FWIW my ex-Zlin owning friend with Chipmunk experience raised his eyebrows a little at the idea of a no-tailwheel time pilot transitioning quickly into something that might resemble a Spitfire. He also waived off the Zlin versus Chipmunk question as relatively unimportant. His thought was step (1) lots of tailwheel time in *anything* with a small wheel in the rear followed by (2) Harvard (AT6) time. That is assuming the scaled Spitfire flies like a full scale version. He was a US Navy test pilot so I think not a bad guy for questions of this type.

The chap who has bought this Mk26 also recognises, without needing to be told, that he needs significant tailwheel time.

However I'd dispute "anything". Something that has a good view over the nose and a relatively flat landing attitude - say a G109 or Jodel, will give far less value than something like a Chipmunk.

Time in a Harvard would be a lot of fun I'm sure, but I'm unconvinced that the Mk26 is such a beast that it needs the intermediate step - apart from when taxiing when it was obtrusive, torque isn't a big issue.

G

N.B. The USN pilot on my ETPS course had never flown anything with a propeller before the course.

Agree with all that Genghis has said above. The USN TP will certainly be highly qualified in testing and assessing new aircraft and equipment but that does not necessarily qualify him as an expert on training pilots to fly new machines. Instructing and TPing are different disciplines and require different (although in some areas overlapping) skills.

The Spitfire is an aeroplane, it requires certain techniques to fly it safely and none of these are particularly difficult to master. The pilot under training needs to be guided by a suitably experienced and competent instructor who understands and can teach those techniques.

I've trained pilots with limited tailwheel time on several large and powerful types with no difficulty and I'd say that Genghis' approach seems sensible and measured. Good luck with the training!

3 Point

I'm not sure if some USN pilots still fly prop basic trainers (or not) in training today - but the guy I mentioned was flying piston engined Navy flying boats as an Ensign. Hundreds of types since then ranging from microlights, single and multi engined piston including Navy IP on T-28s, Skyhawk and F4 Phantom test flying, civilian instructor on all the usual types for extra money once upon a time, turboprop singles and commuter airliners professionally, L1011 Captain, then eventually retiring from DC9s that he says were more fun. He flies the tailwheel Vans RV that he built himself now but prior to that had the Zlin 526 for 10 or 15 years, for aerobatics, originally with the Chipmunk bunch that used to exist locally. He's a good guy to talk to about different types, having had so much direct experience on everything with wings.

I think it'd be quite difficult to assess the scaled Spifire without direct experience on the scaled type, as despite it being close to full scale it must be much lighter and has much lower power loading too.

Roughly speaking the Mk26 has 1/4 the mass, 4/5 the linear dimensions, and 1/6 the power of an early model spit. So, it has to be assessed very much as an aeroplane in its own right.

There must be sonebody who has flown a Mk26 and, say, a Mk5 so can do a direct comparison. I'd love to ssy that that's me - but sadly it isn't.

Re:USN people - I've had a lot to do with the US flight test community and know some with a lot of little aeroplane experience who have much to offer in this regard. But, it isn't automatic - there are plenty who have never flown a piston prop.

G