring also damps some of the sensitivity. 21JF was easily the friendliest handling bungee gear, leaf tailwheel spring S-1 I've flown. Mine does a little better with the API tailwheel than the Maule, but is still the most unstable tailwheel airplane I've flown. Requires lots of tiny corrections below a certain speed on rollout. Must be the heavy tail and possible gear alignment issues, though I get long life out of a set of tires. The S-2 is a bigger, heavier airplane, and noticeably more stable and less sensitive on the ground than a bungee gear S-1. The S-2 is a good bit different, but as close as you're gonna get to an S-1 for transition training purposes. Worth the time for anyone transitioning.
 
Commercial rental insurance is pretty pricey - dual can be, too. I was paying close to $4K to allow for solo rentals on the BC-12 I was using with a very low hull value. The 120 I have now is dual only and under $3K but only just under.
 
alfadog said:
I find that most of the tailwheel shops will allow you to rent at least some of their aircraft solo if you do your endorsement with them. You might have to go to 10 hours dual. The place I believe he flies out of will also rent you a Great Lakes solo. That's something I would love to do.
Click to expand...

Chandler Air Service has a few Cubs and the great Lakes. I think they have a Pitts as well, but that is only available dual (I think...)

After flying the archer on Friday, I walked right by the Cub and great Lakes. They looked very inviting!
 
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...
Not much at all. If it gets slightly out of hand you can be in big trouble.
 
azpilot said:
Chandler Air Service has a few Cubs and the great Lakes. I think they have a Pitts as well, but that is only available dual (I think...)

After flying the archer on Friday, I walked right by the Cub and great Lakes. They looked very inviting!
Click to expand...

I don't think their prices are very much out of line for a metropolitan area or someplace close to a metropolitan area. Especially in a popular flight training area like Arizona. Tailwheel training, which is not very available in South Florida, runs about the same down here at the few places that offer it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top