How many Flight Instructors are afraid of tailwheel airplanes?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Vancouver Island
Posts: 2,517
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How many Flight Instructors are afraid of tailwheel airplanes?
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:
It would be interesting to find out what percentage will not or can not teach tailwheel airplanes.
Cat Driver:
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Oop North, UK
Posts: 3,076
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!)
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!)
Last edited by foxmoth; 18th Sep 2002 at 21:38.
Guest
Posts: n/a
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 
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.
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.
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......
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......
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Vancouver Island
Posts: 2,517
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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:
.....................
The hardest thing about flying is knowing when to say no.
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:
.....................
The hardest thing about flying is knowing when to say no.
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: uk
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Horses for Courses
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
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
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!
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!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Vancouver Island
Posts: 2,517
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Cat Driver:
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.
Cat Driver:
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: europe
Posts: 546
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: uk
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: May 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 424
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!!!
..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!!!
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....
.
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?
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....
.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?
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Texas, USA
Posts: 263
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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 ...
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 ...
Last edited by kabz; 20th Sep 2002 at 13:34.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Vancouver Island
Posts: 2,517
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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:
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:
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: New South Wales
Posts: 1,794
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
That said, I know which I like best!
QDM
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Dundee, Scotland
Age: 61
Posts: 1,271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Vancouver Island
Posts: 2,517
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Cat Driver:
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.
Cat Driver:
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: 'Mampara' langa, ZA
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not Afraid
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.
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.
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.
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.
Why do it if it's not fun?
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Bournemouth
Posts: 4,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
---------------
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
---------------