"Dan Luke" c172rgATbellsouthDOTnet wrote
Yes. The taildragger also still has certain operational advantages

It does? The operational advantages have managed to elude me. I
suppose if you make the strip rough enough and the engine big
enough...

and nostalgic appeal.

There you go. That's really what keeps them alive.

But what does it hurt to keep taildraggers around as long
as people want to fly them?

And what does it hurt to keep NDB's around as long as people want to
fly them? We've solved the taildragger problem. It's obsolete
technology of marginal utility, but some people like them, so we
acknowledge that tailwheel flying demands some skills you don't
absolutely need in tri-gear flying (if you're willing to fly sloppy)
and have a special endorsement. I'm suggesting that the same solution
is appropriate for NDB's. I think that makes a lot more sense than
just shutting them down (since they cost next to nothing to operate)
and also makes a lot more sense than letting some CFII who never flew
an NDB approach in his life try and teach an instrument student how to
do it (which is exactly what happens at my home field).

I kept my ADF when I installed an approach GPS three years ago, but I
haven't used it except, rarely, for practice.

I use my ADF for practice a lot. My personal standard for multiengine
IFR proficiency is being able to fly a night circling single engine
partial panel full procedure NDB approach to a short obstructed
runway. Some people have told me I'm nuts, but I think it makes good
training. No, I would not do that in real life unless I absolutely
couldn't avoid it - but I think if more IFR pilots did it in training,
we would have fewer accidents in real life.

Michael