The best airplane for tail wheel training?

[MichaelP]

Comments:

1. It is usually better to buy a tailwheel aeroplane rather than convert a Land-O-Matic one.
Buying a Cessna 150/152 and converting it yourself might cost more than buying a C120/C140, but you do get a higher TOW and useful load I suppose.

2. The flat plate main gear is supposedly better than the tubular round section gear.
The Cessna 152 (and later C150) tailwheel conversion was regarded by many as being 'wonky' on it's round gear legs. The geometry of the wheels, toe in and out etc varied according to the loads on each side.
The older flat gear legs were more rigid.

[Cat Driver]

Any chance you (or anyone else) could comment on the questions that brought the thread back to life Cat?

The reason I started this thread was to discuss this subject, so I am more than pleased to answer any and all questions to the best of my ability to do so.

biohazzard wrote:
Hello all,
I am new to flying and would like to buy a taildragger. There is some conflicting info on the net about the C-150/152. I absolutely mean no offense and could use some guidance before spending the money.
Conversions: The TexasTaildragger seems to be narrower and higher than the CustomAircraft conversion. Could someone elaborate on the pros/cons of this.

I am not familiar with the CustomAircraft conversion, however I do have some familiarity with the TexasTaildragger conversion having done the conversion myself.

It took two of us about 85 man hours of labor to do the conversion.

The STC that I bought was the longer gear conversion...in other words instead of just moving the original gear forward they supplied a new set of gear legs that are Cessna 150 steel gear legs lengthened so the airplane sits in an attitude on the ground that is at an angle of attack that is higher than the stall angle.

Angle of attack as it applies to taildragger landings?

With the longer gear legs the airplane will stall before runway contact when performing a proper three point full stall landing.

Rudder: I have read that the swept tail 150/152 doesn't have enough rudder authority for tail wheel ops. However, Cat Pilot converted one and seemed to like it. So, do I need a straight tail, or will a swept tail work?

The one I converted was a A150M which has a swept tail, it's handling characteristic's were normal in all flight and ground handling attitudes and speed envelopes.

The planes I have found are:
65' 150E (straight tail) with Custom Aircraft conversion
81' 152II (swept tail) with Texas Taildragger conversion
The 152 is a better looking plane. But for now I am looking for function over appearance.

For appearance I would choose the straight tail for function I doubt it would make any real difference ( note: I have not flown the straight tail tail wheel conversion. )

Here is a picture of the one I converted.

http://i43.photobucket.com/albums/e353/ ... 010783.jpg

Keep in mind, I am very low time (C-172) and want a plane that handles reasonably well.


Thanks in advance,
Mike

Mike the Cessna 150/152 tail wheel conversions are straight forward normal aircraft and all you need is proper training to convert to one.

They are a bit more demanding directional control wise on the runway than say a Citabria but with a few hours training you will have no problem becoming comfortable flying one.

Note:

Angle of attack as it applies to taildragger landings?

There are two entirely different attack angles that are used for two entirely different methods of landing a tail wheel airplane.

Of the two the wheel landing gives the best control during strong X/winds on any tail wheel airplane I have flown, it is also the most demanding handling skills wise.

Be sure the instructor that trains you teaches you how to wheel land it as the gear is a bit springy and you must be able to wheel land without any significant vertical energy at touch down or it will bounce due to the energy stored in the spring gear if there is to much gear spreading at touch down.

If you need any more info about this conversion and how it flies phone me at 250-758-3693.

[mcrit]

biohazzard wrote:
Hello all,
I am new to flying and would like to buy a taildragger. There is some conflicting info on the net about the C-150/152. I absolutely mean no offense and could use some guidance before spending the money.
Conversions: The TexasTaildragger seems to be narrower and higher than the CustomAircraft conversion. Could someone elaborate on the pros/cons of this.

If you want a tame taildragger that is pretty forgiving try something in the Champ family (A Champ, Citabria, or Decathalon). They are fun to fly and you really have to mess up to make them bite. (Stay away from the Aeronca Chief.....its very pitchy). Next up the ladder would be a 180 or 185. They handle pretty good, but the visibility is not so hot.

[Cat Driver]

biohazzard if you live in this area I still have access to the Aerobat that I sold and I could give you a demo flight if you were interested.

Actually flying an airplane trumps reading about it.

[Old Dog Flying]

I was instructing on an old C150 with the original Bolen conversion..the flat plate early gear...and found it to be a nasty piece of equipment. On take-off as soon as you raised the tail, even only a few inches, the aircraft would compress the gear which would bounce you back up where you would find yourself going through about 3 or 4 cycles and then you were airbourne at about 40 mph whether you wanted to be or not.

The tailwheel hook-up was wonky in that if you used too much rudder in any sequence, it would go over centre and stay there until touch-down at which time you would be heading for the weeds. The deck angle was too shallow and you could never land at the stall...bouncing you back in the air again...and again...and..Oh Shit!

All in all, a most unpleasant little POS.

My choice for a very good, solid, taildragger would be the Fleet Canuck. I soloed in one back in 1952 after less than 6 hours of dual and over the years flew them for fun and instructional work with my last two students getting their licences on the Canuck...and . was one of them...and look where it got him Come-on, say something here

[Cat Driver]

I have to agree with your pick of the Fleet Canuck Old Dog.

There was a thread some time ago where some instructors were saying they wouldn't teach on a tail wheel airplane that has no brakes on the right side, but we flew tens of thousands of hours at Central Airways teaching pilots on them and I never ever saw one ground loop during that time.

The reason I converted the Aerobat was I needed an airplane that would meet TC's requirements to teach aerobatics the Fleet is not certified for aerobatics so I did the conversion on the Cessna Aerobat.

As I recall when I was doing the research on the conversion it was you who told me what a pig the conversion was with the short gear.

Anyhow the Aerobat with the long gear flies exactly like a Cessna 140.

When the weather improves I will be over and we can have a coffee if we can find someone to buy us one.

To bad the runway is so rough. I won't operate the Husky on amphibs. there until they fix all the rough spots..the thing is to expensive to deliberately pound the piss out of it on that runway.

[Cat Driver]

would be the Fleet Canuck. I soloed in one back in 1952

I thought you were way older than that.

I did my solo in a Canuck on August 13/53.....but I still think you are way older than me.

[Old Dog Flying]

Hi . you old curmudgeon Happy New Year...and I probably am older than you but I don't look nearly as bad as you do.

[Cat Driver]

and I probably am older than you but I don't look nearly as bad as you do.

That is because I didn't live a secluded pussy kind of life old Dog.

[SuperchargedRS]

I did my ppl on a champ, great plane, after flying the citabria you really notice the power and sensitivity. I am glad I started out on the champ, I also think it helped with my float flying skills.

I would say that if your going to get your tailwheel, dont do it as a hobby, I came in behind a guy (older hobby type guy) that bounced, didnt convert it or go around and nosed it in (no one hurt) however I think a tailwheel will end up separating the pilots from the "others" and not in a friendly kind of way..

[Cat Driver]

I also think it helped with my float flying skills.

I know it helped you with your float flying skills.

There is a new bush pilot training school starting here in Nanaimo that will be using a tail wheel airplane as part of the bush flying course.

[Cat Driver]

Does anyone have any idea why there are so few tail wheel airplanes used in the flight training industry?

[Hedley]

I would be very surprised if any Canadan insurance company
would offer insurance - at ANY price - for a low-time solo student
pilot, in a tailwheel aircraft.

Hard to run an FTU if the students can't fly solo!

It would be difficult enough to get insurance, to cover
dual flight instruction on a tailwheel aircraft. For any
reasonable premium, you would have great difficulty
finding tailwheel instructors with enough experience
to keep the insurance companies happy.

[Cat Driver]

you would have great difficulty
finding tailwheel instructors with enough experience
to keep the insurance companies happy.

Couldn't you train your own?

[mcrit]

My insurance cost is reasonable, and I have a few low timers (<200 TT) on the policy. That is for private ownership. For FTU use talk to Harv's Air or Future Air. They both have Citabrias that they rent out (about the same cost solo as a 172).

[MichaelP]

Does anyone have any idea why there are so few tail wheel airplanes used in the flight training industry?

Nosedragger aeroplanes became a boring reality as being cheaper to operate while the CFI grew fewer grey hairs, and allowed a lower standard to get into the air... More fools able to fly = more money!

We used to use the term GBP, or Greater British Public.
More GBP could be trained in Cessnas with Land-O-Matic gear to plague the air... Even I learned in the Cessna 150 and look what that did to aviation

If the world was run by accountants it would be a boring place.
Fortunately there's still enough nutcases interested in flying tailwheel aeroplanes, and wanting to do the job properly rather than adequately, that tailwheel aeroplanes are still being built.
There's a certain amusement in being able to bounce and swing on a runway and then one day the hands and feet learn something and all is well with the world. It makes an instructor's job fun and never bores one into moving on to fly airliners...

[iflyforpie]

Also Southern Skies in Penticton has a 7GCBC with low time instructors teaching tail wheel and students soloing for only a few bucks more than a 172.

It would seem the rumour that insurance companies are so afraid to insure low time pilots and students on tail draggers is spreading around as much as the rumour that it takes a special kind of pilot to fly a pussy cat like a Citabria.

[Cat Driver]

Could it be that tail wheel airplanes are just to ugly compared to nose wheel airplanes and that is the reason they are so rare in flying schools?

[Cat Driver]

Also Southern Skies in Penticton has a 7GCBC with low time instructors teaching tail wheel and students soloing for only a few bucks more than a 172.

Is the few bucks more than a 172 because it takes longer to send them solo, or is the 7GCBC more expensive?

[iflyforpie]

The rate was only about $5/hr more. Solo was at the instructor's discretion which can mean as divergent times as nose dragger solo times.

Nobody I know of that used the plane for commercial build up used more than the required time available. The only reason I never used it for training was because the company hadn't bought it yet.

[Hedley]

Southern Skies in Penticton

Would you mind passing onto me the name of their insurance underwriter?

I know of one FTU that is paying $17,000 per year for insurance for
two 30+ year old 172s, and as for tailwheel aircraft, well, forget it.

[fl80]

Could it be that tail wheel airplanes are just to ugly compared to nose wheel airplanes and that is the reason they are so rare in flying schools?

I don't think so, I'd put the looks of my Canuck up against the looks of most trikes anytime.

[fl80]

I would say that if your going to get your tailwheel, dont do it as a hobby,

Sorry, don't think I can agree. I fly mine only as a hobby. The airplane doesn't intimidate me though it does ask me to fly it with respect.

[MichaelP]

What's wrong with a hobby?
Are we not legitimate if we fly for the fun of it rather than towards some dream of gold braid and a captain's salary?

I remember my youth flogging around in all sorts of tailwheel and tailskid aeroplanes.
It was good then to see those who were airline pilots come down and fly the Tiger Moths to ensure they still had the skills to do it properly.

Flying is an art, and when it comes to flying a tailwheel aeroplane there's huge satisfaction at doing it well, and a huge laugh when you get it a little wrong.
I flew for 18 years on a PPL, I taught aerobatics and tailwheel, and had a huge amount of fun.
Life is about having as many experiences as possible and enjoying the learning. It is not what job you do, why are people here so serious?
Everyone should go out and fly as many aeroplanes as possible.

[fl80]

Life is about having as many experiences as possible and enjoying the learning. It is not what job you do, why are people here so serious?

You've got that right, I fly only because I enjoy it. But then that's the same reason I go to work everyday.

I'm just going to stick with the notion that I fly a tailwheel airplane because I like it, I have fun doing it, and I'd actually argue that it's good for my health.

For what it's worth, my wife and I bought our Canuck and put it it the hangar while I had one last round of chemotherapy to get through and the significant possibilty that I wouldn't get my medical back. The new (to us)airplane in the hangar was just one more motivation to jump through all the hoops and get on with enjoying life.