Tailwheel Vs Tricycle
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Up here
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It takes around the same time to go solo/reach GFPT standard in a tricycle or tailwheel aircraft. However if you do your licence in a nosewheel aircraft, then convert to tailwheel, it does take a while to "get it". So starting in a tailwheel can actually save you some money/hours in the long run.
You'd have no problem going from a tailwheel to a nosewheel aircraft - you'll just think they feel like a truck to turn around on the ground.
Flying a tailwheel aircraft will help you to develop an awareness of handling skills much earlier. You need to be on your toes from the moment you start up until the moment you shut down. I know - I have a bent prop and a dented spinner to prove it!
My experience in Australia is that training schools who teach on tailwheel aircraft are often better than those who don't (i.e. the "take the money and churn them out" schools!)
If you are in something like a Citabria, I've never found them to be "nasty" and "unforgiving" things, they are just a bit different. You can see over the nose and they are actually pretty friendly - it's not too hard to keep straight and they are not overly difficult to land.
Another advantage is that many tailwheel aircraft are aerobatic, so you can do spin training or aerobatics if you so desire. If you do plan to move on to doing competition style aerobatics later on, you'll need a tailwheel endorsement, so why not start now? If you go on to flying the Pitts, Laser, Edge, Extra etc, the more tailwheel time you have the better off you will be.
You'd have no problem going from a tailwheel to a nosewheel aircraft - you'll just think they feel like a truck to turn around on the ground.
Flying a tailwheel aircraft will help you to develop an awareness of handling skills much earlier. You need to be on your toes from the moment you start up until the moment you shut down. I know - I have a bent prop and a dented spinner to prove it!
My experience in Australia is that training schools who teach on tailwheel aircraft are often better than those who don't (i.e. the "take the money and churn them out" schools!)
If you are in something like a Citabria, I've never found them to be "nasty" and "unforgiving" things, they are just a bit different. You can see over the nose and they are actually pretty friendly - it's not too hard to keep straight and they are not overly difficult to land.
Another advantage is that many tailwheel aircraft are aerobatic, so you can do spin training or aerobatics if you so desire. If you do plan to move on to doing competition style aerobatics later on, you'll need a tailwheel endorsement, so why not start now? If you go on to flying the Pitts, Laser, Edge, Extra etc, the more tailwheel time you have the better off you will be.
Grandpa Aerotart
jethrolx
I would suggest that the issue of learning in a taildragger or not is not of one being harder to taxi/land/takeoff than the other...it is where will you get the better quality instruction by enthusiastic, knowledgeable, EXPERIENCED teachers.
That is vastly more likely to happen at a school that runs a taildragging fleet. Your grasp of the basics, as a result, will stand you in good stead no matter what you subsequently fly.
I doubt very much whether there will be any significant difference in time to first solo or overall cost.
Really it is just down to what you want...do you want to learn the very bare minimum to get the licences and move on up to big shiny equipment or are you a little bit of an aviation romantic at heart?
Why are you learning to fly in the first place?...if you can answer that honestly the secondary questions will answer themselves.
I would suggest that the issue of learning in a taildragger or not is not of one being harder to taxi/land/takeoff than the other...it is where will you get the better quality instruction by enthusiastic, knowledgeable, EXPERIENCED teachers.
That is vastly more likely to happen at a school that runs a taildragging fleet. Your grasp of the basics, as a result, will stand you in good stead no matter what you subsequently fly.
I doubt very much whether there will be any significant difference in time to first solo or overall cost.
Really it is just down to what you want...do you want to learn the very bare minimum to get the licences and move on up to big shiny equipment or are you a little bit of an aviation romantic at heart?
Why are you learning to fly in the first place?...if you can answer that honestly the secondary questions will answer themselves.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Down a dark hole
Posts: 301
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gotta disagree with you on this podbreak.
If you look at my earlier post, I am not advocating doing ab initio training in a taildragger, but I doubt that anyone in here can realistically dispute the fact that learning to handle a taildragger confidently in a range of (wind) conditions does make one more confident handing a trike in similar conditions.
R
If you look at my earlier post, I am not advocating doing ab initio training in a taildragger, but I doubt that anyone in here can realistically dispute the fact that learning to handle a taildragger confidently in a range of (wind) conditions does make one more confident handing a trike in similar conditions.
R
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Down a dark hole
Posts: 301
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just happen to have my old log book in front of me. Now I don't think there is anything special about me (so keep the abuse to a minimum!), but thought I would put some "real" hours on this for those starting out.
Some of this is also relevant to the "Perfect landing C182" thread as well!
I solo'd (in 1973) at YBAF in 7.5 hrs (average?) in a C150 and got my Restricted PPL 12 days later after a test with a DCA examiner (the infamous ex Lufwaffe pilot, John Bally - "ahh, I do not know if we are alive or dead" - comment on my forced landing!) with a total time of 38 hrs (in those days, the Unrestricted PPL was granted after you completed a series of dual and solo navs, including additional IF - did that in the specified time)
My C172 "checkout" was 1 hour dual C & L with 4 POB, two days after the RPPL test.
My PA28 "checkout was 55 min ditto.
First constant speed prop endorsement was a B23 - took 50 min
First retractable was an M20 - took 1.25 hr.
PA32 checkout was 55 min.
At this stage I had 90 hrs total time.
I had 120 hrs when I did my taildragger endorsement - in a J5B Auster (a "pig" of an aeroplane to handle!) - took 3 hrs, and then I did a bit of glider tugging with it.
I flew a J1B Auster a bit - fun little aeroplane - much better control responses on and off the ground than the J5B and I pulled gliders for a few hrs with a PA25-235 (Pawnee) - a fun machine taildragger that really handled much like a trike.
My C210 checkout was 25 min C&L with a load of pax!!!
and then, when I had about 220 hrs TT, a mate bought a C185 !!!!!!!
My official "checkout" in the C185 was 2.3 hrs, but it took a further 8 - 10 hrs of ICUS (with a very competent C180/185 pilot) before I could say that I was approaching reasonable confidence/competence to handle the 185 in most conditions.
Mustering cattle with a 185 is probably the most challenging/exciting/spectacular flying I have done.
There are taildraggers - and then there are TAILDRAGGERS !!!!
As an instructor I have given tailwheel endorsements in a PA18 (Supercub) - great little aeroplane for teaching the idiosyncratic ways of the taildragger .....
..... but I would have to live in a C180/185 for quite a while before I would contemplate giving instruction in one.
Cheers
R
Some of this is also relevant to the "Perfect landing C182" thread as well!
I solo'd (in 1973) at YBAF in 7.5 hrs (average?) in a C150 and got my Restricted PPL 12 days later after a test with a DCA examiner (the infamous ex Lufwaffe pilot, John Bally - "ahh, I do not know if we are alive or dead" - comment on my forced landing!) with a total time of 38 hrs (in those days, the Unrestricted PPL was granted after you completed a series of dual and solo navs, including additional IF - did that in the specified time)
My C172 "checkout" was 1 hour dual C & L with 4 POB, two days after the RPPL test.
My PA28 "checkout was 55 min ditto.
First constant speed prop endorsement was a B23 - took 50 min
First retractable was an M20 - took 1.25 hr.
PA32 checkout was 55 min.
At this stage I had 90 hrs total time.
I had 120 hrs when I did my taildragger endorsement - in a J5B Auster (a "pig" of an aeroplane to handle!) - took 3 hrs, and then I did a bit of glider tugging with it.
I flew a J1B Auster a bit - fun little aeroplane - much better control responses on and off the ground than the J5B and I pulled gliders for a few hrs with a PA25-235 (Pawnee) - a fun machine taildragger that really handled much like a trike.
My C210 checkout was 25 min C&L with a load of pax!!!
and then, when I had about 220 hrs TT, a mate bought a C185 !!!!!!!
My official "checkout" in the C185 was 2.3 hrs, but it took a further 8 - 10 hrs of ICUS (with a very competent C180/185 pilot) before I could say that I was approaching reasonable confidence/competence to handle the 185 in most conditions.
Mustering cattle with a 185 is probably the most challenging/exciting/spectacular flying I have done.
There are taildraggers - and then there are TAILDRAGGERS !!!!
As an instructor I have given tailwheel endorsements in a PA18 (Supercub) - great little aeroplane for teaching the idiosyncratic ways of the taildragger .....
..... but I would have to live in a C180/185 for quite a while before I would contemplate giving instruction in one.
Cheers
R
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: shivering in the cold dark shadow of my own magnificence.
Posts: 522
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My experience in Australia is that training schools who teach on tailwheel aircraft are often better than those who don't (i.e. the "take the money and churn them out" schools!)
I would suggest that the issue of learning in a taildragger or not is not of one being harder to taxi/land/takeoff than the other...it is where will you get the better quality instruction by enthusiastic, knowledgeable, EXPERIENCED teachers.
Rats. As an instructor I have given tailwheel endorsements in a PA18 (Supercub) - great little aeroplane for teaching the idiosyncratic ways of the taildragger .....
..... but I would have to live in a C180/185 for quite a while before I would contemplate giving instruction in one.
..... but I would have to live in a C180/185 for quite a while before I would contemplate giving instruction in one.
You don't want do my AFR for me do you??? Can't find any T/W endorsed grade 1's out west.
A185F. cheers
185.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Down a dark hole
Posts: 301
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If your in Qld - go see Bob Harris in Innisfail.
R
Tin, last C182 time was 3000 hours ago, I'd probably be dangerous in it.
As it is, looks like I have no choice but a C172. A bit of a joke, since the 185 is what I spend a goodly part of my year in.
Sorry for the thread drift.
A tailwheel endorsement and some serious consolidation time, will teach you
an awful lot about the fine art of cross controlling. If you just do an endorsement (and no ongoing practice), you haven't really begun put it all into place. It can take a couple of hundred hours to start to pull it together.
IMHO.
If I had my time over, I reckon a Cub would have been the go for ab-initio.
I came to T/W late and would never go back to trikes by choice.
185.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Usually Oz
Posts: 732
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A few thoughts.
I learnt to fly on the Chippy up to [then] RPPL. Provided you have good instruction, you learn on whatever you're on and just get on with it. There's no taildragger [or, in the old school terminology "conventional undercarriage"] mystique if that's all you fly.
Jumping to endorsement training on heavy jets, I've come to the conclusion that the guys who are happiest to use rudder when it's required to keep straight are ex-taildragger pilots. They're more aware of the vector the a/c is taking down the runway.
However, with limited exception, most of my fun flying these days is on a taildragger, so I guess I'm biased.
G'day
And a Merry Xmas and safe New Year to all
I learnt to fly on the Chippy up to [then] RPPL. Provided you have good instruction, you learn on whatever you're on and just get on with it. There's no taildragger [or, in the old school terminology "conventional undercarriage"] mystique if that's all you fly.
Jumping to endorsement training on heavy jets, I've come to the conclusion that the guys who are happiest to use rudder when it's required to keep straight are ex-taildragger pilots. They're more aware of the vector the a/c is taking down the runway.
However, with limited exception, most of my fun flying these days is on a taildragger, so I guess I'm biased.
G'day
And a Merry Xmas and safe New Year to all
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: flyover country USA
Age: 82
Posts: 4,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To say nothing about stability on the ground. An interesting demonstration, comparing the dynamics of tricycle vs taildragger u/c: At the grocers, see if you can find a cart in good alignment and with two free & two fixed casters. It should roll nicely straight ahead when released.
Now turn it around and push it backwards. When you let go it will do the prettiest ground loop you ever saw!
Silly Old Git
For those that havent already read it 
Dont know if this helps I posted this last years in the old PNG losers forum.
The gentleman(Mike"Ramu" Grant) described had thousands on hours in C206s in PNG at the time
Mt Hagen 1970
A few TAL pilots where pretty leery of the 185.
Mike was one of them and avoided it.
One day a training pilot collared Mike and a 185 at Hagen for some circuits. He also grabbed me and told me to get in the back for a bit of ballast.
Unfortunately the 185 he chose didnt have rudder pedals on the right hand side.
Mike planted his big number 16 boots on the pedals gave the gas a big shove and off we went.
After several pig roots and lurches down the runway Mike managed to get airborne off the runway verge heading for the kunai grass at right angles to the centre line.
Around we went in the circuit for a landing.
Looking down I sighted the fire truck tearing along the runway I knew then we were gonna die.
It turned out to be about the shortest landing Ive ever experienced in a 185 ..... an enormous KER !--bloody---RASH ! ! followed by a sickening ground loop and everything stopped.
When the dust settled a black face in fireys hat was pointing a hose at the windscreen with a big buai grin.
Mike was never again asked to fly the 185
And I made myself scarce as ballast.
Dont know if this helps I posted this last years in the old PNG losers forum.
The gentleman(Mike"Ramu" Grant) described had thousands on hours in C206s in PNG at the time
Mt Hagen 1970
A few TAL pilots where pretty leery of the 185.
Mike was one of them and avoided it.
One day a training pilot collared Mike and a 185 at Hagen for some circuits. He also grabbed me and told me to get in the back for a bit of ballast.
Unfortunately the 185 he chose didnt have rudder pedals on the right hand side.
Mike planted his big number 16 boots on the pedals gave the gas a big shove and off we went.
After several pig roots and lurches down the runway Mike managed to get airborne off the runway verge heading for the kunai grass at right angles to the centre line.
Around we went in the circuit for a landing.
Looking down I sighted the fire truck tearing along the runway I knew then we were gonna die.
It turned out to be about the shortest landing Ive ever experienced in a 185 ..... an enormous KER !--bloody---RASH ! ! followed by a sickening ground loop and everything stopped.
When the dust settled a black face in fireys hat was pointing a hose at the windscreen with a big buai grin.
Mike was never again asked to fly the 185
And I made myself scarce as ballast.
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Oz
Posts: 186
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Back to the original question.
Taildraggers are not more difficlute to fly (read takeoff/land) than any other aircraft. They are just different and demand more exact skills. If you have the chance to learn on the taildragger take it with both hands and do it. You won't know the difference and you will find flying the rest of the spam can trikes a walk in the park. I learnt on trikes as there were no tail draggers local to me. I now fly the Pitts for fun and I can tell you it does not take super human god like pilot to fly one (I know as I am the lowliest form of life apart from transport ministers...) it just takes concentration and a good instructor.
I think the best point was made a bit earlier. Your tailwheel instructor will likely be more "EXPERIENCED". Having experienced instructors is the most important aspect of learning to fly. BY guaranteeing this you are already on your way to becoming the best pilot you can be....
Cheers
CB
P.S. Even though Wombat35 advised against it, I would do the taildragger thing from scratch. As I said, you won't know any different. And those who sruke on about trikes making just as good a pilot usually haven't flown tail draggers
Taildraggers are not more difficlute to fly (read takeoff/land) than any other aircraft. They are just different and demand more exact skills. If you have the chance to learn on the taildragger take it with both hands and do it. You won't know the difference and you will find flying the rest of the spam can trikes a walk in the park. I learnt on trikes as there were no tail draggers local to me. I now fly the Pitts for fun and I can tell you it does not take super human god like pilot to fly one (I know as I am the lowliest form of life apart from transport ministers...) it just takes concentration and a good instructor.
I think the best point was made a bit earlier. Your tailwheel instructor will likely be more "EXPERIENCED". Having experienced instructors is the most important aspect of learning to fly. BY guaranteeing this you are already on your way to becoming the best pilot you can be....
Cheers
CB
P.S. Even though Wombat35 advised against it, I would do the taildragger thing from scratch. As I said, you won't know any different. And those who sruke on about trikes making just as good a pilot usually haven't flown tail draggers
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Australia
Age: 44
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi again all,
Thanks to everyone who posted, I have decided to go tailwheel and have my first lesson in the Citabria on friday morning (spare pants on standby).
I have had a couple of intro flights before one in a tecnam and one in a c172 both of which were fun, but never being shy of a challenge, I figured id go tailwheel, and as people have suggested, have managed to find a VERY experienced instructor, as opposed to the few hundred hour types that are commnon at b'town.
Ill post again after my lesson can't wait
Thanks to everyone who posted, I have decided to go tailwheel and have my first lesson in the Citabria on friday morning (spare pants on standby).
I have had a couple of intro flights before one in a tecnam and one in a c172 both of which were fun, but never being shy of a challenge, I figured id go tailwheel, and as people have suggested, have managed to find a VERY experienced instructor, as opposed to the few hundred hour types that are commnon at b'town.
Ill post again after my lesson can't wait
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Auckland
Posts: 138
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Have fun and say G'day to Jim, or Rob for me
Either way you have not made a bad decision and it was a good point about the experienced instructors flying tailwheel. I guess I don't look at it that way, from the inside.
Enjoy your flying! and look me up if you want to do some 7GCBC flying in NZ.
Cheers
Wombat
Either way you have not made a bad decision and it was a good point about the experienced instructors flying tailwheel. I guess I don't look at it that way, from the inside.
Enjoy your flying! and look me up if you want to do some 7GCBC flying in NZ.
Cheers
Wombat
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Australia
Age: 44
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WOW 
Those tail draggers surely are a different beast altogether arent they?? Now i really appreciate the comments about "flying" a plane as opposed to "driving" one. The first lesson scared the hell out of me, but loved every second of the next one. Thanks again to all who posted, Merry Christmas!
(another converted tailwheel fan!)
Those tail draggers surely are a different beast altogether arent they?? Now i really appreciate the comments about "flying" a plane as opposed to "driving" one. The first lesson scared the hell out of me, but loved every second of the next one. Thanks again to all who posted, Merry Christmas!(another converted tailwheel fan!)
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: flyover country USA
Age: 82
Posts: 4,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FWIW - my early instructors were oldtimers who regarded anything with a nosewheel as a "kiddie car". I flew about 50-50 for my first 200 hrs. and only went to "modern" instructors when preparing for my CPL and CFI - they knew what the inspectors were looking for.
Even so, my exam for an Instructor rating was interesting; I had always been taught that a chandelle was a max. performance manuver, max. altitude gain, roll out on the edge of a stall. ("Old school", mind you...)
But this FAA inspector wanted a more moderate execution, only occasionally beeping the stall warning. I said "Sure, I can do that if you like" and demonstrated one - he was happy, and I too.
(I wish I could have demonstrated one in a 450hp. plane like my dad taught them - This inspector would probably ask to be transferred to a desk job!)
Even so, my exam for an Instructor rating was interesting; I had always been taught that a chandelle was a max. performance manuver, max. altitude gain, roll out on the edge of a stall. ("Old school", mind you...)
But this FAA inspector wanted a more moderate execution, only occasionally beeping the stall warning. I said "Sure, I can do that if you like" and demonstrated one - he was happy, and I too.
(I wish I could have demonstrated one in a 450hp. plane like my dad taught them - This inspector would probably ask to be transferred to a desk job!)