PDA

View Full Version : How many Flight Instructors are afraid of tailwheel airplanes?


Chuck Ellsworth
18th Sep 2002, 19:15
I see that about two out of ten instructors will not teach spins or are reluctant to.

It would be interesting to find out what percentage will not or can not teach tailwheel airplanes.

Cat Driver:

foxmoth
18th Sep 2002, 21:33
I would think the majority of instructors these days have never even flown a taildragger, so it would be MOST unwise of them to try to instruct it!
Any instructor who has been taught this properly and has built up a little experience SHOULD be able to teach it, so i would have thought the ? should run more - how many instructors are competent on taildraggers? Who CAN not and who WILL not, in this case, can be a very different question.
(Some I fly can't be called tailwheel because they have not got a wheel there!)
:eek: :eek:

big pistons forever
19th Sep 2002, 00:02
I am not afraid of tailwheels but I have a healthy respect for them. I was fortunate enough to teach several ab initio students on taildraggers, an experience I enjoyed very much, and they for sure knew the pedals on the floor were more than just brake holders :D It's a dying art though as the rapacious insurance industry has pretty much removed them from rental fleets, thus insuring the next generation of pilots are unlikely to ever see one.

BEagle
19th Sep 2002, 09:43
I was taught to fly the Chipmunk at a grass aerodrome with plenty of runways. Hence cross-winds were rarely, if ever, a problem and we always 3-pointed the aeroplane.

But at a little UK aerodrome with probably only one runway - the practical difficulties would be quite significant. I'd love to have been able to add a Chipmunk to the club fleet - but someone would groundloop it on the only runway, someone else would overstress it, someone else would over-rev the engine......

Chuck Ellsworth
19th Sep 2002, 15:00
BEagle:

Now come on you are just kidding? You usually make more sense than that.

I probably would not use a Chipmunk either because there are so many less valuable tailwheel airplanes you can use. Like the J3 Cub, Aeronca Champ, Cessna 140, Cessna 170.

I can see no reason to have any more accidents with a tailwheel trainer than with a nose wheel trainer.... as long as the students are taught properly.

Then again that is only my thoughts, based on having taught legions of students in tailwheel airplanes and having " never" had a student lose control of one.

Chow:

Cat Driver:

.....................
:D The hardest thing about flying is knowing when to say no.:D

40 yearflyer
19th Sep 2002, 19:06
Chuck,
There is an innocent looking C152 - could be 150- doing the rounds in UK. Last time I heard it had a total time of 4000 hours and it was built in about 1959.

You are invited to try this tailwheel conversion on a day when the XWC is 8 kts (not more - not less ) from the left.

Land it in a three point attitude.

I'll be watching, as will be hundreds who have been caught out by this little monster.

Oh, I forgot to tell you that as you climb out in whichever direction you come to a halt you might just notice that in the conversion the undercarriage had been left in it's factory built postion - i.e. not moved forward.

Spins well -as it would do with the CG so far back. Cannot get the tail up at 35 kts in the takeoff run as the flight manual suggests.

I always wanted to get my hands on the Antonov 2 tailwheel withy 1.000 BHP radial engine. Saw it land a few times with such grace and at about 35 kts. It also seemed to want to stay on the ground pointing in the right direction

BEagle
19th Sep 2002, 19:25
Chuck - the Chipmunk is probably more commonly available in the UK than the other types you mention. But, as flying is so MUCH more expensive over here, the practical ability of most to stay in current flying practice on a taildragger is less than it would be in the US. Hence my reluctance to add one to the club fleet.

One year we hired a CAP10B and a Zlin 526 for a couple of weeks. But cross-winds kept them grounded for much of the time, regrettably.

Flew a Cub once, what a fun little machine!

Chuck Ellsworth
19th Sep 2002, 19:39
40 Y.F.

Hmmm...

You must be just putting me on here?

A Cessna 150 tailwheel conversion " must " have the main gear moved foward. Otherwise it will not sit on its tail. Unless of course you added sufficient weight in the tail to change the C of G to allow it to sit tail down, then the thing couldnt be flown.

A cessna 150 when converted to the tailwheel configuration will require an STC to be legal to fly.

There were two versions of the C150 Texas Taildragger conversions. The first used the origional main gear legs and when moved foward the airplane sat at to low a nose attitude for proper tailwheel handling because it was not in the fully stalled attitude with the tail on the ground. They changed the kit and sent new longer gear legs which solved the problem. There is at least one other STC for a tail wheel conversion but it was never certified for spins.

Oh, by the way the Texas Taildragger STC is no longer availiable.

I have a 1976 C150 Aerobat that I converted to the Texas Taildragger with the long gear legs. By the way I also did the conversion myself so have some idea of what it is I am telling you.

When the conversion is complete you have a very pretty little play toy that can do basic aerobatic manouvers and is legal to teach on as it is still a Cessna A150M with a STC to cover the conversion.

As to x/wind landings with a tail wheel airplane I would never ever attempt such a dangerous landing, as we all know tail wheel airplanes can only be landed into wind.:D :D

Cat Driver:

bluskis
19th Sep 2002, 21:45
Wasn't the C152 an all metal Cessna tail dragger, with rather a large fin area?

Seemed so compared with the Magister which was the then current trainer together with the Auster.

In which case with a large fin/rudder it should have handled OK, as long as the pilot remembered UK engines rotate one way, and of course, US engines rotate the other way.

40 yearflyer
20th Sep 2002, 05:06
Chuck,

will find out which tailwheel flying school has this aircraft and send photo or details. I believe it is Booker or White Waltham.

As for landing tailwheel aircraft in crosswinds Beagle will tell you we had to do it all the time as students on UAS.

Later as an Instructor on Chipmunks I saw a couple of ground loops. One in a spot landing competition (solo student) His instructor was standing next to me on the grass and his comment? -'I told him not to do that ! !

The other one on concrete/tarmac at Marham -again a solo student who shook his head -forgot the brief and took off for his next circuit. We called him back for the mandatory undercarriage check.

FormationFlyer
20th Sep 2002, 07:28
I did tailwheel conversion @ old sarum in a citabria and a c152 texas taildragger....both great fun machines..

..so afraid of them? No.
All due respect for the type of operations? oh yeah. I know they can bite....and I respect & remember that....

Teach on them? I would love to...but....I only have a little time in such beasties and it would therefore be silly for me to even attempt instructing...I would really need another 20 hours or so to get my own proficiency up to a stage where it was sensible...

I still yearn for a TW & grass strip within 15 mins drive of home!!!

BEagle
20th Sep 2002, 08:11
But, apart from their undoubted vintage charm, why would anyone really prefer to fly a tailwheel aeroplane?

In the wretched UK weather, a nosewheel aeroplane is far more practical. Regrettably many people don't learn to land such forgiving aeroplanes properly, so there is a mental image in the mind of some that any 'spamcan' driver merely hurls his aeroplane at the ground 10-15 knots too fast, forces it onto the runway nosewheel first and then stands on the brakes....:rolleyes: .

Whereas a tailwheel aeroplane pilot, of course, always 3-points his aeroplane neatly and perfectly, shuts off the engine then takes off his leather helmet and goggles, wipes the castor oil from his face with his silk scarf and bows to his admiring audience.....well, you do, don't you? :D

foxmoth
20th Sep 2002, 10:16
But of course - only to then trip up and land flat on my face.:rolleyes: :eek: :p :D

kabz
20th Sep 2002, 13:22
I went to a school called Texas Taildraggers. Most of the instructors were older types, all TW specialists, though one guy did prefer Bonanzas ... I saw one instructor come in white faced after failing to catch a student before the student nose-dived the a/c at a runway after a bounce. That would be scary in anything though.

Never saw one groundloop, though **my a/c** 86625 did have some nasty abrasions where a student had rubbed the end of the wing against the asphalt ... :o

I soloed and did most of my PPL in a Citabria.

Taught me a bit of respect for keeping it straight down the runways on landings. Otherwise, I did all the same sh*t everyone else does, dropping it in ("bring the stick back" Luke ...) etc.

Oddly enough, the nearest I got (touchwood) to ground looping the thing was on my private checkride, where it all got a bit swervey after possibly the worst softfield landing in the history of man ... ooh err

STILL PASSED THOUGH !!!!!!! ;-))

What about the question: "Are FIs afraid to fly gliders ?" Some of the ones I've met turn white when I talk about gliding ...

Chuck Ellsworth
20th Sep 2002, 17:57
40 Year Flyer:

I was only kidding about x / wind landings.

My argument is pilots who are taught on tailwheel airplanes are by definition more skilled in aircraft handling. Cross wind landings are no more problem with a tail wheel airplane than a nose wheel airplane if you are compentent on the type you fly.

To better explain my position on this issue when I learned to fly we did not have nose wheel airplanes to learn on. During my career as a pilot I have accummulated over ten thousand hours of tailwheel flying over half of which is on Beech 18 and DC3 / C117 airplanes and mostly in the far north/ Arctic on unprepared strips.

X/ wind landings to us are no more problem than with a nose wheel airplane, in fact I would rather land a DC3 in a x/ wind beyond its demonstrated limits than say the PBY.


The reason for starting this thread was to better understand the issues of tailwheel vs nose wheel flying.

So lets keep discussing the issues.

Chow:

Cat Driver:

QDMQDMQDM
20th Sep 2002, 19:09
I've just revalidated my 11 year lapsed licence in my own Super Cub. There's no reason why you can't do ab initio training in a tailwheel aircraft, but it is tougher, therefore less commercial. There are good reasons why nosewheels replaced 'conventional gear'.

That said, I know which I like best!

QDM

DB6
20th Sep 2002, 20:01
Chuck, in the UK the facts are:
a) proportionally there aren't that many taildraggers (same as US I suppose).
b) of those very few have Public Transport C of A's
c) there isn't that much demand for taildragger training since there aren't that many for hire.
So although there are probably quite a few suitably qualified instructors who would like to teach on taildraggers (myself included), they can't/don't as there isn't the opportunity.

Chuck Ellsworth
20th Sep 2002, 21:31
O.K lets see if anyone agrees with this thought.

The reason there are so few tailwheel qualified instructors ( qualified percentage wise for the number of instructors )
is because of "marketing" .

The market is driven by flying schools. As long as they do not encourage learning to fly using simple tailwheel airplanes initially to teach the student the use of rudder there will always be the lack of flying skills that is evident everywhere.

But hell I know I am expecting to much. :D :D

Cat Driver:

Tokoloshe
23rd Sep 2002, 13:47
I suppose it's true that our modern aviation world has very few tailwheel aircraft and as a result fewer people have the opportunity to fly and instruct on them. However, I have seen some very experienced pilots sweating bullets and trying to save face while trying to keep the sharp end pointing down the runway!
Flying taildraggers definitely requires more skill as you have to pay attention to what's going on. I have taught many people to fly taildraggers after completing their licences on a tricycle gear aircraft. Most people commented it was like learning to fly all over again.
I have been very fortunate to have flown many types of aircraft and helicopters but my favourite is my own pride and joy; a 1946 PA12 Super Cruiser. This is a rather docile little machine compared to a Piper Pacer. All taildraggers exhibit similar characteristics on landing and take-off but some can really get your attention! I have flown both the piston and turbine DC3's and the TP's are by far the more demanding with the use of reverse thrust. The PZL M18 Dromader, used for fire-bombing amongst other things, is a big heavy 1000hp radial monster that flies ok but can bite on the landing. The Ayres Turbo Thrush is a rocket ship when the hopper is empty but is a delight to fly. The saddest thing for me was when Cessna stopped building 185's !!
Getting back to the thread; I think a lot of people talk about tailwheel aircraft from a position of ignorance. They are not inherently difficult to fly. The insurance companies are obvious proof that people are afraid of taildraggers as they tend to wince and squirm when you mention any form of training.
:confused:
At my home airport in South Africa we have a good number of tailwheel aircaft resident and in regular use. At least they are still cheap and fun to fly. :D :D

FlyingForFun
24th Sep 2002, 16:23
Chuck,

How many drivers, even just recreational drivers, still know how to double-de-clutch? In the US, many drivers don't even know how to use a "stick-shift", let alone double-de-clutch!

It seems like exactly the same thing to me. The technique is no longer taught because modern equipment has improved to the extent that it itsn't required.

That doesn't mean there isn't a place for it. Anyone who owns a car without synchromesh will learn to double-de-clutch pretty quickly. And anyone who flies tail-draggers will learn quickly too.

And the reason for wanting to drive old cars, or fly tail-draggers? Well, it might be less practical, but it's a whole load more fun!!! Personally, I learnt to fly tail-draggers because it seemed like all the interesting aircraft are tail-draggers, and I haven't been disappointed. I also drive an old car because it's more interesting than the modern crap which car factories churn out, although my car isn't quite so old as to have required me to learn to double-de-clutch.

There are two major differences, though. First of all, learning to fly tail-draggers will improve your flying in tricycles, because it teaches you to use the rudder and pay attention to the wind. I can't think of a single benefit of double-de-clutching when driving a modern car, which has synchromesh on all forward gears. And secondly, the gradually decreasing number of tail-dragger pilots means there are fewer instructors to pass the skill on to us new guys. This isn't an issue with double-de-clutching, because it's something which drivers can safely teach themselves if required - the same can't be said of flying tail-draggers.

FFF
---------------

Tinstaafl
24th Sep 2002, 20:10
Afraid of taildraggers? No.

Would I teach in one right now? Also 'No'. My tailwheel time is too little & too long ago for me to consider myself competent to teach circuits in them at the moment.

Give me some time to refresh my skills however...

nonradio
25th Sep 2002, 09:36
Chuck: It's not a function of fear, it's a function of street cred! The aviation world is formed of, essentially, two camps: Thems what salivate over shiny, big , fast Modern kit and who really are just not interested in old stuff, and thems what are green with envy at what, for example,you fly (have flown)! It's the same reason that Transair pilot shop is so successful.
In addition, do you know how much 800 x 4 tyres and tubes cost these days?

Chuck Ellsworth
25th Sep 2002, 15:41
Nonradio:

I put the word "fear" in there to see what reaction I would get from all the Instructors. :D :D :D

I am only playing around with their egos. :D :D :D


Cat Driver

nonradio
26th Sep 2002, 07:41
Chuck: wishful thinking, matey - egos aren't affected, some people are genuinely not interested...:confused:

big pistons forever
26th Sep 2002, 21:37
NonRadio

I guess you are right when you say there are lots of folks who salivate over those stinky new airplanes with all their glow- winky cockpit gadjets and lights, but I bet when the the last " modern jet " gets flown into the bone yard a DC 3 will be there to pick up the crew

:D :D :D

nonradio
27th Sep 2002, 09:23
Amen to that!

Dan Winterland
1st Oct 2002, 13:24
The RAF used Chipmunks for ab-initio training for direct entrant pilots up to 1993. One of the reasons (apart from that it was an excellent elementary training aircraft - the best I have instructed on IMHO) was that it was a handful on the ground and would sort out those who were going to make as RAF pilots - or not.

Groundlooping was common and many students did it. I must have seen about five from the rear seat. The aircraft was so strong that it coped. The ground engineer's post groundloop check was a cursory look followed by "It's OK".

As about half of the RAF pilots trained between 1984 and 1993 went through EFTS at Swinderby, there are more tailwheel trained pilots out there than you would probably think.

poteroo
6th Oct 2002, 06:56
A Few Aussie Observations on Subject

The comments about runways and crosswinds are true for here too. It's just too difficult. Friend of mine tried it, and lost both aircraft to groundloops. I think a lot of the problem is related to traffic induced 'rushing' the approach and arrival. In the good old days,(when I learned to fly at Archerfield,Qld), it was an allover field, radio control minimal,and t/w aircraft had no problems.

For the last 12 years, I've specialised in tailwheel conversions,plus low level training at a non-radio, no traffic site with 15 different strips,(200m to 800m). We have used a C152 Texas Taildragger for 300 hrs, but it wasn't a success, and we changed over to a C170A, which is just delightful. I also have a 160HP Supercub online, and this is a neat little trainer. Just to complete the range, I have a 180HP/CSU VANS RV-6, which I don't rent, but will allow some ICUS time in.

We enjoy the luxury of being able to train at our own pace, and I'm able to select the x/w, the strip 'difficulty', and nominate the type of landing at will. Being able to roll out to a full stop, then make a 180, and taxi back to go, all the while discussing the performance, means the student learns so much better. No pressure - other than the actual job at hand.

The other aspect about t/w training is that in our system, there is no requirement to send the student off solo in order to complete the type endorsement. There was - back in the good old days, and this ensured that instructors were considerably more thorough than I think they are at present. Luckily, we've negotiated a better insurance deal, and so I do send students off solo if the conditions are suitable, and we can select an into wind strip. I find that a few circuits solo is great for their confidence, and we can then get stuck into the crosswind training. I feel this solo really helps.

Unless the instructor is good and current on t/w types, it's suicidal to try instructing on them. Many have tried, and the majority have bent something. You really need to be flying one every week or so - which is again my good luck, as I use the 170 for about 200 hrs annually flying into farms to consult to clients. I do not subscribe to the ability, under our CAO's, of an instructor being immediately able to endorse on t/w type once they themselves have been endorsed. It's crazy thinking on the part of our CASA to allow it.

Does t/w flying improve a pilot's skills? Too right it does! I get great satisfaction from converting the '2 left feet', 'Piper feet', or '2 on the floor' brigade into real pilots. The big grin after the first solo is one of the more satisfying aspects of t/w training.

Tailwheels forever! Cheers,

Chuck Ellsworth
7th Oct 2002, 15:58
RV6-VNE :

Did the Texas Taildragger you used have the original main gear moved foward? Or did you have the later gear they supplied that was long enough to raise the airplane into the proper fully stalled attitude?

As to training with tailwheel airplanes you made very good comments, only one thought that I have is how come when we learned to fly there were only tailwheel airplanes and we flew off paved runways with x/winds with no more accidents than todays schools?

Could it be a state of a mind and instructor competance issue?

Have fun with your RV, the best of the lot out there.

Cat Driver:

poteroo
10th Oct 2002, 00:25
Chuck,

My former c152 Texas Taildragger didn't have the so called "Bolen' extended legs and was a real pig to handle. Even had it been so fitted, we discovered that the original conversion had been incorrectly setup with the gear boxes set so as to allow for 'toe-out' of the wheels. This meant it was unusually directionally unstable!!

It was all too much, and after it went into the workshop for some wing repairs, (following an arguement with a gum tree), we put the training wheel back ahead of the pilot.

The c170 is excellent for t/w training. I have it set up on 180 legs with 800 tyres, giving it a 'door sill height' of exactly the same as a c180 or 185. 3 pointers require lots of back elevator, and it's very similar in that respect to the Cub.

We teach every type of landing here, but always use wheelers for crosswinds over 6-8 kts. For very rough or soft strips and where it's into wind, the 3 pointer is good, but requires more judgement from low timers. A slightly 'tail low' wheeler seems the best for students as they still need a little flare,(which they are used to), and it's less disconcerting than the 'no nonsense' wheeler in which you seem to be far too nose low - in the c170 in particular. After a few hours they can handle this approach.

There's quite a lot of stuff re tailwheel training on the International c170 Association, and c180 Association websites. I've modelled my course on a mix of info from agricultural flying courses, what MAF used to teach their Papua New Guinea pilots, and points from other older t/w instructors I've met around Australia and PNG.

cheers,

Chuck Ellsworth
10th Oct 2002, 02:16
Hi again Rv:

Maybe the problem is you were trying to land it the wrong side up, Down Under?? :D :D

Thanks for the reply, there are several 150 tailwheel conversions here in this part of canada. Some of them have the same handling problems you described, there are two really signifigant problems with these conversions. The most serious being improper toe in / toe out adjustments. The STC that I have on my Aerobat is the last that came out of aircraft Conversion Technologies in California and it is a superb conversion with the long gear and very explicit instructions for wheel alignment. Toe in and toe out must be done with Cessna wedges.

Anyhow as far as I know I have the only Aerobat Tail dragger in Canada I did the conversion myself and for what I want it for it is a lot cheaper than any other little tailwheel areobatic airplane I can find. ( Aerobatic with limitations. )


The Cessna 170 is as you say an excellent trainer I remember flying one of the first to arrive at our airport in 1954, after the Cessna 140 the 170 was really a leap foward.

When I train pilots on different airplanes such as tailwheel and large flying boats I use a video camcorder to video all the approaches and landings.

After the flight it is worth a thousand words to stop the video just when they start to go wrong in a fuc..d up landing. What I do is give them a laser pointer to point to exactly where they were looking and ask them to tell me what they were thinking at that precise moment.

It is flat out the best training aid I have ever used, I got the idea from teaching pilots to land the PBY without getting into porporsing due to incorrect pitch attitude and been using it for years. It is real easy to set up in the Cessna and I control it with the remote, works like a damn.

Then when they finally get it right I let them watch XXX movies on it as a reward.

Nice chatting with you and may run into you next year Down Under.

Cat Driver:

.............
:D The hardest thing about flying is knowing when to say no.:D

Chiller
11th Oct 2002, 02:57
Most people don't understand taildragers because they don't have to understand taildragers. But to make yourself a better pilot, go find a taildrager and learn about it (in the classroom first)and then put it in the air with an instructor. It won't take you long to figure it out.

Then...............go fly a Pitts Special....you'll cringe at the thouht of getting in another Nose Drager.

Best Regards.

Chiller

neils
22nd Oct 2002, 20:02
Flying a tail dragger again after a years break.
Teaching the owner of a Stampe SV4A. Most fun I've had for years.
Anybody explain the inverted system on the Renault engine?