[Rant Warning] Tailwheel Training

EDR wrote in message ...
I just came from my flying club's office where I scheduled a plane for
tomorrow (Sunday).
Both of the club's 182 are down for inspections and maintenance after
hard landings. Two weeks ago, the club's Katana went down for the same
reason. Three airplanes in two weeks!!!
What are flight instructors allowing to pass for landings before
signing students off for solo and PPL's for checkouts!!!
If they are not holding the nosewheel off, they are going to break it
off or bend the firewall!!!
This is where tailwheel training comes in.
It's about time the Feds require that all students must spend the first
20 hours of their training in taildraggers. It's the only way they are
going to learn propper control input on landings.


The insurance for a tailwheel vs. similar nosewheel is amost as much
more as a retract vs. fixed gear. That should tell you something about
the rate of low time pilots putting tailwheels in the maintenance
shop.

-Robert, CFI (tailwheel and Mooney owner)

"Robert M. Gary" wrote in message
om...

The insurance for a tailwheel vs. similar nosewheel is amost as much
more as a retract vs. fixed gear. That should tell you something about
the rate of low time pilots putting tailwheels in the maintenance
shop.

It never ceases to amaze me the stupid things seemingly sesnible people to.
Especially you EAA types. Three of these morons, all in their 60's and zero
TW time, each decided to build a tail wheel plane. The first contestant
decided to build an experimental version of a Piper Vagabond. He
groundlooped on his high speed taxi test, three times. He ground loops on
takeoff, on landing, ****, just getting in the damn thing. He has
groundlooped at least a dozen times. Got so damn funny somebody took a
screw gun and and screwed a set of training wheels off their kids bike onto
the wingtips. Somehow he has managed to only scrape the wing and not really
bend anything important. Second guy actually built a good performing
airplane. He built an experimental version of a PA-18. Took him exactly
two flights to end up on his nose. Minor damage to the prop and a new
spinner and he was good to go. Third moron, with thousands of hours in Navy
fighters and bombers and quite a few in a Mooney, decided to build a Kitfox.
This guy puts a full gyro panel in a Kitfox. Oh yeah he also put in an air
horn. You heard me, an airhorn, just like a semi. Two batteries and a
cargo pod later he is 50 pounds overgross with full tanks and just him in
the plane. 65 HP Rotax. With no wind he needs 2400 feet to get this crate
off the ground. Won't leave the ground until it gets to 50 MPH IAS. Max
cruise turns out to be 70 MPH IAS. Climbs at 300 fpm if he is lucky, needds
full forward stick just to stay airborne. Has a set of amphibs that were
supposed to be mounted. Never got the chance. Last Sunday he lost his
engine and landed with a 25 knot tailwind. Totally destroyed. He walked
away. He broke his back but he walked away. I look at these EAA guys and
it's clear the absolute worst thing that can happen is they actually finish
their plane.

"Newps" wrote in message
...

"Robert M. Gary" wrote in message
om...

The insurance for a tailwheel vs. similar nosewheel is amost as much
more as a retract vs. fixed gear. That should tell you something about
the rate of low time pilots putting tailwheels in the maintenance
shop.

Mostly because there are so few CFIs that know how to teach the basics.

"Dave Stadt" wrote in message
. com...

"Newps" wrote in message
...

"Robert M. Gary" wrote in message
om...

The insurance for a tailwheel vs. similar nosewheel is amost as much
more as a retract vs. fixed gear. That should tell you something about
the rate of low time pilots putting tailwheels in the maintenance
shop.

Mostly because there are so few CFIs that know how to teach the basics.

Then there never in the entire history of aviation been CFIs that know how
to teach the basics. Tailwheel aircraft have always had a higher accident
rate than tricycle gear aircraft and they always will. There is absolutely
no reason to learn to fly a tailwheel aircraft unless you plan on owning one
or have some other special need, such as bush piloting or you are a CFI who
wants to instruct in them.

Tailwheel aircraft are obsolete. The only reason some people still build
them is to satisfy a bunch of macho technophobes who run around spreading
the myth that 'real' pilots fly tailwheel aircraft. If you are so insecure
that you need to do that then it is useless to point out that tailwheel
aircraft will make you no more of a man than any other airplane will.

The only reason tailwheel aircraft lasted as long as they did was because
the puny engines of the day needed to swing a bigger propeller than a
tricycle airplane can handle. Apparently there are a few pilots on this
forum who want a bigger propeller in order to compensate for something else.

"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...

"Dave Stadt" wrote in message
. com...

"Newps" wrote in message
...

"Robert M. Gary" wrote in message
om...

The insurance for a tailwheel vs. similar nosewheel is amost as much
more as a retract vs. fixed gear. That should tell you something
about
the rate of low time pilots putting tailwheels in the maintenance
shop.

Mostly because there are so few CFIs that know how to teach the basics.

Then there never in the entire history of aviation been CFIs that know how
to teach the basics. Tailwheel aircraft have always had a higher accident
rate than tricycle gear aircraft and they always will. There is absolutely
no reason to learn to fly a tailwheel aircraft unless you plan on owning
one
or have some other special need, such as bush piloting or you are a CFI
who
wants to instruct in them.

Tailwheel aircraft are obsolete. The only reason some people still build
them is to satisfy a bunch of macho technophobes who run around spreading
the myth that 'real' pilots fly tailwheel aircraft. If you are so insecure
that you need to do that then it is useless to point out that tailwheel
aircraft will make you no more of a man than any other airplane will.

The only reason tailwheel aircraft lasted as long as they did was because
the puny engines of the day needed to swing a bigger propeller than a
tricycle airplane can handle. Apparently there are a few pilots on this
forum who want a bigger propeller in order to compensate for something
else.

Basics are basics. Doesn't matter where the small wheel is.

If you are so insecure
that you need to do that then it is useless to point out that tailwheel
aircraft will make you no more of a man than any other airplane will.

Well...flying a taildragger didn't make me more of a man, thank God, but it
did make my boobs bigger.

That comment and the rest in this particular post is based on ignorance.
Folks fly tailwheel airplanes because they are just plain fun! Anyway, it's
hard to swagger away from a C-172.

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

In article .net,
"Henry and Debbie McFarland" wrote:


Folks fly tailwheel airplanes because they are just plain fun! Anyway, it's
hard to swagger away from a C-172.

My swagger comes not from the airplane I've flown, but from how well
I've flown it.

--
Dale L. Falk

There is nothing - absolutely nothing - half so much worth doing
as simply messing around with airplanes.

http://home.gci.net/~sncdfalk/flying.html

My swagger comes not from the airplane I've flown, but from how well
I've flown it.


That's it! If you've landed your taildragger without hitting the weeds, you
and the rest of the world know you've flown it well
:-). If you managed to get the thing died down, then you know you're damned
good! If you manage to kiss the ground in glee and not be seen by your
tricycle-geared brethren, then you're Aviation Hall of Fame material.

Actually, anybody can land a tailwheel airplane, and if you've had good
primary training, the transition is easy. I think that's the gist of this
rant. The docile C-172 will let many pilots and instructors learn and pass
on bad habits. The tailwheel airplane weeds those bad habits out, literally.
I know. I learned to fly in my own C-172. I didn't really 'fly" it, however,
until I learned to fly the Luscombe. The Luscombe taught me how the fly the
C-172 and fly it well.

Ironically, we jest about swaggering taildragger pilots, but you will find
that a tailwheel aircraft will teach you humility like no other airplane. If
it doesn't, you'll be one those chasing yer tail in the weeds.

Deb

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

Well...flying a taildragger didn't make me more of a man, thank God, but it
did make my boobs bigger.

That comment and the rest in this particular post is based on ignorance.
Folks fly tailwheel airplanes because they are just plain fun! Anyway, it's
hard to swagger away from a C-172.

Deb

My tail dragger was "put up" for the winter and I wound up flying my wife's
C-172 during that time. I found it made me lazy. No matter if I flaired it,
plunked it or flew it onto the runway the landings always came out the same.
It is amazing how much punishment it would take. If I landed like that in my
"tail" plane I might not walk away. Getting back into it in the spring I got
the "wake up call" and had to start paying attention again during landings.
I also agree; That 172 is good, just boring.
Incidently, I once flew an 8A and found it to be one of the most difficult
ground handling airplanes I ever flew. My hat's off to those who do it well.
Also, this 'bigger boobs' thing is interesting. Does it cause any CG problems?
;-)

Jim (RV-4 driver)

Henry and Debbie McFarland wrote:

Well...flying a taildragger didn't make me more of a man, thank God, but it
did make my boobs bigger.

Details please! Yet another argument I can use to encourage Elisabeth to take flight
training. Not that she needs any improvement in that area, but I've met few women who
didn't *think* they needed improvement there.

George Patterson
I childproofed my house, but they *still* get in.