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!!!

Conventional Undercarriage
 

Hi Okavango,

.

For once, with regret, I must disagree with Gengis. If tailwheel is to be taught PROPERLY, it takes all of five hours. I might add that these days there is a good deal of very poor tailwheel training about, so be careful whom you go to. For preference, go to a high hours career instructor. Typically, club instructors commonly don't teach the wheeler landing technique and some don't even teach crosswind landing at all, which is SCANDALOUS.

Remember also that some tail-draggers are easier than others to taxi or land. The Tiger Moth and the Cub are easy, however the Auster was a bugger.

I did my PPL on tailwheel aircraft, (or conventional undercarriage as we called it in those days) in 1960 on Austers, when we were nearly all taildragger pilots. I was taught by a guy who had flown heavy, multi-engine tail draggers through much of WWII, and he taught both three point and wheeler (aka roller) landings and both crabbing and wing-down approaches. I was taught to use wheeler landings always whenever landing cross wind.

When I returned to taildraggers in 2005, after a break of many years, I was taught to use a two point, one wing down method of cross wind landing (which, incidentally I had never seen before). I soon found that this was adequate only for light to moderate cross winds and using this technique in a wind that had grown probably a bit too strong while I was airborne, had my first and only ground-loop.

I suggest you first read 'The Compleat Taildragger Pilot' by H. S. Plourde and then you will know what you need and whether you are getting your money's worth.

Good luck Okavango.

Broomstick.

Shortstripper - Thanks!

AAhhh the joys of commenting on these subjects.

When I take the time to give my opinion on these questions I do not make any statement without first making sure I am giving the correct information.

Most agree with my suggestion of finding someone who understands how to teach on a tail wheel airplane instead of just any flight instructor who thinks they know how.

I have been teaching people to fly tail wheel airplanes for over fifty years and can't even remember the different types of tail wheel airplanes I have flown....of all the different types I have flown I never found one that could not be wheel landed.

The reason I said of the two types of landing the wheel landing is the best is for the simple reason that a wheel landing gives the best control in a x/wind.

So based on safety I will choose the wheel landing over the three point if one is to have a choice.

I've taught tailwheel in a range of light aircraft (Jodels, Cubs, Citabrias, Stearman, Texas Taildragger (converted c152), Decathlon, Cap10b/c, and others). Unless the student is unusually experienced, has flown gliders or is "a natural" it usually takes somewhere close to 5 hours to convert them and I'm surprised that people claim it can be done in much less.

The wheeler vs 3-point debate is an interesting one. I teach 3-point landings first (with wing down for crosswind) and only add wheel landings if the stude wants to learn that technique, if they have picked-up the other technique unusually quickly, or if they come back for refresher training.
A big consideration is the typical runway length that people operate from - 750m can disappear quickly when learning to wheel land in nil wind:eek: and many strips are much shorter - maybe you have the luxury of longer runways, Chuck.
Another reason is that, from experience, the aircraft that people generally fly can all be landed in the 2/3-point attitude in reasonable crosswinds. If the wind is higher I would expect private pilots to find a way to reduce the crosswind component by changing the line, the runway, or the airfield because even if you successfully wheel it on there still comes-a-time when the tail needs to come down - and it isn't always going to be possible to run-off into wind.

Edited to add: manufacturers publish landing performance info which is presumably based on a 3-point landing - wheel landing distances can be highly variable so how do those that prefer this method calculate their landing distances?

HFD

I first teach them how to control the airplane on the runway by high speed runs down the runway with the tail in the air.

When they can S turn back and forth down the center line we go flying....not before.

I then teach them to wheel land.

I then teach the three point.

I have never had a student who could not learn that way.

If runway length is a problem most countries have airports with longer runways...so we find one.

Most tail wheel airplanes I have flown can be landed shorter using the wheel landing technique than three pointing them.

I have never three pointed these airplanes.

Anson Mk5.

Beech 18.

Grumman Turbo goose.

And I have hundreds of hours on each type and have never lost control of a tail wheel airplane in around ten thousand hours of flying them.

Was I doing something wrong?

I pick a touch down point and after landing on it I measure the distance it took to come to a stop.

Having spent a happy hour and a bit doing gradually-faster taxy runs up and down the runway, I got airborne! I gained a considerable respect for the little D119.

The instructor has many hours on this particular Jodel, is a member of the group, and spent a long time on the ground explaining stuff before we even got into it. I will be surprised if 5 hours logged time proves enough, even so.

But then, I've got 30 years experience of nosewheel aircraft and I wouldn't say I'm good at landing them, either.

I start the same way. First: lots of accelerate/stop until they can control direction and attitude on the ground. Next: airborne to look at co-ordination, stalls, operate any systems, simulated emergencies, and generally settle-in. Next: lots of circuits in different wind conditions and with slips of various types. Finally: if the stude wants we go to a tarmac runway for a few circuits.

If I take someone to the nearest airfield that has a longer runway I first have to ring-up to book (they may say "no") and my student will have to pay over £20 for each landing :mad:. During the circuit detail we may be put into several orbits on downwind or base, or get told to land or leave the airspace. It's not unknown to only achieve 5 circuits in an hour - plus transit time.
If only larger airfields were as plentiful and as helpful in the UK as they are in the US.

HFD

Yes I fully understand the problems that private aviation faces in England having flown and worked there for some years.

It is almost as unsolvable as your immigration problems.

You have my sympathy and I fear the Peoples Socialist Republic of Canada is not far behind.

I am sure all you guys and gals know my comments are made to help , not to criticize.

I'm re-examining the issue of hours to convert to tailwheel, after various people think I'm wrong.

I did my SEP / group A tailwheel conversion with Bob Cole (not known for compromise!) in 1:20 at Thuxton.

However, looking more closely at my logbook, at that time I had 400 hours as a pilot, and was actively test flying microlights, plus on microlights and motorgliders I had about 15 tailwheel hours before I started with Bob, that and quite a lot of hours sat next to or behind test pilots on various assessments including a T-6 and DC3.

So yes, I didn't exactly do it in under 5 hours either, nor was I a standard PPL. You chaps are right, I was wrong.

I confess personally I always favour 3-point landings, but certainly wouldn't consider anybody converted if they weren't fully capable of both.

A further thought, I recall the owner of a large microlight school a few years ago telling me that when he went from teaching on Thruster TSTs (tailwheel side-by-side microlights) to the AX3 (a very similar shaped aeroplane, but with doors and a nosewheel) the time to get students solo went from about 15 hours to about 10.

G

GtE: I think my TW conversion was about 5 circuits in a Cub, but I had a reasonable amount of gliding experience and nobody had told me it was supposed to be difficult! I only really understood the issues and what was going-on later, when I was taught to instruct. With hindsight I don't consider that my initial conversion was adequate.

Chuck: I'm intrigued by "Most tail wheel airplanes I have flown can be landed shorter using the wheel landing technique than three pointing them" as this is counter to my experience of light aircraft - are you referring to heavier types with real suspension and the ability to brake with the tail in the air? If not, I'm doing something wrong and would appreciate hearing how you do it.

HFD

I have a different opinion on this comment. I start all my taildragger students off with a flight to the practice area for some general handling exercises. The vast majority of light taildraggers are 1930/1940's designs and modern nosewheel trainers with balanced and relatively unresponsive controls and adverse yaw virtually eliminated, are not the best preparation to flying a cub/champ/C140 style of aircraft. I usually find that it takes an hour of airwork before the student can consistantly coordinate a turn and hold a consistant attitude and airspeed in the descent and glide. Going straight to the circuit will IMO be an exercise in frustration for both student and instructor and investing an hour in general handling will pay big dividends in learning taildragger takeoffs and landings.

I should also point out that fatal stall/spin accidents, particularly in the circuit are much more common in light taildraggers, therefore I demonstrate some scenarios where mishandling that a modern cessna or piper will let you get away with, can be deadly in this class of aircaft.

Sure:

Most tail wheel airplanes can be wheel landed with touch down just above the stall.

Once on the runway you can lower the nose which will put more weight on the wheels to provide better braking energy.

Have a look at how the Super Cub guys do it in their short landing contests in Alaska, the Super Cub is a light aircraft....however the heavier the airplane the better this method works.

These conversations tend to drift all over the place such going into detail about all the different flying characteristics of different airplanes and how to check out pilots in every flight envelope from straight and level to unusual attitudes.

I try and focus on the question asked....such as here, checking out on a tail wheel airplane in this thread....thus I focus on the real differences between a tail wheel airplane and a nose wheel airplane.

The important differences are mostly ground handling and take off and landing differences.

((( Before this gets into a pissing contest please note....)))

If I find the pilot who I am cross training from nose wheel to tail wheel needs training in any other realm of airplane handling I will provide such training before approving them as competent on type.

Any instructor who deserves the title of instructor will very quickly be able to determine where a pilot needs further instruction in a very short time of observing the pilot being trained.

Surely some upper air time is essential, since virtually no training aeroplanes are available in both nosewheel and tailwheel versions - so in most cases you do need to spend a certain amount of time getting the new taildragger pilot to know the aeroplane that they'll then be learning to fly in the circuit. And in most cases, they'll probably be flying the aeroplane again anyhow so need a proper conversion.

G

Yes, of course that is true.

But generally the pilot being trained has a license and hopefully upper air work would be only to get them familiar with the type they are being checked out on.

Some pilots can be checked out in a very short time.

Some pilots are so weak on all the areas of flying I am amazed they hold a license, and that includes a few licensed flight instructors I have flown with.

I take this para to mean that you also do handling assesment of the student prior to starting in the circuit. I Absolutely agree the best place to fully observe the pilot is IMO the practice area. How long the student needs to spend there will of course vary, but my experience with PPL's that have only flown modern nosewheel trainers is that htey need at least an hour to learn how to properly fly an aircraft in the J3/7AC/C140 class. Going straight to the circuit IMO deprives them of an essential handling familiarization which they will then have to acquire while also trying to land and takeoff, not the ideal situation IMO.

It looks like I should have had you fine tune my instructional techniques B.P.F. when I was in the advanced flight training profession.

Just think how much more successful I would have been.

Chuck

My my aren't we testy tonight.....and here I was agreeing with you ;)