Tail dragger 'experience'
 

There is no formal tail dragger endorsement, so what counts as tail dragger time? I will soon be doing some TMG flying - will this count as tail dragger experience?

First, let me congratulate you for getting into tailwheel aircraft!

What counts? Time spent learning to operate a tailwheel plane -- that is, learning the techniques required to taxi without being able to see over the nose, without abusing the brakes and keeping all wheels on the ground in normal and high winds, avoid groundlooping a plane, properly "unsticking" during takeoff, making three-point and wheel landings, avoiding propeller strikes...
At a typical tailwheel conversion course you spend no time away from the circuit, unless you pay extra for it. A tailwheel airplane in the air is just an airplane with less drag than a fixed-nosewheel one. But it becomes a very different thing on the ground, and that takes a little getting used to if you've done all your flying on nosewheelbarrows.

If you have experience with landing non-powered aircraft in a tailwheel configuration some if it may count. It really depends on the kind of experience.

Have fun!

'There is no formal tail dragger endorsement'....not correct, there is. Under JAR/EASA differences training is required for, amongst other things, tailwheels. The format required is 'ground instruction in appropriate training device and/or flight training, as required to exercise the difference'. Can be done by a CRI or FI, signature & license number required in logbook. TMG flying with a tailwheel will count; get the instructor to sign off your tailwheel differences training.

There's a tailwheel "differences training" endorsement for SEP and I think SLMG, but not microlights. It generally takes about 90-120 minutes, although I've seen the occasional club advertise 5 hour courses, which suggests to me either they're profiteering, or regularly getting some seriously inept students.

Personally I count taildragger experience as any hours I have in an aeroplane with a tailwheel or skid, and use a spare column in my logbook to tot them up in case anybody ever asks - which has happened occasionally if looking to fly somebody else's old aeroplane (and I'd ask the same if somebody wanted to fly mine).

G

hmm. Flying J3C these days. That's what I call tailwheel trainer :cool:

Good thing I don't have to zig-zag taxiing as I can still see ahead over nose (that is, in front seat, once flying J3 solo, ehrm, I may have to, from back seat).
Once PA-11 gets back from service, and then maybe Luscome SL-8 flying once around PPL mark, or C140, for some flying about and getting to know other planes, that you don't see often in aeroclubs/schools in Western world. Luscombe isn't used for initial training due to more stuff to look after and twitchiness, as I'm told.

As you mentioned you're gonna get into gliding, now going to do some tailwheel TMG (as crash course for glider circuits, nice), but still it ain't flying Cub or Super Cub. Enjoy whatever you fly for fun.

EDIT:
Genghis, no idea about UK SEP training practices, hours, etc, but in the US they have to get the tailwheel rating/endorsement which IIRC reading some stuff, is actually at least 5 hours. Or so advertised. Obviously, now that most trainers are trike, trike students can wreck tailwheel gear more easily. No wonder.
I don't see anything wrong with flying 5 hours, but yes, it shouldn't be advertised as minimum time for the endorsement, if it's 'course'.

A Luscombe is not "twitchy"............it just vastly more responsive than , say, a Cub........and it is immensely rewarding !!!

I agree, a Luscombe is no more "twitchy" than any other taildragger.

Contrary to popular belief, it is actually a good training aircraft for tailwheel experience as it handles like the typical classic taildragger that it is. It is not especially difficult to fly and has no more vices than any other taildragger of a similar vintage; it also has the good training characteristic that it will happily show you up if you do not fly it well. With the right skills, a Luscombe is a delight to fly.

However, like most tailwheel trainers, you need an instructor who knows his taildragger.


JD
:)

Thanks guys for feedback.

There are two Luscombe SL8 flying here, but they're not used for initial training, only post-PPL. I could fly it before PPL practical, but only with instructor and not for landing practice etc, to mess things up.

I thought J3C is responsive enough.. I guess it's not all 'same' even with comparable vintage of airplanes. I just said what I was told. The instructors and pilots like Luscombe. They just told me they're more complex than J3/PA11 and that they need to be handled well/more corrections etc. I used the word twitchy, but you guys don't like it, heh.

I call R22 more twitchy than S300 (helicopters, for those fixed wing only aficionados) - very responsive and has to be flown well, not to bite. First hand experience of R22, no other heli so far, but I'm told Sweizer 300 is more forgiving and slower to react to inputs (=stable).

That C140 here doesn't have engine fitted/delivered/fixed right now, been standing in hangar for while, so I don't think I'd see it in the air while I'm here.
Since SL8 cost me same as J3, but faster, I could do bit of cruisin' with it. Definitely more fun than C150.

There might be an insurance element, too.

I just bought a share in a taildragger, and the insurance stipulated that I can't fly it solo till I have 15 takeoffs and landings in it, and then that there will be an insurance excess loading until I have 25 hours in it.

How many ?
 

Keef
Will 15 takeoffs and landings be enough ...??:}
tth

Almost certainly not :)

But that's what the insurers say, so who am I to argue?

The instructor doing the tailwheel differences training is also the "Group Gaffer" so I'm not expecting to be let loose in it until he's convinced. It's a delightful little aeroplane, and I'm looking forward to bimbling the skies of East Anglia in it.

No.

Not to be competent.

I have had my taildragger for 3 yrs. I haven't bent it, nor ground looped it, yet, but it has on occasion threatened to swap ends in a downwind landing. I have once or twice nearly "bottomed out" the main gear struts when the planet was a little further away than I thought. Greaser landings are slightly more frequent than they were. I do not yet consider myself "competent", just lucky. At 15 landings I was still being yelled at "KEEP THE BLOODY STICK ALL THE WAY BACK!!" I love it.

For some weird reason most of today's instructors feel the main landing technique is the three point full stall landing.

The wheel landing is a safer and more desirable landing method if only one technique is taught.

Then again what would one expect considering they were obviously taught by other instructors who didn't know any better.

When people ask me who to get tail wheel training from I advise them from a high time tail wheel pilot...rather than an flight school instructor.

That is a bold statement.

I think the best technique depends on the circumstances.

This may be so, but IMHO it depends on the type of aeroplane. A tail heavy type can be a devil to wheeler-on neatly.
I'll take the grass and go for a three pointer anyday;)

Going back to licensing issues... I did my PPL back in 1990 in a Cub and my commercial GFT in a Seneca but I don't have anything signed in my logbook for tailwheel wobbly prop retracts type aircraft. Are there grandfather rights for these endorsements?

I can see where Chuck is coming from, but agree with Guzzler. Circumstances are important and the ability to cope with the majority of them does need a few hours (or at least a few flights in different conditions). I certainly find three point better for short strips, but wheelers (one wheel sometimes) better for crosswinds.

Often not taught or skipped over are the little things that make a big difference. Aileron and elevator positions when taxiing in gusty conditions downwind/crosswind for instance, or taxiing down an incline in an aircraft without brakes might be another! It's not unheard of for a fledgling taildrgger pilots to cope well with a landing on the limits of windspeed, only to tip the areoplane on it's nose when turning downwind because they were told to keep the stick back when taxiing.

Taildraggers are no harder to fly than trikes, they just require a different mindset. :ok:

SS

One word answer .... Yes!

Just like to add my support to getting a high hours tailwheel (and current) instructor to do your differences training rather than any QFI who has a tailwheel auth.

Interestingly the VGSs teach the stick back method of taxing regardless of wind direction which to me will always look and be wrong as one day one of them might get into an aircraft that demands you treat it properly and forget!

Taildraggers are as easy to fly as any other aircraft but I only have current knowledge of Citabria and Chipmunk and mainly grass - its the points in contact with the ground that require constant attention! I love them and am reminded at least 1 in every 8 landings (or rather touch-and-goes) that constant attention is needed as I keep occasionally trying to wheel the Citabria onto grass - onto hard or as mentioned one wheel onto hard in crosswinds are very rewarding but three-point onto grass for me if in the Citabria! Circumstances rule and the beauty of tail-wheel is to keep checking the circumstances - never assume. Those little things will keep you straight!!!