[Rant Warning] Tailwheel Training

You need to learn the proper attitude for whatever aircraft you fly.
Learning to land
a Cessna 170 will not improve your landings in a 182. Learning to land a
182 will.

George Patterson

I whole-heartedly agree with this statement. I got my tailwheel endorsement
in my husband's Luscombe 8A. I flew it 70 hours before I bought my own 8E. I
tried to fly Lester like his 8A and it didn't work! Once I understood that
my airplane had it's own set of peculiar characteristics, things settled
down.

I do believe that tailwheel training does help a pilot understand the
meaning of straight. Flying the Luscombes improved my landings in my C-172.

Deb

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

"C J Campbell"
If the yoke is in your gut in most Cessnas, you are heading for a
destroyed
tiedown ring and possibly a tail cone replacement.


Not in a 1962 Cessna 172C! Yoke in your gut was the only way I could keep
from landing flat. It was a rather annoying trait in that airplane. Luckily,
on my checkride, a 250 lb. FAA inspector rode along in the backseat so my
soft field landings were finally what they should be ;-).

Deb

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

"EDR" wrote in message
...
In article , Tom Sixkiller
wrote:

Let's look at another aspect...
The taildragger (regardless of make/model) requires that the pilot
raise the nose to land (only slightly for wheel landings).

Yes, and so does a tricycle gear. Ever heard of ground loops and
nose-overs?
I suppose those never happened when everyone learned in tail-draggers.

If you ground loop or nose over a tric, you've really screwed up. You
can ground loop or nose over either one, the taildragger does a better
job of teaching you how not to get in that situation (it the stick/yoke
isn't in you gut, you are heading for a problem).

"C J Campbell" wrote
I have given initial pilot training in Cessna 172s to four Air Force Academy
graduates so far. All of them have been assigned to F-16s. Apparently the
Air Force is happy with my work.

Oh no! CJ, please don't mention this at a Luscombe fly-in! There is a
standing joke in the Luscombe community; if you want to have your airplane
ground-looped, let a military pilot fly it. They don't seem to do well in
our birds... ;-).

All kidding aside, I'm sure you're a fine instructor.

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

"C J Campbell" wrote

I will tell you one thing about old pilots: I have never flown with a
pilot who had more than 15,000 hours who did not scare me to death.
The last one, a guy who had 17,000 hours and more than 7,000 hour in
type (a twin), could not hold altitude within 200 feet and had no idea
how to set up an instrument approach. He knew it, too.

Well CJ, here's one 69 year old pilot that thinks that you're full
of ****! I logged my 20,000th hour about 12 years ago and I spent
this past Friday out teaching spins to a Private Pilot who wanted
some advanced instruction. As a bonus, I threw in a few "to-the-
stops" flap 40 slips in his C-172.

Bob Moore

I think it's probably a safe bet that most of the ardent advocates of
tailwheel training drive cars and trucks with automatic transmissions.


Interestingly, in NY (at least when I got my licence, %& years ago) if you took
the test in an automatic, you were legal in a manual. However, if you took the
test in a manual, you were restricted to a manual transmission.

Go figure.

Jose

--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

"Bob Moore" wrote in message
. 6...
"C J Campbell" wrote

I will tell you one thing about old pilots: I have never flown with a
pilot who had more than 15,000 hours who did not scare me to death.
The last one, a guy who had 17,000 hours and more than 7,000 hour in
type (a twin), could not hold altitude within 200 feet and had no idea
how to set up an instrument approach. He knew it, too.

Well CJ, here's one 69 year old pilot that thinks that you're full
of ****! I logged my 20,000th hour about 12 years ago and I spent
this past Friday out teaching spins to a Private Pilot who wanted
some advanced instruction. As a bonus, I threw in a few "to-the-
stops" flap 40 slips in his C-172.

Bob Moore

Well, you can be the exception then. I don't know when we could get together
to fly, though.

"Dylan Smith" wrote in message:
"And my requirement would be to do it by mag compass, chart and clock so
they internalize the fundamentals of navigation too."

I think every pilot should have one cross-country with just a compass, chart
and clock. I did mine when my husband checked me out in his 8A. It was
different. I'd been flying a C-172 with a DG, VOR and GPS. Now, I have an
8E with a handheld GPS, but I still keep my eyeball on my compass heading.
You never know when that sucker will die!

I've also had hood time in his non-electrical 8A. I flew a two hour cross
country using the needle/ball, airspeed, VSI and compass. His airplane is
rather slow (about 90 mph). It was a way to pass the time over country I'd
seen before.

Deb

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

...
In article , Dan Thomas
wrote:
Taildraggers tend to be older designs, and older designs often
didn't have the benign behaviour of newer designs, which tend to be
nosewheel airplanes. So taildraggers, while the gear has no effect in
the air, are usually harder to fly and require more effort and
understanding.

Actually, many of these older aircraft aren't really much harder at all.
Some are, many aren't. Our C140 for example was easy and pleasant to
fly, with light control forces and a good strong rudder. It required a
lot more finesse on landing than a nosewheel plane of course, and I
think that improved my finesse when flying any aircraft. But it just
wasn't difficult to fly, just a bit different.

I think that was reflected by our insurance rates - we had at one time a
zero-hours student on the insurance, and the extra cost compared to a
C150 of the same hull value was IIRC only about $50/year. I never had a
nasty moment (although I did botch some landings) in the C140, and that
included landing in a 20 knot direct crosswind (which I have on video).
My aircraft insurance for a $20,000 hull value and $1M liability
insurance was significantly cheaper than the insurance on my Ford F150,
worth $8000 at the time (and I have no accidents/tickets).

The Auster on the other hand...actually, in the air, it flies a lot like
a C172 with a stick instead of a yoke (and climbs a lot better, it
weighs about 500lbs less and has an O-320) - very little adverse yaw
etc. is an absolute bear to land nicely. Partly because you can't see
anything forwards in the three point attitude, partly because it has a
free castoring tailwheel, and partly because the cable operated heel
brakes are virtually impossible to use at the same time as making rudder
inputs (heel brakes suck, I'm sorry). Mitigating this though is the
approach speed of 50 mph so stuff happens slowly. Should new instructors
have to fly something like this? I wouldn't insist on it, but it's a
nice-to-have in the increasing the depth of experience department.

I think taildragger training is a nice to have but not essential. What
is essential is teaching proper technique, and many certificate mill
instructors who have little experience outside of flying the traffic
pattern are a bit lacking in that area, and it shows in the old wives'
tales they tend to repeat.

Personally, if there was one additional requirement that I think new
CFIs should meet before teaching is a long solo cross country of a good
1000NM. That way they are likely to have had to have made real world
weather decisions, have probably had to fly in mountainous terrain and
so forth. And my requirement would be to do it by mag compass, chart and
clock so they internalize the fundamentals of navigation too.

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

EDR wrote

I think their sylabus and standards are little tougher and higher than
that found in the FAA PTS and the way most civilian flight instructors
actually teach.

A "little tougher"? HA! With less than 100 hours in my logbook, the
final test in the T-28 formation flying course in addition to the
routine stuff, consisted of the check pilot (in his own T-28) leading
four student flown T-28s through a five plane, echelon right barrel
roll. I was unlucky enough to be number five. With 115 hours in the
book, I planted that thing on the deck of the USS Antietam in the Gulf
just off Pensacola.

How many wannabe students do the military weed out in the interview
process, even before the training starts, followed by the washouts
that do meet the standards once training begins.

The Cessna 172 course that CJ talks about is simply a "weed-em-out"
before they get to flight training program that the AF uses.

The civilians pay their money and get through it.
Some take more time, some less. Some are given multiple opportunities
to pass the test. The military decides when to cut its losses and not
spend more money on a losing proposition.

All true! All that it takes for a civilian to obtain a pilot
certificate is money and time. I once refused to "check-out" a new
Private Pilot in a C-172. He had simply "worn-down" his instructor and
examiner. I then called the examiner and "chewed-out" his butt.

Bob Moore

Non-tailwheel CFIs have to jump in there right away and the students
takes 3 times longer to learn foot work.

Nonsense.

wrote

Not all taildraggers are landed with the tail low either: The P-51
Mustang was often wheeled on, although some guys three pointed them.

The first "tail dragger" that I flew was a Navy SNB (Beechcraft D-18).
Never three-pointed it. I guess then, that one could say that I never
learned to fly taildraggers. Probably not....because after building
my MiniMax, I always "wheel-landed" it. In fact, even without brakes,
I always taxied it with the tail up.

Bob Moore