Tailwheel trainer

[Shiny Side Up]

Just rolling the ball around right now, just looking for opinions.

Looking to put an aircraft on the line to do tailwheel type training. Needs to be reasonably economical to run, needs to be all metal - it would if put together have to spend its fair share of days tied down outside. So far that really limits the list to one airplane - a Cessna 170, preferentially a B but the other models would do. The other candidates are the possibility of the metalized Cessna 140 or the Luscombe 8 or 11 (its unfortunate that the new 11E production is a nose dragger) but the latter are pretty rare. Are there any others that I'm missing that would fall into this category? There is the Globe Swift which would probably be the fantasy choice, but even rarer - though I know there's at least one in the area.

[Hedley]

All of those (metal) airplanes are so old ...

What about a Super Decathlon with a polyurethane topcoat? It's easy to land, ok for cross-country, and even does basic acro.

The Super D doesn't have any wooden structure, and the poly finish might surprise you as to how long it lasts outside, as opposed to the original butrate over wood wings.

You can clean poly topcoat with MEK

[Big Pistons Forever]

Tailwheel converted C150 ?

Note: You want the one with the tall main gear legs.

[iflyforpie]

The Cessna 140A has a stressed skin (instead of metalized) wing just like modern Cessnas. Might be a little small and anemic though--especially if you are dealing with high DA.

170s are great planes as well. The 170As and Bs also have the stressed skin wings (identifiable by the single strut).

Other than those (perhaps a 180?), there isn't too much choice for all-metal tail draggers that aren't expensive to both purchase and operate...

[fish4life]

Tailwheel converted C150 ?

Note: You want the one with the tall main gear legs.

+1 best of both worlds, metal cheap to operate and fun to fly

[mmartin1872]

Metalized Stinson 108 -1 -2 or -3...

[zed]

Cessna 152 Texan...

Low hours (for a 152), but seems pricey and you would have to import.

http://www.controller.com/listingsdetai ... 175642.htm


Also heard of some Aerobats with the tail conversion.

[Shiny Side Up]

Thanks for the replies, I had forgot about the 150 conversions, many of them would also be a good fit. The Super D would be my dream plane to put on the line, but just dosn't fit the bill as much for what I'm looking for. I'm intrigued by the durability of the fabric as Hedley says, but I'd still have a hard time leaving her outside, unless the current situation changes and reasonable hangarage becomes available. Sun, snow and the risk of hail are too big of things that weigh on my mind in that regard.

I should also say that importing an aircraft isn't a risk - or extra cost - that's being considered at the moment either.

All of those (metal) airplanes are so old ...

I'll admit that part of the appeal of this project is giving a new lease on life to a neglected machine, and am wrangling the logistics of the cost to make it work, no pun intended. In spite of the romantic idea of it, not to worry, I constantly remind myself what the main goal of the project must always remain to make sure that it stays profitable. It after all must needs be a working plane.

[Shiny Side Up]

Other than those (perhaps a 180?), there isn't too much choice for all-metal tail draggers that aren't expensive to both purchase and operate...

The 180 and 185 are my personal favorite taildraggers to fly, but unfortunately their opeations cost is significantly higher for the duty I'd be asking of them. Purchace-wise they are also an airplane that's in demand so their outlay cost remains high, not to mention that people don't want to part with them.

The performance would however be nice, but I don't think the training market could support the cost per hour one would be forced to charge.

[Hedley]

Actually, I have seen fabric aircraft tolerate hail undamaged, while metal aircraft end up looking like golf balls!

[iflyforpie]

Actually, I have seen fabric aircraft tolerate hail undamaged, while metal aircraft end up looking like golf balls!

This is especially true if you are looking at metalized aircraft. Most skins are 0.020 or 0.025 (compared to 0.032 or 0.040 on your typical modern Cessna) and will dent if you even look at them wrong...

[Shiny Side Up]

The dimples make them go faster.

I know what you're talking about on some of the "metalized" aircraft, I saw one fellow not paying attention walk into his wing and put a head shaped dent in it.

[Big Pistons Forever]

Cessna 152 Texan...

Low hours (for a 152), but seems pricey and you would have to import.

http://www.controller.com/listingsdetai ... 175642.htm


Also heard of some Aerobats with the tail conversion.

This one has the original short tube gear. They make crappy taildraggers because the airplane sits too low and the tube gear flexes for and aft, upsetting directional control.

[Grantmac]

Short wing Pipers may be fabric but one that has been recovered with a Stitts or Stuart system is totally fine outside. They have a somewhat underserved rep as being harder to handle but as a low-time tailwheel pilot I don't find mine intimidating at all.
Repairs are definitely less costly then a metal aircraft for minor work.

Nobody hangars their Super Cub in Alaska, I think due to the risk of hangar collapse. They seem to do fine year after year.

I looked long and hard at an older metal plane verse an older fabric aircraft and I came to the realization that something with all those enclosed areas that have never been inspected had the potential for a lot more expense the an aircraft that has probably been recoved at least once.

All it takes is a few inflight failures and you are dealing with an AD that may require removal of significant portions of the sheet metal. I'd rather have that happen with a fabric aircraft.

Of course this is all my completely uniformed opinion and the fact that I really like my new plane is probably influencing me somewhat as well.

-Grant

[shitdisturber]

The dimples make them go faster.

I know what you're talking about on some of the "metalized" aircraft, I saw one fellow not paying attention walk into his wing and put a head shaped dent in it.

I thought that was you. Or are you referring to a different incident?

[SuperchargedRS]

Metalized Stinson 108 -1 -2 or -3...

Bad idea, I have a Stinson, love her but wouldn't train in her, for one a -1 will not have brakes on the right side, for two those engines are pricey to work on and you need a Franklin guy, and why would you get a 4 seater when you only need a 2 seater? Also a nice Voyager is going to be considerably more then a 7AC or Cessna. Also a metalizing a Stinson makes little sense in the first place.



I would go with a 7AC Champ hands down

Second choice, a C140 or 170

Third a Cub, pricey though

[zed]

This one has the original short tube gear. They make crappy taildraggers because the airplane sits too low and the tube gear flexes for and aft, upsetting directional control.

Thanks Big Pistons. Never flown one and never knew there were differences in the tubes for the gear. Learnt something new.

[Old Dog Flying]

I've flown a C150 with the wide, low gear and the conversion is crap. Now if you want a real good tail wheel trainer, the Fleet Canuck is tops in my book...and...it is legal aerobatic! Find one with the C0200 conversion and you have a nice basic trainer. I've trained quite a few wstudents on them and they can solo in very few hours.

[cgzro]

This one has the original short tube gear. They make crappy taildraggers because the airplane sits too low and the tube gear flexes for and aft, upsetting directional control.

Actually a tail dragger which is tricky in directional control, for whatever reason is probably a good trainer I know some instructors that like to really pump up the tire pressure just to make things harder.

Anyway you can get similar results to changes in geometry just from differences in the surface under each of the main gears. One example would be ice under one wheel and bare pavement under the other. Or grass of different lengths under each wheel. So having a plane that teaches you to react correctly quickly is more useful than something benign that leaves you feeling comfortable but unprepared for inevitable differences in main wheel drag/grip etc. or more tricky aircraft.

One example would be the Decathlon, which to me anyway seems really trivial to land compared to the Citabria or J3 which seem to demand more attention.

[Big Pistons Forever]

I feel if you are learning a new skill it helps if the trainer is not overly demanding. A docile tailwheel aircraft will be plenty of challenge for your typical C172 driver. Also if you ever want to rent it solo than you definetely do not want a squirly taildragger.

[Hedley]

True. It depends where you're going with your tailwheel training.

Actually a tail dragger which is tricky in directional control ... is probably a good trainer

Our Maule is pretty nasty on pavement - lots of them have been groundlooped. For that reason, it is an excellent baby step towards flying the Pitts, which is simply more of the same - stuff happens faster - with the added feature of no forward visibility.

I know some instructors that like to really pump up the tire pressure just to make things harder

Heh. Remember, as Nietzsche once said:

If it doesn't kill you, it will make you stronger

Contrast the above with the Super Decathlon, which is probably the easiest tailwheel aircraft to land that I have ever flown.

[iflyforpie]

If you want harder, just toe the wheels out a bit...

[Hedley]

Speaking of that ... probably the wildest taildragger I have seen is Ed Russell's Me-109, which has legendarily bad groundlooping problems.

The pilot on it, Rick Volker, is a really hot stick - he's a far better pilot than I am, and I'm pretty good. Rick has flown Unlimited and airshows in Pitts and Sukhoi, and also flies Ed's Spitfire, and at the Midland airshow, Rick wouldn't land the ME-109 at Midland because of the crosswind - he based out of Muskoka instead.

If Rick had problems with it, I guarantee you 99.999% of the pilots reading this would have crashed it.

[Grantmac]

Speaking from my vast experience with tailwheel aircraft spanning a few tens of hours:

Taildraggers seem to have a wider variety of challenge within the same peformance category then tricycle gear do.
You get a few tricycle aircraft of about the same performance and they are all roughly the same challenge to get on the ground (with a few notable exceptions).

On the other hand my Clipper has similar performance to a Citabria but its much more challenging to handle on the runway.

If you are going to be a decent school and allow students to solo your tailwheel aircraft (and please avoid having a minimum required amount of dual before solo, thats BS) then you probably want something pretty docile. The docile ones are all generally fabric.

-Grant

[lownslow]

I seem to recall seeing pics once of a fastback 150 on 140 gear, kind of looked like a 3/4 scale 180. I really have no idea what kind of approval the owner got for it, whether it was by STC, 337 or just registered as a homebuilt.

A Champ seems like it would make a great tailwheel trainer by virtue of its low, low cost to fly, general gutlessness with a couple modern day fellas on board and that sweet anti-bounce landing gear. It's so easy it makes me feel like I'm awesome, yet those skills are totally transferable to more difficult airplanes.

LnS.