I'm in the camp that thinks taildragger flight training would produce better stick & rudder skills than the nose wheel version. However trying to convince modern thinking "what's the point?" People who just want to fly the latest plastic fantastic piece of glass crap while impressing their friends is a waste of bandwidth.

As said, if airliners ever go back to DC3 days things might change.
First thing I did after licence was tailwheel differences, then bought one.


It's the apparent fear of the tailwheel that surprises me.

By this measure I hate flying and make no apology for it either!

Cockney Steve
 

Yes, most. But I think you will find that the casualty rate was much closer to that for Service pilots than you may think. :ooh:

MJ:ok:

I'm of the camp that thinks everyone should go solo on a glider before they start their PPL training. Why do you veer to the extremes of 'it's either a taildragger or it's a glass piece of plastic crap'? I don't see the 40 odd year old 172 I fly as plastic and it certainly doesn't have anything remotely glass looking in the cockpit.

Why do you assume people fear tailwheels? I've flown tailwheel aircraft before, can't see what the fuss is. You use a different set of skills that's all. It's not rocket science.

My taildragger experience is admittedly even more limited than my general flying experience, although I found it instructive and quite joyful and would like a trial flight in an old open-cockpit taildragger, too (already for remotely emulating the experience of flying WWI airplanes like in Rise of Flight :8).

However, I wholeheartedly reject the notion that the difference between flying/training in an (old) taildragger and flying/training in a (modern) trike amounts to the difference between good and crap flying/training, or that one has to fly taildraggers/do aeros/like stalls and spins to be(come) a good pilot.

And on a more general and personal note, while I admire great stick & rudder skills and aspire to develop decent ones myself, I find this (implied) "us real pilots vs. them pathetic aircraft operators" undertone which so often seems to go with the subject of airplane handling quite tedious
(but that may be just me as a newbie and explicit non-skygod).

Well it's not going to go away. Sad thing is, there aren't that many of us from a sport/pastime point of view nationally and we still argue about crap like tailwheels v trikes. Be a lot better if we all just enjoyed flying whatever it is we choose to fly and let others do the same.

Foop. It's all about the instructor, not the aircraft. That said, if I could afford the fuel I would love a Yak 12 for bimbling with three friends. Looks like a Cub on steroids, and has a round engine.

I regularly fly one of these remarkable ladies to events such as project propellor.

John did you go to the last one at Coningsby?

Thing.


I don't think I said "it's either a taildragger or a glass piece of plastic crap. I was trying to make a point that a number of modern pilots are not interested in tailwheel aircraft because they sometimes appear to me to be a little afraid of the perceived difficulty in handling. And these pilots would rather get airborne with all the bells & whistles than bother to learn something different.


I too believe that going solo on gliders first is a good idea. I did it myself, they teach you how to fly accurately, spins, full stalls etc and that does generate confidence and understanding of the bogey man/there be dragons there, problem.


As for the 172, nothing wrong with that, nothing wrong with 152 either, or PA28 etc, it is the pilot training that is at fault. How many buggered nose wheels are there on those a/c compared to ground looped, noseovered taildraggers?


I've watched PA28 drivers take 3 attempts to land on 620 metres grass & nearly run out of space, I watch 172/152s being wheelbarrowed on regularly. I don't see many taildraggers being landed badly.


I never found the tail dragging bit much of a fuss either. And I don't consider myself anything special by flying one.


The original question here was about training on tailwheel, or lack of. Not about what people should be allowed to fly.


Chuck.
Now see what a can of worms you've opened, great fun isn't it?

Well yeah, it is.:)

I take your point about broken nosewheels, the AAIB reports must contain broken nosewheels more than other type of accident. Which surely shows that trikes are harder to fly than tailwheels...:)

Joking aside if you sit at any grass strip watching the world go idley by then there's no doubt that the odd taildragger you see will be plonked down on average better than your average trike. I'm an old glider bore and take great pride in my landings. They aren't always what I want them to be but to me they are the skillful part of hand flying; you can usually see if a pilot has a good set of hands by the way they land. If I can nail a good landing in the right place at the right speed then I go home a happy man. It seems that a lot of flyers just appear to throw them at the ground without any empathy for the machine. Still, I'm not exactly a three thousand hour man so my opinion doesn't really count for much.

Things have not changed much since I last flew in your country I see.

I also used to be fascinated by the number of ham handed pilots the system churned out.

Reading the different comments here really gives one some things to think about....from poorly trained pilots who semi crash land until they are successful in busting the nose wheel off to pilots who don't like to fly unless the auto pilot is doing the flying......makes one wonder what would happen some day when the weather is really bad and the auto pilot fails?????:( :( :(

Thing.

Well that post could have been written by me. I too am of the same mind if I nail the landing. I've flown gliders in the past up to bronze & silver height before trying power, 250hrs total, 150 on type. So no expert either.

I spent last Saturday trying to get the circuits as tight as possible after no flying since November in this crap weather.

Chuck
Semi crash land is right, reminds me of the Navy watching Scimitars & Buccaneers on Ark Royal, except they kept the bloody nose up and the tail hook down. And the gear was designed for it.

I've seen the results of a beaut, v. expensive retractable, the sort of a/c any of us would like to own, shortish grass strip, landed about half way down with too much energy.

What would you or I do? Go around I hope would be the correct and sane answer.

Nope, hit the anchors and laughably thought he could stop before the boundary fence and ditch. The mind boggles.

One has to wonder how an endeavor like learning to fly has been allowed to be dumb ed down to such a low level of proficiency?

Could it be the Darwin factor at work?

If mediocrity is going to be accepted in operating any machinery one would think that flying an airplane would be the last thing people would accept mediocrity in......then again when I think of the level of incompetence in those who regulate and license pilots I think I know the answer. :ugh: :ugh: :ugh: :ok:

You only have to drive on the road to see mediocrity in action Chuck. People are operators of machinery these days, they have no empathy with the machine they are operating and wish for none. It's just an extension of their living room. But when it bites I would like to think I would have a chance of surviving, I fear it would not be so for a lot of people.

Can they get going fast enough on the M25 these days to get killed or is it still the worlds biggest parking lot?

There is one on YouTube somewhere where he touches down eventually just short of the numbers, wrong set of numbers, & ends up on the beach. A twin by the way so presumably experienced? Must have been trained in UK!Bed time this side of the pond Chuck. G-night.M25 Fire Service training ground!!

I enjoy a good dose of nostalgia and love flying classic taildraggers and - to be honest - nearly anything else in the GA world. Maybe it's a function of my location on the planet but I'm surprised that few posters have mentioned training in the VLA/LSA environment. Many of the aeroplanes available are actually much more interesting to fly than the standard (increasingly clapped-out) traditional GA offerings and, despite the naysayers, we now have professional flying schools offering both GA and Recreational Aviation Australia training, often by the same instructors.

It's true that the originally-mooted cost benefits of this type of flying/training have not all been realized but the cost reduction that has been achieved, and the associated fun factor, are definitely contributing to the continuing viability of private aviation.

And you even have the option of some nice taildraggers, if that's the way you want to train (see, e.g. Tecnam.com - P92 Tail Dragger).

This type of training won't work for everyone in all circumstances but there's no need for excessive hand-wringing, in my view.

Yes I did, great day out!

On the original topic, it's not the aeroplane that matters, it's the training and the willingness to read the POH and do what it says. It's also about making sure you never stop learning and planning for every flight.

I can hand fly an aircraft in solid IMC quite happily, but mostly it's hard work so I use the autopilot. I can land a PA 28 in a short field because I read the POH.

Mostly, as I say above, the aircraft is irrelevant from a training point of view it's the instruction and the attitude of the instructed that matters. In some respects it's also the syllabus. I did an IR in Europe and it did wonders for my currency, but I had to learn about practical IFR flying separately from the course which taught me almost nothing useful in that respect.