Thank you all, and thank you AuxTank for the personal message!

My local school offers ab intio training on a tailwheel aircraft and at the same price as the Cessna's frankly it never flies.

Occasionally someone starts to fly it but then they speak to the club house experts who tell them they should't and then then they switch.

Although I had a PPL only on Cessna 150s before I joined the RAF, converting to the delightful Chipmunk at White Waltham was relatively straightforward. Mainly because it had plenty of grass runways, so crosswinds were rarely an issue.

We were only taught the 3-point landing technique though. Which meant that landing on the tarmac runway (I think that only the main runway was still in use at that time) at RAF Thorney Island during my first summer camp in 1970 required me to relearn how to land a Chipmunk and to 'fly' it on the ground until it stopped - hopefully still pointing in the correct direction!

So think carefully about LAPL/PPL training on a tailwheel aeroplane - and whether the aerodrome has sufficient runways (preferably grass) to avoid you having to stay on the ground whilst tricycle aeroplanes are able to fly.

'Probably time to speak to different experts.

After truly taking the time to practice and learn properly on a taildragger I bought, I found that it will handle a crosswind every bit as well as the 150 I also own. Yes, it requires pilot attention, but once that attention is applied, it is adequately controllable well in excess of its demonstrated crosswind value, and for anywhere I would like to take it. I have flown it in northern Canada, where many airports have only runway, and there too far apart to fly to the next because you don't like the wind direction. Sometimes you had to handle crosswinds.

That said, I have found that the least pilot effort/uncertainty for my landings in any wind is obtained with wheel landings, I no longer choose to three point any taildragger I fly. I find this to be somewhat validated in that the few taildraggers in which I have been formally checked out, I have been trained that an three point landing is to be avoided - primarily the DC-3T.

Oh, taildragger please. Though maybe one of the less expensive ones. How about a 90hp Jodel or a J3 Cub? The super Cub isn't ideal for ab initio, some things are a bit out of reach for the instructor. I wish I'd been able to learn on a taildragger, but I converted the instant I could, and never for one minute regretted it. I've got something a bit faster now, but it still has the third wheel at the back.

I suspect no wind is more difficult than crosswind in a tailwheel on a hard surface. Crosswind you know which way it'll turn. Nil wind it's up to the pilot to initiate his own oscillation. And a variable wind suddenly resulting in a few knots tailwind will increase the distance travelled before it is taxiing.
A taildragger, (not tailwheel) I've never had on a hard runway, and never want to.

Yes, me too. The only plane I have flown with a tail skid, rather than a tail wheel was a Tiger Moth. I think I just would have worn down the hardwood faster on pavement, but I never tried it!

Otherwise, I agree, I'd rather have a crosswind, than no wind, in a tailwheel airplane.

Another voice in support of learning on tailwheel. It'll teach much better fine control near to the ground, that will pay dividends in future flying.

Odds are, in a taildragger, you'll end up learning from better "stick and rudder" instructors as well.

G

Gliders first, and then tail-draggers before moving onto trikes.

Quick question: If one learns entirely on a tail-wheel type is differences training required before flying a tricycle type?

No.

... but when I went to hire a DR400 after learning to fly on Tiger Moths the receptionist at the flying school suddenly stopped, looked up, and said (somewhat in jest) 'you're a nose-wheel conversion'!

But, no, there isn't such a formal thing as 'differences training' for nose-wheel aircraft - EASA can't imagine that anybody could learn to fly on a tail-dragger...

That's not to say that a check out wouldn't be a good idea.

EASA requires differences training for LAPL(A) per FCL.135.A and the PPL holder who has a class rating per FCL.710
(Note: differences training does not necessarily involve any flying - it could be a briefing or being told to RTFM.)

FCL.135.A LAPL(A) — Extension of privileges to another class or variant of aeroplane
(b) Before the holder of an LAPL can exercise the privileges of the licence on another variant of aeroplane than the one used for the skill test, the pilot shall undertake differences or familiarisation training. The differences training shall be entered in the pilot’s logbook or equivalent document and signed by the instructor.

FCL.710 Class and type ratings — variants
(a) In order to extend his/her privileges to another variant of aircraft within one class or type rating, the pilot shall undertake differences or familiarisation training. In the case of variants within a type rating, the differences or familiarisation training shall include the relevant elements defined in the operational suitability data established in accordance with Part-21.
(b) If the variant has not been flown within a period of 2 years following the differences raining, further differences training or a proficiency check in that variant shall be required to maintain the privileges, except for types or variants within the single-engine piston and TMG class ratings.
(c) The differences training shall be entered in the pilot’s logbook or equivalent record and signed by the instructor as appropriate.

Differences or familiarisation training. My reading of that is that differences taining is required for a different Class of aeroplane, familiarisation for a different Type.

Familiarisation is whatever the pilot feels he needs to safely operate the new aeroplane, from a 10 hour conversion course to sitting in the cockpit with the manual for 20 minutes before flying.

So for a pilot trained on a tailwheel aircraft who wants to fly a nose-wheel aeroplane of the same Class, differences training is not required but familiarisation is.

There is no 'nose-wheel' differences in Part FCL, there is 'tailwheel' differences though.

Oh well. That's an hour in a Dr400 I've wasted every couple of years, then.

Flying a DR400 is never wasted.

+1 for all the taildragger recommendations. I came from gliding, did my ATPL on nose wheel aircraft, then went back to taildraggers. Because of my gliding background it only took 20mins to convert onto a Cub (plus having a good instructor).

The skills you acquire to operate a taildragger competently make you much more of a thinking pilot in anything else; starting in this way when you’re young and without preconceived ideas about difficulty is an excellent idea.

"Oh well. That's an hour in a Dr400 I've wasted every couple of years, then."
Are you thinking of your "Biennial hour with an Instructor"?
​​​​​​At least 75% of my hours are DR1050, but my "hour" is always a check-out on a flying school rental. My last tailwheel check was 1965.
With no instructor involvement, I flew home a Bolkow Junior we bought a year ago. Should a sign-off in my log book by an instructor who'd never flown that model been made? Few instructors are available and current in rarer aircraft.

Yes, I've been doing my instructor hour in a nosedragger for years now. So I could have done it on the cub? Would have saved some money...... No instructor has been involved in my conversion to the Vega though. Briefed and flew. Then did my share of the test flying. It's about as different from a cub as you can get while still having fixed gear and prop.

Same problem for training new glider tug pilots. Since spring 2018 the system that has worked in the UK since aerotowing began whereby glider clubs' Chief Tug Pilots trained new tuggies has been ended. EASA now requires tug pilots to be taught by an aeroplane instructor who holds the Sailplane Towing Rating. The number of aeroplane instructors with the rating and appropriate experience to perform the role is minimal. The school also has to be approved or to have decared that they teach the rating which limits it even more - especially as few schools have any gliders to tow or aircraft with hooks fitted.

In practice the only places where you can learn the trade now are the handfull of gliding clubs that happen to have a tug pilot who is also an aeroplane instructor.

Tugging
 

My! how the world gets complicated when the chair borne pilots get to work. I'm a glider pilot. It was my job to check out all the tug pilots at our club in 1966 when we bought our Tiger Moth (G-AHUE - anyone remember her?) . The rule at that time was that the sum of the tows at each end of the string had to be at least six. As all our prospective tug pilots were new to glider towing I had to go to another club to accumulate the requisite six tows. I have no idea how many out of my 700+ subsequent aerotows were checkouts, but we never had any accidents or emergencies in all the the time I was flying there, so it seems as though another regulation of the gold plated variety has just been created. As most, but not all, of our tug drivers were ex-RAF who had been trained on Tigers I guess we were just lucky. Does this new rule state how many tows the 'Chief Tug pilot' has to have done to qualify?