Aerobatics in a taildragger without a tailwheel endorsement
 

I'm thinking of learning aerobatics - however the school that I was considering over East only uses tail-draggers (Decathlon) to teach the course. I'm not that interested in getting a tailwheel endorsement at this stage as I was trying to save some money.

In that regard though would it be any disadvantage to learn in a tail-dragger without a tail-wheel endorsement? I dont necessarily see myself flying aeros in a tail-dragger in future due to access to aircraft where I am based (I could potentially only get an C150 aerobat sadly) - but my main purpose of learning aeros was to improve stick/rudder skills. I could potentially go to another school which teaches in normal tricycle gear (Robins), but the school i was considering was recommended to me / has a good reputation. The main disadvantage I can see was not being able to go out and practice solo aerobatics here.

If your main reason for learning aerobatics is to improve your stick and rudder skills, then do it in a taildragger.

Both aerobatics and taildragger flying will exponentially increase your handling skills and expand your envelope. Do both.

A tailwheel endorsement also opens your world up to many more interesting aircraft.

If they are accommodating, they may be able to combine the two fairly economically. Unfortunately (or some might say fortunately), many aerobatic aircraft are tailwheel.

If you are trying to save money, then by all means forgo the circuit training necessary to obtain a tailwheel endorsement. However, I suspect once you get used to flying a stick-and-rudder aircraft, you may want to learn to land it and as Double Asymmetric mentioned, you have access to many more interesting aircraft.

Here's my current "ride". Not aerobatic but a lot of fun!

https://cimg0.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....cc752825b7.jpg

The Cessna Aerobat is a great basic aerobatic trainer and fun to do aerobatics in although not as capable nor as much fun as a Decathlon. The Cessna does magnificent snap rolls whereas I would never snap a Decathlon.

I know someone who learnt in a Decathlon and swore that the Cessna was incapable of some manoeuvres - nope, just that the technique he used in the Decathlon wasn’t appropriate for the Cessna. So, be prepared for a dual aerobatic check in the Cessna before you take it solo - especially spins as the behaviour and recovery technique is different.

A long time ago, I got my first taste of aerobatics from Duane Cole (clipped wing Taylorcraft)
https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....a0dae7252.jpeg
who actually was hired by me and the 5 or so guys I was in a club with to check us out in a P35 Bonanza we had just upgraded to.
I already had a tailwheel endorsement from the University of Illinois institute of aviation, in an Aeronca, however the couple of hours Mr. Cole was kind enough to spend with me in his plane after the Bonanza checkout (which he didn’t charge me for, as I recall) taught me more about flying than the few hundred hrs I had by then.
I subsequently ended up in Minneapolis, where there was an FBO at Anoka, that had a 150 Aerobatic which they rented for (I think) $35/hr wet, with a parachute. Slow as dirt, but snapped well, and was a great way to learn energy management.
Unfortunately, one of their instructors flew it into his girlfriend’s house showing off, and killed himself (as well as the plane).
Taildraggers teach one what a rudder is for. I cannot recommend learning to fly one highly enough.

The Aerobat is approved for specific manoeuvres in the manual :

https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....db5e8e7660.png

So - no tail slides, whip stalls, stall turns, extended negative g (i.e. slow rolls) etc etc ....

Here's my mate, Phill Hooker, showing what the Aerobat is capable of. I saw him do a display like this which ended with an engine-off landing.

why "sadly", ie. what are your expectations, and where is "here" ?

My comment on "incapable" per that pilot was referring to ability to perform approved manoeuvres by himself, I should've clarified that.

The Cessna was certified to CAR 3 which states "Acrobatic—Suffix "A". Airplanes in this category will have no specific restrictions as to type of maneuver permitted unless the necessity therefor is disclosed by the required flight tests." Yep, so no whip stalls and no continuous inverted flight. If anything is not specifically restricted then it can be done by an airplane in acrobatic category (within the other stated limitations). I'm familiar with Kershner's text on hammerheads in his book as I am with his description of other maneuvers in the Aerobat which are not included in the list of recommended entry speeds for approved maneuvers per CAR "3.108-A Acrobatic maneuvers. It shall be demonstrated that acrobatic maneuvers can be performed readily and safely. Safe entry speeds shall be determined for these maneuvers." Interesting discussion for the Cessna wrt hammerheads etc vs the manoeuvres done in that video posted here.

What the hell is a "Vertical reversement"??

Exciting!

Wing over perhaps 😳

Stall turns? Although entry speed seems a bit slow to me.
you can’t beat sailplane aerobatics especially if you fly something that can tail slide and flick roll..

A "Vertical Reversement" is simply a top rudder half snap roll from a tight turn. While doing a tight left turn add right rudder and accelerate the turn until it stalls, stop the resulting snap roll in the opposite turn and you've performed a "Vertical Reversement". It's really a half Snap Roll from steep bank to the opposing steep bank.

I did a tail wheel endorsement back in the eighties in Sydney and i think it was only 3 or 4 hours.

Find the money and do the tailwheel too, it'll save you money.

​​​​​​​You won't do it in that in GA these days, maybe RA.

Interesting, what's the average time today? Or is there now a mandated minimum time?

It 'tends' to be around 6 hours. No mandated minimum.

Thanks, not really any different to when I did it ~15 years ago. As I recall I was set to go off on my own at about 4 or 5 hrs but made an arse of a landing, got whacked about the head by the instructor with the proverbial rolled up newspaper, and made to do another hour of circuits.

Probably a good thing too; given I still clearly remember is testament to his dressing down, and I was much quicker to apply power when needed after that.

Getting back to the subject; I agree with the earlier comments that completing a tailwheel rating is well worthwhile, however I can understand why, if aeros are all the OP is interested in, they might want to forgo the expensive hours of circuit training.

Good to know we're all different - I'm not in the slightest interested in aeros, but if I could spend all my time landing taildraggers I'd be happy :-)

FP.

A very good pilot. The commentator has a familiar voice, if I'm correct initials NR. In fact I do believe you get a glimpse of him near the end.

I also remember Phil's dead stick aeros routine. Bryan Cox used to do a similar one as well many may years ago.

Anyway back to the original question.

In reality how much extra flying should it take to knock off the tailwheel side if things. Assuming the aeros part takes about 6 hours or so you will have likely done 8 to 10 take offs/landings. Another hour or so should just about do it. A very worthwhile thing to have tucked away.

Of course, that just gives you a licence to continue learning how to fly a taildragger. The first time I "nearly" ground looped one was after about 2000 landings!

There is no reason to do a Aeros rating other than for it's own sake. You have correctly identified Stick & Rudder. A Tailwheel endo will do as much, if not more, for your stick and rudder flying than a basic Aeros Endo.

The two endorsements are complimentary in my opinion. DO not eshew the tailwheel, it will put hair on your chest.
CHeers

There is no reason to do a aeros rating other than for it's own sake.


Respectfully, Horatio, I think that's nonsense. Aerobatics provide a very large extension of a pilot's overall awareness and ability with respect to an aircraft's envelope. Exposure to aerobatics vividly sharpens one's awareness about the aircraft's total energy, manoeuvre capability, acceleration (and decel!) characteristics. It vastly increases pilot ability around the edges of the aircraft's Vn diagram and does wonders for confidence.
It's similar to quality stall and spin training. Pilots should be familiar and CONFIDENT in all areas of the aircraft's performance. We shouldn't only feel confident to operate in the centre of what the aeroplane is capable of doing. Aeros training delivers that, and it's also bloody good fun. If aeros isn't your thing, at least some quality upset (UPRT) exposure in something aerobatic should be a minimum.

All the above personal opinion only. :)

Agree with the caveat that it is only relevant to that aircraft. Exploring the envelope in an A380 would be frowned upon one thinks.

True, but every A380 pilot will do some form of manual handling and UPRT in their recurrent sims in a regular cycle.

I would do the tail wheel and aerobatics as soon as you can afford them.
I did tail wheel early on. And enjoyed flying them a lot.
I had about 18,000 hrs before aerobatics.
I wish I had done it earlier.
My children are learning to fly at the moment. On tail wheel aircraft and combining aerobatics with it around the 20 hr mark.

Horatio's post and Double Asymmetric's response are worth reviewing.

I had mostly agreed with the comments here that if you're going to do aero's in a taildragger you should probably do the full tailwheel rating. However that thought was, naturally, from my own viewpoint - as someone who's not in the slightest bit interested in aero's.

Probably the main reason for that is simply that, probably owing to an earlier unfortunate experience, aero's quite simply make me ill. However if I leave that aside I can see, and agree, that aeros by themselves should lead to an enhanced appreciation of the aircraft performance and (hopefully) a consequent improvement in ones handling skills. Whether this is more or less useful than learning how to fly a tailwheel machine from go to whoa is perhaps a moot point that I expect would be better determined by your intended future flying.

For me I was happy to gain the rating for a tailwheel machine so that I could improve my flying skills and usefulness as a pilot. As it happened it led to bigger and better things for which I'm grateful (well, bigger taildraggers at least!), but while I didn't do aero's I was also mindful of improving my skills elsewhere. To this end I also agree(d) with Double Asymmetric's comment so I went on to do spin training, even though it wasn't required for my CPL.

At the end of the day I suggest it boils down to 'horses for courses' and your particular perspective. Both can have their separate uses, and (if you're not solo) it's entirely possible to enjoy/learn aero's in a taildragger without going to the expense of a full rating.

FP.

I got my tailwheel endorsement in the RA world in 3.9 hours last year, and have converted it over to my GA license. But that was with an airport with a great setup, could land on grass or a paved runway, with a headwind or a crosswind. We just drilled circuits continuously until my instructor was happy. Helped that I took to it very quickly thanks to training in similar RA planes, if you were coming from heavier GA aircraft it'd probably take a bit longer for your feet to wake up.

Most pilots get that queasy ill feeling when they start out in aero’s. Best trick is at first to do short periods of basic aeros to ‘harden up’ to the experience.

:cool:

Appreciate the comment. To some extent I agree as I did get better when I was flying a lot, however I suspect some of us are simply more physiologically susceptible to this.

I've had to accept that, probably coupled with memories from the earlier experience, aero's and me (*or at least 'g' and me) don't mix particularly well. Interestingly anything more than a few minutes on a simulator/FTD also leaves me distinctly unhappy, which I thought should be a different mechanism but perhaps there's a common source. I never followed that up as it didn't really affect my flying given I wasn't passionate enough about aero's or simulators for it to matter.

* In case it affects anyone else this way it's perhaps worth drilling down a little. In my situation I don't believe it's aero's per se that sets me off, rather it's the affect of increased or upset 'g'. Even pulling a tight turn the right way up in a T-6 wasn't the nicest, and similarly a bit of spirited driving in a race car could also leave a queasy feeling. I never tried Dramamine, plain ginger, or similar remedies but perhaps others could comment on the effectiveness of these?

Otherwise, djpil, thanks for my first 'like'! Thought I was going have to pay someone for one of those ;-D

FP.

I used to get carsick, and airsick when I started. I ended up teaching Aeros, and never had a sick student when I was instructing due to my own sensitivity to my student’s state.

i did cut quite a few lessons short, of course.