Taildragger - in Tiger Moth or Chippie?
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 525
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Taildragger - in Tiger Moth or Chippie?
Considering getting my taildragger endorsement and thought I might pay a bit more and do it in a Moth or Chippie for a bit more fun. Any general advice appreciated on whether this is a good idea. Cost will prob be £1200 vs £700 in a Cub or similar.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think that any of your choices would be good, or do a bit in each. The Moth and the Cub are each great, but different. I've not flown a Chipmunk, but I've heard many nice things about them.
The Cub is light and agile, though a little sluggish. The Moth is a bit more sluggish, but will reward coordinated use of the rudder. One of the Moths I use to fly actually did not have a tailwheel, just a wooden skeg. Most of my flying in that one was on skis though, so it was not so noticeable.
Tailwheel training is very rewarding, and you'll forever be the better pilot for it.
The Cub is light and agile, though a little sluggish. The Moth is a bit more sluggish, but will reward coordinated use of the rudder. One of the Moths I use to fly actually did not have a tailwheel, just a wooden skeg. Most of my flying in that one was on skis though, so it was not so noticeable.
Tailwheel training is very rewarding, and you'll forever be the better pilot for it.
I endorse ST's view entirely.
Few trainers have the vintage presence of a Tiger Moth. Handling-wise, it has one foot firmly in the WW1 camp, with its very noticeable adverse yaw requiring some skilled footwork to keep it in balance all the time. This will be very useful if your tailwheel flying is going in that direction.
If it's the 'Spitfiire Experience' in terms of delightfully balanced and co-ordinated handling you're after, I can't think of anything better than a Chipmunk, (other than a Spitfire!) to give it to you!
Don't discount the 'humble' Cub though. Although it may not have the 'Ramp Presence' of the other two, it has an iconic character all it's own, and is a great lead-in to a host of it's high wing utillity immitators, often themselves refered to as 'Cubs' by the uneducated.
Whatever you finally choose in which to 'learn what your feet are for', welcome to a wondereful new world of aviation!
MJ
Few trainers have the vintage presence of a Tiger Moth. Handling-wise, it has one foot firmly in the WW1 camp, with its very noticeable adverse yaw requiring some skilled footwork to keep it in balance all the time. This will be very useful if your tailwheel flying is going in that direction.
If it's the 'Spitfiire Experience' in terms of delightfully balanced and co-ordinated handling you're after, I can't think of anything better than a Chipmunk, (other than a Spitfire!) to give it to you!
Don't discount the 'humble' Cub though. Although it may not have the 'Ramp Presence' of the other two, it has an iconic character all it's own, and is a great lead-in to a host of it's high wing utillity immitators, often themselves refered to as 'Cubs' by the uneducated.
Whatever you finally choose in which to 'learn what your feet are for', welcome to a wondereful new world of aviation!
MJ
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: OLBA
Age: 56
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tiger Moths at the Cambridge Flying Group, Cambridge , is my recommendation. They will you more than flying a tail dragger if your willing to learn, and that's a priceless opportunity this day and age.
Like much training, have you considered what you'll be flying once you have the differences training signed off? It might be best to get the training on the closest type to what you'll be flying?
That said, the Chipmunk is an excellent tailwheel / vintage trainer, and I doubt you'd regret training on one.
I had an interesting experience a few days ago, of flying a Condor in the morning, and a Cub in the afternoon. The Condor, which I tend to regard as a side-by-side non-aerobatic chippie in terms of its handling and feel, was massively more responsive yet at the same time more representative of a "big" taildragger than the Cub (an L4 as it happens), that left me much less impressed with the Cub than perhaps I have been previously. That said, the experience of flying a Cub is still fantastic, but it's a much less interesting aeroplane to fly than the Condor or Chipmunk.
If you are going to fly a Cub, try and get time in a PA18-150 Super Cub, which are a lot of fun.
Why do all the best aeroplanes always begin with A or C ?
G
That said, the Chipmunk is an excellent tailwheel / vintage trainer, and I doubt you'd regret training on one.
I had an interesting experience a few days ago, of flying a Condor in the morning, and a Cub in the afternoon. The Condor, which I tend to regard as a side-by-side non-aerobatic chippie in terms of its handling and feel, was massively more responsive yet at the same time more representative of a "big" taildragger than the Cub (an L4 as it happens), that left me much less impressed with the Cub than perhaps I have been previously. That said, the experience of flying a Cub is still fantastic, but it's a much less interesting aeroplane to fly than the Condor or Chipmunk.
If you are going to fly a Cub, try and get time in a PA18-150 Super Cub, which are a lot of fun.
Why do all the best aeroplanes always begin with A or C ?
G
Why do all the best aeroplanes always begin with A or C ?
A: Auster, Aerocommander, Aeronca, Alpha, Autocrat,
C: Cub, Condor, Chipmunk, Cirrus, Chief, Champ,
Struggling...........
MJ
Ps. Is the Manufacturer and model in different groups cheating?
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 158
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Seconded the endorsement for Cambridge Flying Group. You'll learn a lot more about flying and vintage aviation than just how to fly a Tiger Moth. They don't have brakes, and there is a metal skid. Hence the term taildragger compared to tailwheel for an aircraft with an actual wheel at the back. You'll learn a great deal about sensitive handling, at the same time as telling the aeroplane exactly what you want it to do. The reward gained from learning Moth skills are great.
The Chipmunk is a beautiful machine and as someone has already said, it is closer to the Spitfire end of the spectrum. But you lose that unique sense that you only get with open cockpit aviation, and the connection with the older stuff. From a handling perspective, they are very sweet.
The Cub is a fine machine, as long as it's not a SuperCub, which I find are much heavier in handling and less pleasant as a result. For glider tug work they're great, but not for tailwheel fun. In my humble opinion. Regular Cubs are often used for tailwheel conversions for good reason, because they're a decent aeroplane.
If you are looking to go into more sporty aerobatic types, the Decathlon is a great aeroplane. It's one of the easier tailwheel types to fly, but it's a lot of fun.
I've flown all of these types (except the Spitfire) so write from personal experience.
The Chipmunk is a beautiful machine and as someone has already said, it is closer to the Spitfire end of the spectrum. But you lose that unique sense that you only get with open cockpit aviation, and the connection with the older stuff. From a handling perspective, they are very sweet.
The Cub is a fine machine, as long as it's not a SuperCub, which I find are much heavier in handling and less pleasant as a result. For glider tug work they're great, but not for tailwheel fun. In my humble opinion. Regular Cubs are often used for tailwheel conversions for good reason, because they're a decent aeroplane.
If you are looking to go into more sporty aerobatic types, the Decathlon is a great aeroplane. It's one of the easier tailwheel types to fly, but it's a lot of fun.
I've flown all of these types (except the Spitfire) so write from personal experience.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Midlands
Posts: 2,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Moth is not very relevant to most of the kit you are likely to fly after you are signed off (I am told - only one I have no previous experience on).
The Chipmunk is superb and would be my choice, followed by a few hours in the Cub to broaden your expertise to a more representative aircraft (most UK TW aircraft have small continental low power to weight etc).
Rod1
The Chipmunk is superb and would be my choice, followed by a few hours in the Cub to broaden your expertise to a more representative aircraft (most UK TW aircraft have small continental low power to weight etc).
Rod1
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: My views - Not my employer!
Posts: 1,031
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would go for the Cub and I'd spend my time learning on that.
Then I'd spend the extra dosh enjoying both the Chippie and the Tiger. I did my PPL on a Cub, with an hour on the Chippie thrown in and a few hours in the Tiger later on.
Amazing, but very different aircraft all of them...
Then I'd spend the extra dosh enjoying both the Chippie and the Tiger. I did my PPL on a Cub, with an hour on the Chippie thrown in and a few hours in the Tiger later on.
Amazing, but very different aircraft all of them...
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: The World
Posts: 1,271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you intend to actually fly taildragger after your endorsement, go Cup, Chipmunk or even older Jodel/Robin. If you do it for pure fun, go Stearman or Moth, BUT it is unlikely you ever rent one of them later. If you value your life and not a very good pilot, avoid the Moth - their nickname widow-maker does come from experience ...
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Under the clag EGKA
Posts: 1,026
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I haven't flown anything for a long time now so my input may not be welcome but a third for Cambridge, a lovely club and very reasonable costs. Though I last was there when Bill Ison was still flying. Tiger moth not a comfortable seat if you are a bit larger or have any aches and pains. My first ever landing was in an Auster which I remember as being a lot less forgiving than many other aircraft I flew but I loved it. The Chipmunk was the most comfortable to control of any aircraft I ever flew. You could almost think it and it would respond benignly. The only aircraft that just fit me and most of my friends thought the same.
I envy you, I wish I still had the excitement and that sense of discovery that fresh flying experiences bring. Lord I feel old today.
I envy you, I wish I still had the excitement and that sense of discovery that fresh flying experiences bring. Lord I feel old today.
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,416
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Auster would teach you to fly, if you can still find one, and mastering it is a very satisfying process. I did all my ab initio training in Austers (Autocrats), which is not the same as converting, and it (and a Polish instructor, ex-RAF Spitfire pilot) gave me flying skills that I have never lost, especially spot landings, forced landings, and turning back after engine failure on take-off. It would do the same for you.
So would the Chipmunk and Tiger Moth, of course. I've never flown a Cub, to my great regret. But the Auster has an edge to it, bungie springs and all.
So would the Chipmunk and Tiger Moth, of course. I've never flown a Cub, to my great regret. But the Auster has an edge to it, bungie springs and all.
The most important thing you have to learn with a tail wheel is to use the rudder. In my view, the Tiger Moth will teach you to think rudder in all stages of flight, not just during the landing. The amount of rudder you use in a turn varies more with direction and power than any of the other common light aircraft (edited to say with possible exception of the Auster) that I have flown and this will make you a better pilot whatever you want to fly.
On the downside, if you need to fly off hard runways, the Tiger is more crosswind limited than most of the other options because it has no brakes. We used a Tiger for glider towing from Twin Wood Farm (part of the RAE Bedford) which had a short tarmac runway with a barbed wire fence down one side. With the wind blowing from the fence side, slowing down after landing was quite difficult. With little drag from the skid on tarmac, you tended to lose directional control fairly quickly and would weather cock towards the fence. The only way you could stop the swing was a burst of power. Without the drag of grass, this meant you accelerated quite quickly only to repeat it again as you slowed again. Hey Ho!
On the downside, if you need to fly off hard runways, the Tiger is more crosswind limited than most of the other options because it has no brakes. We used a Tiger for glider towing from Twin Wood Farm (part of the RAE Bedford) which had a short tarmac runway with a barbed wire fence down one side. With the wind blowing from the fence side, slowing down after landing was quite difficult. With little drag from the skid on tarmac, you tended to lose directional control fairly quickly and would weather cock towards the fence. The only way you could stop the swing was a burst of power. Without the drag of grass, this meant you accelerated quite quickly only to repeat it again as you slowed again. Hey Ho!
It is worth remembering, as Flyingmac points out with appropriate sarcasm - that the tailwheel conversion takes whatever it takes.
I did mine many years ago from Thruxton with Bob Cole in a supercub in 1:40, and an hour is not unknown. But I was very current on several other types at the time.
I've known one person take 13 hours because he turned up with a lot of issues with his flying that needed sorted out at the same time, that was unfortunate.
But there are a number of schools who advertise standard "5 hour" conversion courses. That's probably a reasonable average for a low currency club PPL, but does not have to be the right answer. So, don't think in terms of standard times, and thus standard prices.
G
I did mine many years ago from Thruxton with Bob Cole in a supercub in 1:40, and an hour is not unknown. But I was very current on several other types at the time.
I've known one person take 13 hours because he turned up with a lot of issues with his flying that needed sorted out at the same time, that was unfortunate.
But there are a number of schools who advertise standard "5 hour" conversion courses. That's probably a reasonable average for a low currency club PPL, but does not have to be the right answer. So, don't think in terms of standard times, and thus standard prices.
G