Tailwheel rating for a Turbulent

[abgd]

To my mixed delight and alarm, I have just bought my first aircraft: a Druine Turbulent. However, I don't know how to fly it. I've probably got about 80-90 hours on spamcans (trained on Tommies) with an hour on an Eurostar (trigear) and 40 minutes of aerobatics on a Super-Decathlon which I didn't quite land.

I've read suggestions that the best aircraft to do a tailwheel conversion on in order to transition to the Turbulent would be a Thruster, which is unfortunately a microlight. On the other hand as I understand it there's no fixed number of hours to do a tailwheel rating, would it be possible to do most of the training on a thruster then get signed of on a group A aircraft?

Does anybody have any suggestions for good flying schools? I'm based in Mid Wales and will have to travel - so within reason it doesn't make much difference how far.

[FleetFlyer]

Hi, and congrats on entering the world of aircraft ownership. I fly an LAA administered tail dragger also and its the only way to arrive.

I've flown a tailwheel Thruster and its just too easy, you simply don't need any instruction to be safe in one of those. I would suggest getting a few hours in something that actually requires a bit of learning. A Citabria is probably a good idea, but a Cub or similar is probably just as good. I did my NPPL SSEA rating on a Cub in order to get signed off on tailwheels at the same time. Do get instruction on landing on hard runways if its available.

Another way of doing it might be to get an hour or two in a Cub, and then get a sympathetic LAA coach to take you through the rest of it with extensive taxiing and 'supervised solo' flight in your Turbulent. It would save you a good deal of money and provided you're not ham-fisted you'll probably be alright.

[BabyBear]

Congratulations!

I guess the Turb's on a permit and you are therefore an LAA member.

Check out their pilot coaching scheme would be my suggestion.

BB

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

Citab's pretty easy, too. You can even see where you're going when taxying, as it's quite nose-low for a tail dragger.

Cub or Chippy, I'd suggest. Preferably a J3 / L4 rather than Super Cub as they are flown from the back seat and are therefore more demanding to handle on the ground. Also the lightweight 'little' Cub is 'closer' to a Turb.

[piperboy84]

Why not cut to the chase and hire a TW instructor to give you some dual in your own machine? that's what I did when the Maule arrived in Scotland, went down to Perth and done a few hours with Heather Hayes and was good to go, no faffing around on another type. To be honest the TW thing is sometimes made out to be a big deal, it ain't, its a far more natural and easier config to handle for TO, landing and taxiing, just got to watch out for the ground loops.

[Above The Clouds]

piperboy84
Why not cut to the chase and hire a TW instructor to give you some dual in your own machine?


That would be very cosy in a Turbulent :ooh:

[piperboy84]

That would be very cosy in a Turbulent

Aha, I see, shows how much I know about this aircraft, then again I suppose it would depend on who the instructor was !!

[scrambled]

Bob Pooler at Sleap in the Aviat Husky is probably your closest and best bet for the principles.

Then on to the Tiger Club @ Headcorn for a checkout to fly a Turb. Locals will be along to advise on the latest state of play with the Tiger Club & Turb availability.

Enjoy your new toy.

[Above The Clouds]

piperboy84
then again I suppose it would depend on who the instructor was


I would like to see DHH get in it by himself let alone with 2 up :)

Is he still flying around up there ?

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

You won't go far wrong with Bob Pooler - great guy who is 100% professional who I'm sure will make it fun as well (never flown with him but I know Bob well from operating into his strip over many years).

[Rod1]

You will enjoy your first flight in her - nothing like a single seater to focus the mind!

Rod1

[Frightened nose gear]

An hour flight training at the tiger club will also include an hours briefing and chats with others and free coffee at a friendly club.
Being as they run the turbulent team the ground school flying and tips would be priceless.A course with them would be a good consideration.

[BroomstickPilot]

Hi abgd,

Tailwheel is not something you can learn with a quick hour in a Cub and there is a surprising amount of poor tail-wheel training on offer. So definitely read 'The Compleat Taildragger Pilot' by Plourde as this may be the only means by which you will know in what respect your tailwheel training might have been lacking.

My greatest area of concern is that many flying schools/flying clubs nowadays just don't teach wheeler landings. You might well need this skill to pull off a cross wind landing in a strong cross wind. (I hear some places don't even teach cross wind landing at all, which is disgraceful)!

For landing cross wind, most will teach you to do a two-point landing instead. This is where you stall the aircraft on with your into-wind wing down, putting down your into-wind main wheel and tail wheel first. This is O.K. for a mild to moderate crosswind in a forgiving high wing aircraft, but if you have to land a low wing monoplane or bi-plane with a strong crosswind, then in my view two-pointing could be hazardous.

There are also two methods of landing approach, the 'crabbing in' method and the 'wing down' method. You need to know both methods of landing approach and should be able to do both and be ready to use either method, according to the characteristics of the aeroplane and the conditions prevailing.

The wheeler landing is where you allow the main wheels to brush the runway while you still have flying speed. You then move the control column forward to remove any positive angle of attack causing the aeroplane to roll along the runway on her main wheels while keeping her tail up with the elevators.

You allow the speed to fall off while holding the tail up and the aeroplane straight and as close as possible to the centre line of the runway. As the speed falls off, you will find yourself moving the control column further and further forward to keep the tail up, while applying more and more into wind aileron and more and more away-from-wind rudder to keep her straight. Eventually, you will be unable to hold the tail up any longer and it will sink gently onto the runway and the aeroplane will roll to a halt with the flying controls now very crossed - the stick fully forward with full into wind aileron and full away from wind rudder.

When I returned to flying after a break of several decades I was taught the two point landing, (a method which incidentally I had never even seen before). I asked if I could relearn my accustomed wheeler landing, and received no clear reply. So I did as I was told and used the method I had now been taught. A few weeks later, I had my very first ever groundloop!

I am not saying the sole cause of the groundloop was 'two pointing' the aeroplane, as other factors were at work on that occasion also, not least of which being hit by a gust of wind funnelled between two nearby hangars, but I certainly believe the two point landing method contributed to the development of the ground-loop by removing some of the rudder authority, as with the tail down part of the fin would have been masked by the forward fuselage because the aircraft was now in a landing attitude.

I believe that if that gust had caught me during a wheeler landing, while my nose was still level it would have been that much quicker, after getting full power back on, to accelerate to flying speed, and do a go-round.

I have the impression that many present day instructors, (both ex-military and civil trained) lack the ability to teach the wheeler landing, perhaps being afraid to teach people to brush the ground with their mains and push the stick forward, while still having flying speed during the resulting ground roll, for fear of grounding the prop.

Whoever you go to, make sure you are trained properly. You need to come away feeling confident about landing cross wind using a wheeler landing. You need to ask before commencing training whether the wheeler will be part of your training.

Good luck.

BP.

[500 above]

Im surprised that nobody has suggested trying to get some time in a Condor?

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

There's no danger that Bob Pooler would leave you incompletely trained by omitting wheelers and x-wind landings; he's far too good a pilot and professional an instructor for that. If you're in mid Wales, Sleap is probably as close as anywhere, as well.

['Chuffer' Dandridge]

Why not go to The Tiger Club and do a tailwheel course on a Piper Cub, THEN you can fly their Turbulents? They have been operating them for over 50 years, so they will tell you what you need to know.

Oh, and to counter what had been said above, 'wheeler' landings in a Turb are something you only do when you've a bit of time on type, and then only on a VERY smooth runway. If it requires a wheeler landing, its probably too windy to fly anyway.

There's a very good flight test of the Turbulent in the February 1997 issue of Pilot Mag, tells you all you need to know.

CD, (400hr Turb pilot)

[treadigraph]

Did somebody mention Bob Pooler?

BBC News - Star Wars actor Harrison Ford joins Shropshire flight club (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-shropshire-29625478)

You'd be keeping good company abgd! :ok:

[9 lives]

Very good advice from Broomstick pilot there.

For what it's worth, every landing I do in the Teal is a wheel landing, and since I have started doing them consistantly, I've stopped breaking water rudders (attached to the tailwheel) and my springs are lasting much longer. Let alone the better control, and no bouncing I have during landings.

So competent tailwheel training would be a really good idea....

[Rod1]

abgd, what are your plans for the aircraft? You planing on flying in the calm of the evening in the local area or hour building in all the conditions the aircraft could handle?

How many hours a year do you expect to do?

Are you based on hard for Grass?

Rod1

[Frightened nose gear]

Hi Broomstick pilot,If you re read my post i wrote an hours flight training at the Tiger club also includes an hours briefing. I went on to say a course with them would be a good consideration.
I did not say a quick hour on the cub should do the trick!

[robin]

FWIW I converted to the Turb after some time flying Cubs

They are very different aircraft as the Turb is very light on the controls compared with Cub esp during landing and taking off.

Nice aircraft and I do miss them. Let me know if we've put you off. I'd buy it off you

[India Four Two]

BBC News - Star Wars actor Harrison Ford joins Shropshire flight club (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-shropshire-29625478)



Good videos here:

QsgiEubacT0

0AfT9zfMH00

[abgd]

Thanks to all for the useful responses. I think I've seen Bob doing air displays so may well venture in that direction.

"What are your plans for the aircraft? You planing on flying in the calm of the evening in the local area or hour building in all the conditions the aircraft could handle?"
I'm still at a stage where I'm not certain what sort of flying is for me. I know the Turbulent's not a 'going-places' type of aircraft but I hope to venture a little further afield than I could justify in the C172 I've been renting hitherto, and also to get comfortable with a taildragger/tailwheel and see where that takes me.

I'm not hour-building for the sake of a commercial license, but I do want to explore the envelope (within the boundaries of sanity and safety). I know the Turbulent is no more an Aerobat than the 172, but what I do know is that I enjoy 'handling'. Most of my flights have a few stalls and spiral descents and maybe a mild bunt or two. Almost every landing is a pfl with a big sideslip and my most enjoyable flight of the year was the first ever one that made me airsick - practicing crosswind landings on a very gusty day."

"How many hours a year do you expect to do?"
I get a day off from work/babysitting every month. I'd envisage doing a few legs of perhaps 2 hours each to an aircraft museum or sightseeing. I'd love to visit the lakes from the air. I'd like to look for white horses in the South of England. So I'm guessing 40-50.

"Are you based on hard for Grass?"
I am currently based at Welshpool which has a grass strip - I fear a little narrow for my liking - and a hard runway. The LAA inspector has suggested replacing the wheel with a skid because he felt it was a bit marginal. I'll be moving on in about 10 months - I don't yet know where.

[Old skool Alex]

Hi congratulations on your purchase! I'm a relitavely low hour ppl with around 85 hours total time, about 60 of those in 172's.
Last month I started flying the turbulent myself and so far racked up a colossal 4 hours on them! Before that I did my tailwheel differences training on a cub and did about 12 hours on that and then about half an hour in a friends cap10 to get a feel for a more "responsive" aircraft.Before my first flight I got a brief from an experienced turb pilot, got someone to swing the prop and off I went. Spent about half an hour getting a feel for it in the local area and practised some stalling/slow flight at a suitable height and then went back to the airfield for a few circuits and landed with a silly smile on my face.Personally I found that my time on the cub and a short session on a more responsive aircraft was more than enough,
In my very short time flying the turb I find it a very fun aircraft to fly, a few usefull points I find are to keep an eye on your speed especialy when on final approach as it can bleed off easily and doesn't have a lot of momentum to gain speed and 'unstall'.Also on take off and landing it doesn't need much rudder input to keep strait compared to the cub and also seems to handle crosswinds very well compared to other larger aircraft.
Hope this helps,I'm sure an experienced Turb pilot will come along and give you some more pointers.
All the breast!
.A

[Genghis the Engineer]

Hi, and congrats on entering the world of aircraft ownership. I fly an LAA administered tail dragger also and its the only way to arrive.

I've flown a tailwheel Thruster and its just too easy, you simply don't need any instruction to be safe in one of those.

Having checked quite a few people out on a syndicate TST I tend to disagree with you.

I also recall the LAA coach* who managed to total a TST some years ago the first time he tried to instruct on it, leading to the LAA quite rightly banning its coaches from instructing on BMAA microlights and telling it's members to use microlight instructors on BMAA microlights.


That said, I have a Condor, which is basically a 2-seat Turbulent, and it flies absolutely nothing like a Thruster. So, I'd still agree that a Thruster is the wrong trainer here. It's a fair point that the Tiger Club are probably the experts in how to learn to fly a Turbulent safely.

G

* Said coach I suspect had no microlight time and an excessive faith in his own abilities. Hopefully one or both of those have been fixed by now.

[BroomstickPilot]

Hi Frightened nose gear,

My post was not directed at you - or indeed at anybody in particular. I really must apologise if it gave that impression.

Rather it was directed at a common misconception, that certainly does exist among many trained on tricycle spam cans, that all that is needed to convert from tricycle to tail wheel is just a quick hour in a cub.

Best regards,

BP.

[Fitter2]

With my vast experience of 1 hour in a Turbulent 40 years ago, and rather more time glider towing with a Condor not much more recently, I seem to recall that the Turbulent was delightful and docile, and a Condor would be an ideal aircraft to do some time in before flying the single seater.

Of the types probably more reaily acessible, the Chipmunk springs to mind as appropriate in terms of handling.

Have fun, and keep it straight on the ground. Preferably fly off grass.

[robin]

Always fun to watch someone converting to the Turb.

The PIOs on take-off and landing give a good idea of the sensitivity in pitch

[9 lives]

It is important for tricycle pilots to realize that training in a tricycle does not prepare one for being adequately skilled to land a taildragger. That is separate training, and needs to be taken. Who would think to take their 100 hours in a 172 wheel plane, and jump into a 172 floatplane and go for a circuit with no training on floats? Cessna did not call tricycles "Land-O-Matic" for nothing, they are more forgiving of poor technique. Thus, taildraggers require more, or at least different skills.

A very current experienced pilot might be able to be talked through checking themselves out in a taildragger, if the mentor were effective. If you fly a taildragger with precision and skill, they are not more difficult than a tricycle. But, I observe that many of today's pilots have not been trained to fly with that amount of precision - thus they should expect a taildragger to challenge them.

Ultimately, a taildragger will provide you with greater landing capability, in trade for less tolerance of sloppy technique. I have not known a tricycle only pilot who was easily able to transition to taildragger with only a couple of hours [in a Cub]. Yes, they could fly it, but during a landing, they were at the edge of their skills before they were at the edge of the aircraft's capabilities.

[abgd]

Well, over here it seems you need a rating in order to fly one, so no question of being checked out or not. There was a blooper - promptly corrected - in one of the UK flying magazines to the effect that you didn't need a rating.

I'd confess that my ability is outstripped by the capability of most aircraft I've flown. It's not something I've worried about - surely the idea is just to gain some impression of where the edges of your ability lie in order to be safe enough to practice.

[9 lives]

gain some impression of where the edges of your ability lie

When you have correctly established what control to move in what direction, and reach the point where you have correctly applied that control and reached its full travel, it is likely that your ability is now exceeding that of the aircraft.

A few times, I've wished for more control, but reasoned that the manufacturer's did not intend that I have it, so I must be trying to do something with the plane which it cannot/should not. On two different occasions, while landing modified Grand Caravans in crosswinds exceeding 25 knots, during testing, I had full pedal applied and held to keep it on the runway. My foot would have gone more, but I'd reached the limit of the plane!

[SlipSlider]

Well, over here it seems you need a rating in order to fly one, so no question of being checked out or not.

There is no such thing in the UK as a tailwheel rating. You need differences training and sign-off by an instructor; a rating would perhaps imply a prescribed syllabus, which is not the case for tailwheel.

Turbs are delightful, and too good to risk. I would strongly recommend talking to the Tiger Club Turb team: Turb Team Home (http://www.turbteam.com/) and perhaps taking some dual time in a Condor if available, or a low-powered Cub. And unless yours is a canopied version (the one that was advertised for sale recently?) I would also suggest some air time (as passenger is fine) beforehand in something with an open cockpit .... great fun, but a rather different environment to a Tomahawk or Cessna 172.

Enjoy your Turb; I'm more than a little envious ...

[rogcal]

I'm surprised no one has mentioned a Jodel as an aircraft to cut your taildragger teeth on.

After approx 50 hours on nosewheel aircraft, an hour of dual in a Jodel D11 set me up for 3 decades of taildragger flying in variety of tailwheel aircraft.

[abgd]

There's a very good flight test of the Turbulent in the February 1997 issue of Pilot Mag, tells you all you need to know.

Thanks - copy located via Ebay.

['Chuffer' Dandridge]

but I do want to explore the envelope (within the boundaries of sanity and safety). I know the Turbulent is no more an Aerobat than the 172, but what I do know is that I enjoy 'handling'. Most of my flights have a few stalls and spiral descents and maybe a mild bunt or two.

Please tell me you won't even think about doing 'mild bunts' in a Turb. :ooh:

The first and last person to aerobat a Turb was in the 60s at Biggin Hill. It ended in tears for him and his family.

The g limits are VERY low (can't remember the exact figures), and they will break, I've seen it happen.

If you want to explore the edges of the envelope, buy a Pitts.:ok:

[FleetFlyer]

Chuffer, I believe by 'mild bunts' the OP was referring to pushing forward to achieve zero G for a second or two starting from a climbing attitude, rather than outside loops.

[abgd]

Chuffer, I believe by 'mild bunts' the OP was referring to pushing forward to achieve zero G starting from a climbing attitude, rather than outside loops.

Exactly... I can see that you could overspeed if you overcooked things, but I'd have hoped you should be able to do the whole maneuver in 0-2g.

['Chuffer' Dandridge]

Fleet,

I know exactly what 'a bunt' is.. Which is why I advised against doing it in this particular type, a type I have a lot of experience in and a lot of respect for not pushing the limits in. The Pilot mag article from 1997 was written by a very good friend of mine who has shed loads of experience, who has pushed a Turb beyond its limits, and has the scars to prove it. Fortunately, he walked away from it but the aeroplane was written off. That was the result of an over exuberant wingover and turn reversal which ran out of ideas and speed at low level. Lesson learnt.

I wouldn't dream of lecturing anyone how to fly their aeroplane, so by all means, the OP should be allowed to go and explore the envelope..:E

The aircraft simply wasn't designed, built or stressed for negative g, which a poorly handled 'bunt' can potentially lead to.

Enjoy the aeroplane and remember the famous Norman Jones proverb, 'All aeroplanes bite fools":ok:

[Meikleour]

abgd: Are you comfortable about your engine response to negative "g"?

Could be quite embarrassing!

[9 lives]

explore the envelope

And herein can lie the hidden dragons.... There is no requirement for amateur built aircraft to have a defined "envelope". So although the term is probably used lightly here, it has serious implications if you start fooling around at the corners of a not defined "envelope".

This is one often overlooked aspect of piloting non certified aircraft. Some have magnificent capability, others rather modest machines simply to leave earth for a bimble, and it can be hard to tell one from the other by looking at them. With a certified aircraft you'll have compromise performance and handling, but the envelope is assured.

Look at the era, I judge the Turbulent to be an aircraft to be modestly built in a person's sitting room, to enable a gentle tour around a welcoming sky. At the time, and for the purpose envisioned, I doubt even mild aerobatics were envisioned as an operational need, and so the added cost to enable such capability was not designed in - and builders are not typically capable of including it at any point.

[FleetFlyer]

I'm sure the OP is capable of controlling his urges to see what happens if full travel inputs are applied at Vne. Give the guy a little credit for not being an idiot with a death wish.

As for the 'envelope' the UK does not have an Experimental category. Permit to fly aircraft are not Experimental and their airworthiness is closely controlled by the LAA. Granted, the Turbi is a very old design, but it is well known to the LAA as are its limitations. I'm not suggesting LAA oversight is equivalent to certified aircraft standards, but its not the free for all that many other countries enjoy either.

I'm sure that the OP won't be exploring that envelope without knowing what the design limitations are and whether the LAA have changed them in light of information from the fifty odd years these planes have been flying. There's nothing wrong with exploring envelopes if you know where the boundaries are, so please stop acting like 'exploring the envelope' is a simile for aerobatics, because it is not.

[abgd]

Well, advice is appreciated and I shall be additionally cautious. Incidentally I was well aware incidentally that aerobatics aren't advisable/allowed.

For a Cessna I was advised that a second or two of zero G with the power off was fine for the engine. I did them at 4000 feet so that if the engine did cut it would hopefully have enough time to draw the fuel back.

I can genuinely say that I've never pushed the spamcans I've flown beyond published limits of g, bank, speed etc... and left a good margin to boot.

[Them thar hills]

AB, the best piece of advice was Rogcal's suggestion about doing some time in a 2 seat Jodel. A Chipmunk is nothing like as light in handling as a Turb, neither is a Cub. Of the three, the Jodel gets nearest.
I had mates who with zero tailwheel time and who had bought single seaters (Turbulents and Taylor Mono).
I took them in my 117 and reasoned that if they could get to a standard where they could fly the 117 from the right seat ( ie throttle in left hand, stick in right hand as in the single seater) and not need any intervention from me, then they would be ok to go off in their respective Turb/Taylor Mono's, after a suitable briefing.
In every case they had no problems at all...

[robin]

Would just advise being careful with the engine. Depending on what the individual aircraft has been fitted with, the VW we had was a real ice-maker.

You learned to be manic with carb heat, even on the ground on a hot day. I'd be nervous of shutting off power without paying due care.

Oh, and if I remember correctly, we had a big notice on the panel reminding us that 'THIS IS NOT AN AEROBATIC AIRCRAFT', though she certainly felt like one

PS I'd agree with Them thar Hills. The closest 2 seater type I found with Turb handling is the Jodel

[Tony Mabelis]

The most common placard on aircraft owned by Norman Jones, including Turbs., was,
ALL AIRCRAFT BITE FOOLS..............so true!
Tony

[Oldbiggincfi]

Lots of advice on the benefits of Condors and Jodels.

Is there anyone now offering instruction on these ?

[Piper.Classique]

Lots of clubs in France have jodels as trainers. Loudun and Poitiers for example, both close to home for me. You might have more difficult finding one in UK, though. Nice aircraft, especially with the 90 hp engine. 76 euros an hour at Loudun, solo rate, for the 112.

[Crash one]

The most common placard on aircraft owned by Norman Jones, including Turbs., was,
ALL AIRCRAFT BITE FOOLS..............so true!
Tony


So do rattlesnakes, crocodiles, lions, tigers etc, is this relevant?

[Genghis the Engineer]

The Condor's a great twin-stick taildragger, but I think that they're all on Permits nowadays, so the only way you'll get any instruction on one is to buy a share in one of the various syndicates dotted around the country.

I'm in one such syndicate, at White Waltham, and we have three instructors in the syndicate - but that's a rather extreme way of getting yourself ready to fly your Turbulent!

Piper's suggestion of a flying holiday in France isn't a bad one, so long as you can find an instructor who speaks enough of a language that you are able to talk flying in.


So do rattlesnakes, crocodiles, lions, tigers etc, is this relevant?

Ours still has that placard in it.

I think the difference is that most people don't voluntarily go near lions or tigers.

G

[Crash one]

The point I'm trying to make is that the OP asked for advice, to be told that aircraft bite fools is not necessary. These cliches get a little boring after a while.
Apart from that, no one has mentioned the Emeraude as a 610kg mtow twin stick (parallelogram), throttle lever on both sidewalls as a possible? Ground angle is 9deg. Any use? Similar problem though, being a permit aircraft.
Will it ever come to pass that permit aircraft could be rented as training a/c?

[abgd]

The point I'm trying to make is that the OP asked for advice, to be told that aircraft bite fools is not necessary.
That's appreciated, though I have no real objection to being reminded once in a while.

It's an interesting observation that when I shortly fly an unfamiliar aircraft solo for the first time, prior experience on similar types is denied to me because of legislation presumably intended to improve safety...

I suppose there's also the safety of the instructor to take into consideration - perhaps it's unfair to ask an instructor to teach on an uncertified aircraft, yet if I owned a 2-seater I could legally be instructed on it - as I understand the situation.

If I were an instructor I think I'd rather teach people on an aircraft I owned than one I was less familiar with and that may not have been maintained to my standards. Whether or not I'd want to instruct on a permit aircraft belonging to a school is another matter again.

[Genghis the Engineer]

Will it ever come to pass that permit aircraft could be rented as training a/c?

Yes, Type Approved microlights have been used for training since the late 80s, rentable for about a decade, and Type Approved Gyroplanes since a few years ago.

It's a discrimination against the "group A" fraternity.


Perhaps the solution is to get a tailwheel sign off in whatever's convenient, then a few hours in a tailwheel Thruster. The Turbulent sits somewhere between the two.

G

[Piper.Classique]

Ah well, you see in France clubs (we don't really have many commercial schools) are allowed to instruct on, and indeed build, home build aircraft. Egletons built their four seat Jodel. Most instructors speak some English but for a conversion you don't need that much common language. I converted to the Wilga and Yak 12 in Poland with an instructor who spoke only polish, which taught me how to make circuit calls in polish, and to order beer....

[Crash one]

It's a discrimination against the "group A" fraternity.

It is this in-equality that needs to be addressed. This precise situation cannot be resolved at all easily. How many two seat a/c, tailwheel, comparable to the Turbulent are there that are legally allowed to be used for training?
What is the safety argument?
I wonder if I am legal, I went from 152 to buying the Emeraude then did several hours in it with a pilot who owned one but was not an instructor, then an hour with an instructor who signed me off. I was not a member of any flying school or organisation at the time.

[DeafOldFart]

I was looking through threads in order to find out how to get the 'tail dragger' endorsement on a new PPL(A), upgrade from NPPL.... my first solo, forty years back, was in a Rollason Condor G-ATAU, no flaps, a very basic taildragger. Almost half my experience logged is on the Condor.
I am presently having some difference of opinion with a Cessna 152....
Just wondering why there isn't a tricycle rating, they seem a bit more difficult to me...!!

[Pilot DAR]

If it's any consolation DOF, if you earn your PPL in Canada, on a floatplane, and you want to fly wheels, you have to get a wheelplane endorsement - maybe in a 152! I've heard it's pretty challenging....

[500 above]

Little wheel at rear...
I was looking through threads in order to find out how to get the 'tail dragger' endorsement on a new PPL(A), upgrade from NPPL.... my first solo, forty years back, was in a Rollason Condor G-ATAU, no flaps, a very basic taildragger. Almost half my experience logged is on the Condor.
I am presently having some difference of opinion with a Cessna 152....
Just wondering why there isn't a tricycle rating, they seem a bit more difficult to me...!!

I had many a happy hour in G-ATAU. She was (and apparently still is) a great little aircraft.

[India Four Two]

and you want to fly wheels, you have to get a wheelplane endorsement - maybe in a 152! I've heard it's pretty challenging....

Yes, it's tough getting used to such narrow, short, hard runways! At least you don't have to worry about boats on the runway or wondering which way the tide is flowing! :E

A couple of years ago in NZ, I added a couple more hours of Super Cub time to my logbook, but this time on wheels!

[Vilters]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cbRCpqYV7m0

[ifitaintboeing]

I also recall the LAA coach* who managed to total a TST some years ago the first time he tried to instruct on it

No record of that, GtE.

leading to the LAA quite rightly banning its coaches from instructing on BMAA microlights and telling it's members to use microlight instructors on BMAA microlights.

Microlights account for a significant amount of LAA aircraft, and most LAA coaches have experience of instructing on a wide range of microlights.

http://www.lightaircraftassociation.co.uk/2010/Coaching/Mag%20Articles/Training%20on%20Microlights.pdf

ifitaint...

[possel]

Mention was made earlier in this thread about flying a Turbulent at the Tiger Club. When I was a member you had to not only be checked out on the Super Cub (L-18) first but also on the Tiger Moth before you were allowed to fly a Turb.

However, it has also been suggested that flying a Jodel was a close approximation to a Turbulent, and the Tiger Club does have a Jodel D150 which is still available to members (well, it was when I last checked).

Either way, a good place to go!

[ifitaintboeing]

Originally Posted by Crash one View Post
Will it ever come to pass that permit aircraft could be rented as training a/c?

See CAA GA ANO consultation currently out for comment (questions 45 & 46):

Consultation - GA ANO Review - Thematic Consultation | Consultations and Responses | About the CAA (http://www.caa.co.uk/default.aspx?catid=1350&pagetype=90&pageid=16860)

ifitaint...

[Genghis the Engineer]

No record of that, GtE.



Microlights account for a significant amount of LAA aircraft, and most LAA coaches have experience of instructing on a wide range of microlights.

http://www.lightaircraftassociation.co.uk/2010/Coaching/Mag%20Articles/Training%20on%20Microlights.pdf

ifitaint...

The first definitely happened and caused me a great deal of professional trouble at the time. This was in the early days of the coaching scheme - roughly circa 1998 or 1999. I'd have do some digging for the date and registration,but certainly recall the airfield and coach's name.

That article says "all aircraft within the remit of the Light Aircraft Association". That obviously includes all microlights on LAA Permits, but I can't see how you can interpret that as including anything with a BMAA permit - including the flexwing pictured in the article.

G

[robin]

Mention was made earlier in this thread about flying a Turbulent at the Tiger Club. When I was a member you had to not only be checked out on the Super Cub (L-18) first but also on the Tiger Moth before you were allowed to fly a Turb.

Really can't see why a check out in a Tiger Moth should be a pre-requisite for flying the Turb. Totally different aircraft and handling qualities.

[abgd]

Currently still working on the Turbulent. But I'm hoping to do my tailwheel training with the Tiger Club shortly.

I gather requirements have changed over the years, but now most of the tailwheel training is on the cub, with a short flight on the CAP10 to get you used to lighter controls, prior to soloing on a Turbulent.