"C J Campbell" wrote in
message

You have just convinced me that flying taildraggers not only does not make
you a better pilot, it makes you worse to the point of being destructive.
The Cessna 172 was not meant to be landed like a tailwheel aircraft.
Attempts to do that are both dangerous and wasteful.


CJ,

I am sorry you feel this way. As a teacher, you are denying yourself a
really fun learning experience that you can pass on to your students. Having
a tailwheel endorsement opens up your horizons. I know it did mine. It's
just like having a HP endorsement or complex rating. It allows you to learn
a little more about flying than you knew before, and let's one experience
more of the aircraft available out there. I have been checked out in a
Citabria, every Luscombe model except a D, a C-170, a Hatz and of course, a
Cub. Later I moved on to the C-195. I have learned some thing from each and
every airplane, as well as each and every instructor who checked me out in
them.

I also fly tricycle-geared airplanes. I owned a C-172C and put 600 hours on
it. The yoke must be pulled back in many of these earlier models in order
not to land flat. Experience would teach you this. And for what it's worth,
my husband is an A&P and he can vouch that more repairs are made on the
*nose gears* of Cessnas than any other parts. I've flown a C-150 (just an
hour), the C-182 (just 2 hours) and a Hawk XP with instructors, but my love
is classic airplanes with conventional gears. What I've learned flying these
airplanes all over the country has enriched my flying experience, and has
shown me that there's a difference between driving the dang thang and flying
with artistry.

Personally, I think the manufacturer probably has a better idea of how the
airplane should be flown than a bunch of Usenet know-it-alls. You pitch
for
airspeed, not for position of the yoke. If you can't control your
airspeed,
you have serious problems.

Again, lack of well rounded experience is evident in this statement. If you
have light tailwheel airplane experience, you would know that the pilot
*must* control the airspeed to land safely. The tailwheel was never a
problem for me. I had to learn to land a butterfly ;-). Remember too, that
we don't typically have flaps. Luckily, my instructor insisted that I become
proficient in no flap landings in the C-172. That good primary training
carried over into my Luscombe training.

Not only that, I am increasingly disturbed by tailwheel pilots' obsession
with landing as the only measure of the quality of a pilot. It really
tells
me something -- like, they don't know how to do anything else. I hope you
will excuse me now. It is obvious that I have disturbed a bunch of
religious
fanatics.

This sounds like the whinings of my six-year old. But there is a grain of
truth here. We are fanatics. I am part of a very active brotherhood and
sisterhood of pilots who find joy in flying their airplanes. To me, there is
nothing better than flying with the window open and hearing that 65 hp
Continental sing. For just a little while, I'm completely free, and God's
glorious earth is spread out just for me and my pleasure.

Personally, I don't think any kind of extra training will help some
instructors and their students. Those who teach that landing faster is
better and then ram the nose into the pavement will just ground loop our
glorious birds. I'd hate to lose a good airplane to another fool.

Deb
A very dangerous taildragger pilot

--
1946 Luscombe 8A (His)
1948 Luscombe 8E (Hers)
1954 Cessna 195B, restoring (Ours)
Jasper, Ga. (JZP)