[Rant Warning] Tailwheel Training

"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.

All that extra ego I gained had to go somewhere ;-).

Deb

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

"G.R. Patterson III" wrote in message
...


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.

"C J Campbell" wrote in message ...
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.

My tailwheel background certainly makes me a much better Mooney pilot.
It certainly makes me a better CFI. I'm able to let students take the
172 further towards the weeds with confidence that I can control it.
Non-tailwheel CFIs have to jump in there right away and the students
takes 3 times longer to learn foot work.

-Robert, CFI

"Robert M. Gary" wrote in message
om...
"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...
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.

My tailwheel background certainly makes me a much better Mooney pilot.
It certainly makes me a better CFI. I'm able to let students take the
172 further towards the weeds with confidence that I can control it.
Non-tailwheel CFIs have to jump in there right away and the students
takes 3 times longer to learn foot work.

It is not your tailwheel background that lets you do that. It is your
experience, pure and simple.

It is awfully hard for a student to run off into the weeds on a 150' wide
runway. I just let them go where they want. They learn pretty quick.