Tailwheel trainer

[Shiny Side Up]

If you are going to be a decent school and allow students to solo your tailwheel aircraft (and please avoid having a minimum required amount of dual before solo, thats BS)

So, hypothetically if you were renting your clipper out, I should be able to flash you my license and go for a fly?

[iflyforpie]

We won't let our 172 go with someone we haven't flown with.

At the last place I worked that had a taildragger for training/rental, the rule was 'solo allowed only at instructor's discretion.'

[Hedley]

This place will rent a Pitts solo. I'm not kidding:

http://attitudeaviation.com/pitts.html

Coincidentally, they also have one of these:

http://attitudeaviation.com/l39.html

[mark_]

So...we all know that taildraggers are a handful on the ground, what are the benefits?
Lighter weight without a nose wheel...are there others?

Mark

[Hedley]

taildraggers ... what are the benefits?

Precious few, really, which is why after WWII almost all airplanes were nosewheel.

People argue that a tailwheel has less drag and less weight than a nosewheel, but I don't buy it.

The main advantage that a taildragger has, is prop clearance. This is important if you do off-field ops, or you have a lot of horsepower and need a large prop diameter to efficiently convert the horsepower to thrust.

Nosewheel airplanes often have very little prop-to-ground clearance, and as such are not the best choice for off-runway ops.

Aerobatic aircraft are usually tailwheel, to allow for a large diameter propeller while still having some ground clearance. This additional ground clearance, of course, goes away if you choose to do a wheel landing. I know a guy who did a wheel landing in a Pitts S-2B, and he spread the bungees and whacked the prop on the runway. Expensive mistake - he trashed the prop and engine, which on a Pitts ain't cheap.

[Shiny Side Up]

People argue that a tailwheel has less drag and less weight than a nosewheel, but I don't buy it.

In most airplanes no, in fact with many of the new aircraft its proven that the drag penalty having the gear out is better than the weight penalty of a retraction mechanism. With the off runway theme though the other advantage of a taildragger is being able to install things like tundra tires and skis, where the drag and weight penalty of a nose ski, or a larger nose tire now becomes more significant. Getting three skis off the snow is a little tougher than two and a tail ski - once again the prop clearance is the chief advantage there in any case.

Other small advantages are ground manuverability and manhandling. Theoretically its also less likely to damage a tailwheel on rough surfaces than a nose wheel - though most Cessna nosewheels will run over some suprising stuff. In a pinch you could also rig up a skid if you damaged it, where you'd be hooped if you had a nose wheel. If you get yourself out of a bind in such a fashion though, don't tell transport.

[lownslow]

So...we all know that taildraggers are a handful on the ground, what are the benefits?

They're old! I've never heard war stories from Tiger Moth instructors or Halifax gunners when I show up in a 172.

LnS.

[iflyforpie]

People argue that a tailwheel has less drag and less weight than a nosewheel, but I don't buy it.

You can't really compare any tailwheel aircraft to any nosewheel aircraft. You need to compare the same aircraft that came as either tailwheel or nosewheel. Typical taildraggers are draggy and old. New fixed nosewheel planes are even giving older retractable designs a run for their money.


According to their website, the Van's RV-7 and RV-8 are a few pounds lighter and a few mph faster than their nosewheel 'A' counterparts. It doesn't take much of a genius to figure out that a tiny Scott tailwheel weighs less and sticks out less than a nosewheel.

[SuperchargedRS]

The other BIG advantage (as least for me) is x-wind landings, I can bring a tailwheel in a whole lot quicker and 2pt it. I also find a 2pt landing easier to abort even after wheels down as I am in level attitude and at a higher rate of speed.

Tailwheel also tend to have more rudder authority, thus they slip better.

And if that isnt enough for you, well, you just feel better after flying them!

[Grantmac]

If you are going to be a decent school and allow students to solo your tailwheel aircraft (and please avoid having a minimum required amount of dual before solo, thats BS)

So, hypothetically if you were renting your clipper out, I should be able to flash you my license and go for a fly?

Demonstrate proficiency in all aspects of flight and it would be yours.

What I'm arguing against is schools that set an arbitrary number for their tailwheel "course". We all know there are pilots that can get in a new type of aircraft and fly it well from the beginning. We also know that there are pilots who will require a long time to get comfortable in something new.

Case in point (this is true, BTW):
I'm a private pilot with about 100hrs total time spread over way too many years (its embarrassing). I'm in the US and decide to get the tailwheel endorsement on my restricted airmans certificate (allows me to operate N-numbered aircraft) while I'm down here.
At the same time with the same instructor at the club here is a 10,000 hour commercial pilot who is also doing a TW endorsement.

I went solo in the Citabria in just under 4 hours and he was still taking dual past 10. He is arguably the better pilot, but for him that simple little aircraft was not something he could figure out.
If the school had a 10hr tailwheel course I'd have spent 6 hours listening to my instructor snore over the intercomm and he'd be wondering why he needed extra dual.

So...we all know that taildraggers are a handful on the ground, what are the benefits?
Lighter weight without a nose wheel...are there others?

Mark

There are a lot of really cool aircraft that you have access to when you can fly tailwheel.
The world of antiques, classics, bushplanes and aerobatic aircraft opens up for you. Not to mention the rewarding feeling of doing something new and challenging.

-Grant

[Hedley]

a tiny Scott tailwheel weighs less and sticks out less than a nosewheel

The weight and aerodynamic difference is negligible, compared to the HUGE difference in ease of ground handling of a nosewheel airplane, for a low-time homebuilder who's stick and rudder skills range from rusty to non-existent. Homebuilts have a terrible safety record, for the first few hours.

I hate to say it, but for most pilots, nosewheel is the better, safer choice. They are less likely to come to grief during a groundlooped landing, because they simply won't make the commitment to develop the skills to fly tailwheel.

That said, I will mention that I once met a fellow who claimed to have groundlooped a Cherokee. I'm not sure it's really possible, and I suspect he was pulling my leg, but ...

[5x5]

The main advantage I see is much better short-field performance. It's not true for all tail-draggers, but if you look at any list of short field airplanes, most will be tail-draggers.

One notable exception is the Peterson 182 - but it's a fairly exten$ive modification. (I'd love one though.)

[Luscombe]

I guess there's something everyone seems to be missing here. I find the chief benefit of a taildragger over a nosedragger is that they're simply more fun to fly. That's why I still have my Luscombe 20 years after I bought it. Couldn't say the same for a 150 or 172.

[Bushav8er]

I guess there's something everyone seems to be missing here. I find the chief benefit of a taildragger over a nosedragger is that they're simply more fun to fly. That's why I still have my Luscombe 20 years after I bought it. Couldn't say the same for a 150 or 172.

A Luscombe and Cape Breton - you don't have to convince me you're having fun and 'living the life'.

[Shiny Side Up]

Demonstrate proficiency in all aspects of flight and it would be yours.

Good, then we are on the same page. If the airplane is going to be offered for solo rental this is the big sticker. Though I probably will make a limitation on how far between flights which will be fairly restrictive. Hedley is very right that taildragging defenitely requires a constant topping up of skill which most pilots don't have or make the time for.

I do find it a shame as well that someone managed to get to 10,000 hours without having a hand at one though.

[Bede]

Also tailwheel are far more forgiving in rough strips (not just the props). Hit a rock with a nose wheel and you have some big repairs. Hit a rock with a tailwheel and there's a good chance the tail will just bump over it.

[AEROBAT]

The number one advantage to a TD is manouverability on the ground. Some nose draggers will actually get off the ground quicker [when light] than their taildragging counterpart.

But back to the topic, a Citabria is probably the best plane for a school to teach tailwheel training. Mostly due to the fact they are really easy to fly. I cannot see a carefull 172 pilot having a problem in them, even without any dual. Once a fellow has confidence and can fly along the centerline with one wheel touching he is good to go. Picking a tricky plane to teach TD's in is counter productive IMO. There is a lot of myth surrounding taildragger flying.

[Hedley]

I cannot see a carefull 172 pilot having a problem in them, even without any dual

A few years back, I remember seeing a wrecked Citabria in pieces in a maintenance hangar. The new owner had groundlooped it during landing.

[Grantmac]

I cannot see a carefull 172 pilot having a problem in them, even without any dual

A few years back, I remember seeing a wrecked Citabria in pieces in a maintenance hangar. The new owner had groundlooped it during landing.

You can crash anything. Not getting checked-out in an aircraft that has dual controls is very poor decision making and a huge contributer to home-built statistics.

Demonstrate proficiency in all aspects of flight and it would be yours.

Good, then we are on the same page. If the airplane is going to be offered for solo rental this is the big sticker. Though I probably will make a limitation on how far between flights which will be fairly restrictive. Hedley is very right that taildragging defenitely requires a constant topping up of skill which most pilots don't have or make the time for.

I do find it a shame as well that someone managed to get to 10,000 hours without having a hand at one though.

Without a doubt having more strict currency requirements isn't a bad idea. Perhaps with a more progressive timeframe once a person has logged a number of hours solo.
I know I was fairly shaky in the Clipper for the first 20 hours or so and it really started coming together after that point. I made it a point to fly several times a week and focus on circuits in the first few weeks. I didn't want to own an aircraft that I kept making excuses not to fly, I see that a lot with certain types of aircraft (Ie: very low hours vs. age).
Once you get the skills cemented in the currency can be relaxed a little. Right now I don't like going more than a week, that obviously couldn't work with a commercial operation. Depending on the weather this winter I will most likely have to stretch my number out somewhat.

-Grant

[Shiny Side Up]

I cannot see a carefull 172 pilot having a problem in them, even without any dual

A few years back, I remember seeing a wrecked Citabria in pieces in a maintenance hangar. The new owner had groundlooped it during landing.

It never fails to suprise me the lenghts some will go to or risks they'll deem acceptable to avoid using an instructor.

[iflyforpie]

It never fails to suprise me the lenghts some will go to or risks they'll deem acceptable to avoid using an instructor.

Well, there's the other side of the coin too.

My first taildragger experience (and many others' as well) was in C-FDDZ, a worn old Taylorcraft owned by a colourful old flying club pilot in Penticton.

A few months later, a bright eyed, recently graduated AME apprentice came by and purchased it, intending to use it to get his PPL. The aircraft was signed over, and we ferried it for him to Houston BC.

Not even a month after he bought it, the plane was wrecked in a ground loop by the instructor who was supposed to teach him on it...

[Shiny Side Up]

Case in point, he probably went with any instructor rather than the most qualified - which might have cost money and maybe some of his time.

[iflyforpie]

Touche.

[cgzro]

But back to the topic, a Citabria is probably the best plane for a school to teach tailwheel training. Mostly due to the fact they are really easy to fly. I cannot see a carefull 172 pilot having a problem in them, even without any dual.

Beg to differ .. I've taken up quite a few good pilots in Citabrias/Decathlons and they all took a little bit of time to get the hang of it even without a crosswind. The insurance companies which track such things seem to agree as the rates are significantly higher for a TD owner and they often require a fair amount of time in type before insuring you. AIM/AON for example used to want 60hrs TD time.

[Big Pistons Forever]

But back to the topic, a Citabria is probably the best plane for a school to teach tailwheel training. Mostly due to the fact they are really easy to fly. I cannot see a carefull 172 pilot having a problem in them, even without any dual.

Beg to differ .. I've taken up quite a few good pilots in Citabrias/Decathlons and they all took a little bit of time to get the hang of it even without a cross.

+ 1

If you have never flown a taildragger than you will require dual to familarize yourself with the handling characteristics of tail draggers. The amount of dual will be governed by the quality of the basic stick and rudder skills you bring with you, and could vary from as little as around 3 hrs to cases where no amount of dual will ever make the pilot safe to solo......