The best airplane for tail wheel training?

[Chuck Ellsworth]

If you were going to do tail wheel training for a part time hobby.

What would be the best airplane to do tail wheel training with?

And why would it be the best?

[looproll]

well, for me it would be the Bellanca Scout simply because it's the one I know best! I don't think you would want one that's too easy to handle.

[Lommer]

Chief or Luscombe, because of the side-by-side seating (and they're cheap and fairly capable).

If "cheap" isn't a factor, Pitts Special.

[cgzro]

At the bottom end of the $ spectrum I think I'd seriously consider a C150 with the Texas tail dragger (STC) and MOGAS. I doubt there is any other certified tail dragger you could operate less expensively and you might actually make an eensy bit of money doing it!

Heresy I know for a Pitts owner but from a cold hard financial analysys perspective the high performance tail draggers are just too astronomically freaking expensive unless you just love flying them.
(How can you tell I just finished my Annual).

Actually if you could combine a C150 aerobat with the Tail dragger STC that would add another dimension to attract customers and still actually turn a small profit (or at least loose less) but I've never seen one and am not sure the 150A is listed on the tail dragger STC.

[Cat Driver]

CGZRO:

My,my,my we must think alike.

Because some years ago I was planning on starting another flight school and before I even staterd the application for the FTU OC I bought a Cessna A150M Aerobat and did the Texas Taildragger conversion myself using the long gear STC.

It is the only A150 in Canada with that conversion.

http://i43.photobucket.com/albums/e353/ ... 010783.jpg

http://i43.photobucket.com/albums/e353/ ... 010784.jpg

What do you think of that little toy? ( it even has the mogas STC. )

Unfortunately I never got to use it for training because of those coc.suckers at Transport.

[l_reason]

What Lommer said. How can you go wrong with a little 85-100 hp side by side tail dragger. The harder it is to fly the better as long as the “instructor” knows his craft well enough that nothings going to get bent. . that’s in quotes for you because we all know that most instructors cant fly tail draggers but you don’t need to be one to teach tail wheel. If your going to be teaching pilots that only have Cessna or DA time its going to take a few hours to get their feet working those movable foot rests. The transition for a typical Cessna PPL or CPL can be a challenge for a few reasons.

All or part of the tailwheel training should take place from grass runways (some flight schools forbid such dangerous activities so it could be new to them). Another problem is there may or may not be a checklist in that wonderful old plane they are about to fly. Cessna did a great job designing the C-150 they were able to all but eliminate yaw in that little plane which is why there are better tail draggers then the fine example . just showed. A C-150 may not adequately prepare them for the adverse yaw they are going to find in many other tail draggers like the champ, pipers, Luscombe, and lots of homebuilts. I’ve never flown a Texas taildragger but the spring gear may be a challenge for some types of landings as well.

If your looking for a Tail wheel checkout in SW Ontario, send me a PM.

[Doc]

The only tail wheel time I have is on the Citabria. And the "Racer". A short spin in a Luscombe, Pitts and ten hours in a Harvard. I think the Citabria is a little too easy to be a really good trainer though. A Luscombe with heal brakes is a little more of a squirrel. Or, toss in some horsepower with a Cessna 180? A few more $$$ to be sure, but it'll teach you to fly. An old aquaintance had a Cessna 195. I think he scared himself (soiled himself?) in that thing.
As a trainer, the aircraft has to "show the way" and yet build confidence. The Champ would be a great choice. They're making the Champ again. About 100K USD.

[MichaelP]

This is a leading question... There's no perfect tailwheel trainer, but there are many with desirable attributes.
Personally I think graduated training is required.

A couple of chaps bought a Cessna 195 with the 350hp R755S engine... One had 50 hours and a fresh PPL in Cherokees and his friend had 100 hours in Cherokees, but they loved the look of that Cessna.
One did forty five minutes circuits and was sent solo by the previous owner. Needless to say he got a severe scare when he landed that aeroplane, and I am glad to say it survived.
I entered the picture... I read the book and then flew the Cessna 195, who was going to check me out???
It was easy, a nice aeroplane to fly and a lot of fun.
But with the throw over control column there's no way I was going to sit this pair of dreamers in that aeroplane and check them out.
I started them in a Rollason Condor (Druine D62B) which in my estimation is the most honest trainer I have ever flown. Everything by the book and no fudges while being a delight to fly.
Then I put them into an Auster (Beagle A61 Terrier/AOP 6), this aeroplane can be nasty if you don't do the job properly.
I don't care which way the propeller spins, it's only part of the equation!
Only then were they ready to tackle the C195!

I always say that regardless of what you learn to fly in, it is the way that you learn to fly that counts.
Good habits, and good discipline taught from the beginning is what is required.
I learned in the Cessna 150, and it did not take me long to learn to fly a tailwheel.

The Champ would be a great choice. They're making the Champ again. About 100K USD.

It's certified as an LSA and so you can't have one in Canada since it does not meet the Canadian regs for and advanced ultralight... I asked!

[Hedley]

There are several different factors to consider.

Personally, I don't mind tandem seating, though
some people prefer side-by-side.

I personally prefer a stick (in the right hand and
a throttle in the left) but that's just me. A control
yoke is just fine, too, and in fact is probably more
similar to what the student will fly with nosewheel.

I must say that I don't much like heel brakes. I
use them myself on occasion with no problem,
but I think it complicates things for pilots who
are used to toe brakes, so I might suggest toe
brakes. I know of a supercub that was wrecked
recently during a tailwheel checkout, and heel
brakes were a factor, I am told.

What is important is that both seating positions
have brakes. I have done too many checkouts
with me in the right seat and no brakes, and it
makes the job of the instructor harder to not
have any brakes.

Another thing that makes the instructor's job
harder, is if the carburetor has NO accelerator
pump. This requires that the throttle be gently
nursed in to avoid going too lean, which you
don't always have time for, when the student
has got you sideways, you have no brakes,
and you have to wait a while for the engine
to wind up, so you get some prop blast over
the rudder. Sigh.

A good intercom and a good radio is a must,
so that you can talk to each other and the
other traffic in the circuit. Too many times you
see NORDO tailwheel aircraft in the circuit, and
while that is legal at an uncontrolled airport,
it is a voluntary reduction in safety, which I
am not sure is always the smartest choice.

Another thing that is important in a tailwheel
trainer is that you don't want toe-out. Most
elderly tailwheel aircraft have been involved
in at least one (if not more) groundloops in
their history, and bending the landing gear
is not unusual. The alignment of the landing
gear is rarely looked at closely after this
sort of repair by AMEs, probably because
they either don't know what it is, or don't
know how important it is.

You want a tiny bit of toe-in on the main
gear, for stability. Too much and the tires
will wear too fast. Toe-out converts a
docile aircraft into a snakey bitch on
pavement. Remember this, years down
the road. You will encounter a tailwheel
aircraft which is far "meaner" than other,
supposedly identical aircraft. Ask to have
the alignment checked.

As someone else said, grass is best for
tailwheel training because it is forgiving
of directional errors upon touchdown.

This is good when you're starting out,
but it is the responsibility of the instructor
to make sure that the student gets over
this, and lands precisely aligned with the
direction of travel, or the student will
likely wreck his tailwheel aircraft the first
time he lands on pavement.

Dry pavement is the most unforgiving
surface for a tailwheel aircraft, esp when
there is a gusty crosswind. Wet pavement
is better, so is a bit of snow. Ice is a gift,
which the city boys have trouble understanding,
but that's the way it is.

[Cat Driver]

You want a tiny bit of toe-in on the main
gear, for stability. Too much and the tires
will wear too fast. Toe-out converts a
docile aircraft into a snakey bitch on
pavement. Remember this, years down
the road. You will encounter a tailwheel
aircraft which is far "meaner" than other,
supposedly identical aircraft. Ask to have
the alignment checked.

When my Aerobat was first converted to the tailwheel configuration I left it with an AME to do the final checks on the alignment and do a W&B for the conversion sign out.

When I got back from Europe it was all signed out and ready to fly so I took it out and found that it was really squirrelly so I asked him if he had set the wheel alignment by the STC and he assured me he had.

Anyhow after ten hours of wondreing why this thing was more difficult to keep straight on the runway than a Pitts with one brake dragging I got the STC paper work out again and followed the instructions for checking wheel alignment.

The fuc.in thing had 1.5 degrees toe out, no wonder it was all over the runway with that spring steel landing gear.

I set it to the proper .5 degree toe in and problem solved.

[twotterflogger]

From the standpoint of learning, and not from a profit view:

A 180. Big tail, a fair bit of torque, and in gusty conditions they can be a hand full. Once your confidance and skill are up to par in heavy crosswinds, chances are you could fly any tail dragger out there...
Then again as Blakey knows, I'm partial to 180's

[Cat Driver]

O.K. if we are going to find the most challenging tail wheel airplane to learn on that is certified it would have to be the Turbo Goose .....hands down.

Next to that it would be the Anson MARK V with its vaccum over hydraulic brake system... on second thought it might be harder than the Turbo Goose because of the lack of power.

[Hedley]

Maybe it's just me, but I found the C180/185 on wheels
to be a gentle, docile, forgiving tailwheel aircraft. They're
kind of expensive to operate - not sure they're really the
best choice for tailwheel trainer. I'd look for something
with a four-cylinder engine and a fixed-pitch prop.

Dunno about most challenging, but surely the weirdest
tailwheel aircraft I have ever flown was a Piaggio Royal
Gull. I am told there are only 4 flying in the world today.

Of course, there was no one around to check me out in
it, so I had to teach myself how to fly it. How typical. You
want to rent a buck-fifty, you need a hour-long dual
checkout from some class 4 instructor that learned to
fly last year, but you're hired to fly a Piaggio Royal Gull,
well, you're on your own, buddy.

It's a 1950's-era Italian multi(geared)engine pusher tailwheel
amphibian. Felt like a Seabee, actually. Wish I had the time
to splash it in Lake Erie, but alas, I was on a schedule.



Not recommended as a tailwheel trainer!!

[Cat Driver]

Hedley, that is a nice airplane, I knew a guy in Hillsboro Oregon who owned one but I never got to fly it.

The Sea Bee was a real airplane, I got my first amphib. time on a Bee in 1954, flew around four hundred hours on one in three years..loved it.

Of course, there was no one around to check me out in
it, so I had to teach myself how to fly it. How typical. You
want to rent a buck-fifty, you need a hour-long dual
checkout from some class 4 instructor that learned to
fly last year

AAhhhh how times have changed, checking ones self out was normal before the industry got dumbed down by idiots.

[Hedley]

checking ones self out was normal

What gets me is that everyone says that you should
get plenty of dual from a qualified instructor before
you fly a new type. Got it.

However what do you do when there is no such
"qualified instructor" around to check you out? Am
I given to understand that this aircraft should never
be flown again?

What about single-seat aircraft? What if there are
no comparable two-seat aircraft available for training?
Should these aircraft never be flown?

I am sure that I will be excreted upon from a great
height by current and future Transport Inspectors
for this, but many times in the past someone has
come to me with an aircraft type I have never flown
before, and rather than him trying to teach himself,
I jump in it and figure it out, and teach him how to
fly it.

I have a ferry job coming up, I have to deliver one
of these:



Never flown one before, and when I get there I
highly doubt there will be a "qualified instructor"
to check me out in it, just an aircraft sitting on
the ramp that last flew god knows when.

[Blue Side Down]

One factor in the decision may be whether you intend to send students on their first solo in the airplane- (if current enthusiasm will tolerate the depth of paperwork associated)

If first solo is a possibility, a few of the more squirrelly candidates may be ruled out off the bat. While on the one hand, the student is going to gain a lot more out of learning on a Luscombe, 180 or two hole biplane, each carries slightly greater statistical risk on the solo flight.

Considering that most of the tailwheel market is coming to the table with a few dozen to a few hundred hours of nosedragging, I'd think that an aged Citabria, Champ or Cub would be the best tool for the job. While none carry bragging rights with them, they're simple, honest, and each has a learning curve that the average modern student is going to be able to handle ( I know that statement has certain implications- but for another day). Each will give the ab-initio the background and experience (not necessarily stick and rudder exp, rather the insight dispensed by the instructor during pre-flight banter) they need to take the next step on their own- whether it be to a 180, Kitfox or Pitts.

With all that in mind, I wonder every now and then: what difference would it make for the student to learn on a Cub or a Pitts? I suspect not much because the bottom line is the same- do what needs to be done and fly it for what it is.


...I found the Harvard to be a neat one- it feels like a big Citabria with less forward view on the runway and more knobs and levers inside. Great teacher on the ground though- once you unlock the tailwheel you've gotta have a plan in mind or you're in for a ride. The most challenging I've encountered so far is the Luscombe- that was one humbling hop Great times though- if anyone in SWOnt is looking for an opportunity to check out, I recommend contacting I_reason for a few very insightful lessons.

[Cat Driver]

Beautiful...a Ryan...

You lucky bastard.

[Cat Driver]

While on the one hand, the student is going to gain a lot more out of learning on a Luscombe, 180 or two hole biplane, each carries slightly greater statistical risk on the solo flight.

B.S.

[Hedley]

what difference would it make for the student to learn on a Cub or a Pitts?

Getting your primary training on a tailwheel aircraft - any tailwheel
aircraft - makes a huge difference because from their first hour,
they will be forced to learn how to use their feet to control the rudder,
which is not necessary on a nosewheel aircraft.

The stick & rudder skills developed in that first 10 hours will last
a lifetime - crosswind landings, for example, will come much easier.

FWIW I have soloed people on the Pitts. If you have the money,
and naturally great hands and feet, go for it. Even for the well-heeled,
I don't think the Pitts is the best choice for a primary trainer, because
so much of initial flight training is about confidence, or lack thereof ...
every student, struggling with their first landings, wonders if they can
really do this. And a Pitts sure won't make that any easier.

I found the Harvard to be a neat one

Everyone except me seems to gush about the T-6/SNJ/Harvard/
whatever-you-want-to-call-it. I've flown several models a
few times, and was underwhelmed. It's a big, heavy beast -
think of a tank with wings. Great sounds, very mediocre
performance. As a primary trainer, it's at least as bizarre a
choice as a Pitts - there are lots better, IMHO (cub, champ,
etc). But I shouldn't knock it too much, I guess - my father
did his first 250 hours or so of flight training on one, right
after WWII, so it must have worked for him.

Personally, I found the P-51 to be a lot more fun to fly than
a T-6. Not the best for acro, imho, though.

the student is going to gain a lot more out of learning
on a Luscombe, 180 or two hole biplane, each carries slightly
greater statistical risk on the solo flight

Not sure I agree with that. You could argue that any
tailwheel aircraft is "riskier" for solo, but that doesn't mean
that you shouldn't use tailwheel aircraft for primary training.

What we so quickly gloss over is that every person is
different. Wildly so. What one person struggles with,
another person will perform effortlessly. I know this doesn't
seem very egalitarian or fair, but that's often the way it is.

P.S. Yeah, the Ryan looks like a hoot. Gotta read up
on Kinnear radials before I go - don't know diddly
about them

Here's some more open-cockpit eye candy for you .... I
need to add it to my ICAS card, so I can start flying it at
airshows (not in Canada, of course, Transport! Of course,
I am "banned for life" from ever performing at airshows
in Canada. Thanks so much for your help arranging that,
Chris P.)

This is a BIG picture, dialup GTFO:

http://www.pittspecials.com/etc/stearman.jpg

It's got the R985

btw, photo credit of the Stearman to I_Reason,
who is a great guy, btw.

[Cat Driver]

Hedley me and J.C.'s dad learned to fly at Central Airways and they used Cessna 140's and fleet Canucks as their basic trainers.

In the years from 1953 to 1959 when they used these airplanes I only recall one ground loop in a tail wheel airplane by a student and that was in a Luscombe.

However in todays training world how many bent or broken nose wheels can you think of in the FTU's?

[Hedley]

fleet Canucks as their basic trainers

So did the Kingston Flying Club, back in the late 60's
and early 70's. They also had a champ on skis in
the winter, FMP, which I remember fondly. I am sure
that today's pilots cannot conceive of a rental
champ on skis.

The C120/140, Fleet Canuck and Luscombe are all
good trainers, imho. Biggest thing for me as a tailwheel
instructor is brakes on both sides, and an accelerator
pump in the carb is nice, too.

[Blue Side Down]

the student is going to gain a lot more out of learning
on a Luscombe, 180 or two hole biplane, each carries slightly
greater statistical risk on the solo flight

Not sure I agree with that. You could argue that any
tailwheel aircraft is "riskier" for solo, but that doesn't mean
that you shouldn't use tailwheel aircraft for primary training.

I figured that this thread excludes all other types except for tailwheel as I was typing, and that this was discussing the tailwheel checkout as a post private license adventure. Though I fully agree that if one decides to start from square one on tailwheel, it's a solid way to go. It's been done in the past, and for those who choose to and have the resource, will be continued in the future. With the quoted thought, I was trying more to get at the point that starting the average student tailwheel driver on the second or third rung may not be the most efficient. Would it work? Sure- it's been done before, similar to your experience. But how big of a market is there to support using such a type for training? How much as a manager are you willing to risk for the sake of training? I'm sure we'll all agree that the manager would never feel remorse and think "This wouldn't be so expensive if it was a Champ" after the star student takes the scenic route to come to a stop in the 180*. It's easy to say that with proper training or experience such will never happen... until it does. If it was me, I'd run a Champ or J-3 for a checkout op on the basis of a low initial 'investment' (heh), cheap insurance, cheap operating costs, and the least hassle of the bunch if it gets bent. With that in mind it might actually be a profitable use of time in the summers.

...an opinion for what it's worth, from a low time guy who's had the brakes stepped on by the 'other guy' in a Pitts and was taught his lesson on the hoppities with I_reason.

Add: Sure wasn't gushing about the Hvd... it's neat in a nostalgic way- but not spectacular by any stretch

[Hedley]

I'd run a Champ or J-3 for a checkout op

me too.

from a low time guy who's had the brakes stepped on by the 'other guy' in a Pitts

Ouch! My condolences. Every time I take someone up in the Pitts,
I get the headset cord routed through their chest harness (so the
stick doesn't get roped back) and I give the brakes lecture - heels
down on the tray.

Heck, I got that lecture in the P-51. Lee Lauderbach told me that
if I got on the brakes, he couldn't stop us from going over.

[Blue Side Down]

Ah, it was only a moment of excitement until the PF caught the situation and corrected; brief, frustrating, a quick reaction, but nothing turned worse for wear.

...those brakes are the one variable in the equation that can toast your day right quick.

[Cat Driver]

How many instructors are there in Canada who are proficient in teaching on tail wheel airplanes?

Maybe I could make money if I start a business to train flight instructors on how to fly and teach on tail wheel airplanes.

It would be a neat hobby....I wouldn't need an OC and I wouldn't even need a valid pilot license.

I know where to borrow a tail wheel airplane and could make it worth while cost wise.

Say $150.00 per hour air time.

$50.00 per hour for the airplane.

$100.00 per hour for me.

It really is not worth it financially but it would only be a hobby anyhow.