Thinking about tailwheel.

CharlieD3

CharlieD3

En-Route
Joined
Jun 17, 2019
Messages
3,390
Location
Tennessee
Display Name
Display name:
CharlieD3
As I de-oxidize, I'm thinking about getting recurrent by getting a tailwheel endorsement at the same time.

The club I'm thinking of joining has a 170 available, and a CFI to endorse me.

Since I'm so "rusty" I'm wondering if transitioning in this way would kill two birds with one stone, so to speak.

Most of my time prior to my lapse was in a 172 I'm thinking it would be similar, yet allow me to expand my horizons and re-checking out in a 172 should be easy (relatively) afterwards. For more 'practical" flying with friends, etc.

Is this a fairly good idea. Will it take that much longer than just doing it in the 172? Should I just go for the tailwheel after?

Thoughts?
 
A lesson or two definitely won’t hurt. Go for it!
 
Tailwheel opens up a whole new world of airplanes.
When I got my private everyone was like " Now go get your instrument rating"
Hell naw! I got my tailwheel signoff and aerobatic training. Then I bought my first biplane.
Now 16 years later I am flying for fun and have no desire for a instrument rating.... Most those IR guys have got bored and quit flying.
So point of the story, Go fly that 170 and have fun! Then go get a Pitts checkout for even more fun!
 
my guess is that it'll add substantial time required over just doing it in a 172...
but prob worth it as others have pointed out! I have about 10 hours tailwheel time but still no endorsement. 7 of those hours were trying right after I completed the instrument rating to get my endorsement... but the tailwheel in the champ was always wonky and would shimmy your teeth out so it was a lot of up and down & I just couldn't get the hang of it. I tried a couple other times years later in different planes but never put enough time into it...
so I guess my point is if the plane is in good shape, you have a good instructor, and you are on the ball it won't take you the 10+ hours like me...but it'll prob take more than the 2 hours or whatever for a typical BFR.

I was toying with the idea of doing a seaplane rating as my review, but figured it would prob be a bit more efficient if I'd go get current first and fly just a bit then consider going for it...maybe....
 
Just do it!
You won't regret it.

If I had to pick one regret about flying (other than spending too much money on it, and not enough time on it :D ) it would be that I didn't learn to fly initially in a tailwheel airplane.
 
2f274ebb5c32e1c7f69d90bd79136bfd.jpg

I was helping a guy in a 170 this weekend. Obviously I’m biased but yeah, do it, but find a good teacher.
 
Yes do it! After a 4-5 year break in flying I decided to buy last year, ive had a club share of a 180hp 172 from day one, but it was too far away to get to without a hassleto fly much. I bought a cessna 140, without my TW, took my cfi w me to get her, hes a TW pilot himself too. Its the most fun ive ever had! Do it... TW is not the impossible task some make it out to be, is it different? Hell yes it is, but very doable and thrilling to learn. Ya also get to be on the giving side of the classic sayings at fly in breakfast: “i dont need a training wheel” , “tricycles are little kids toys” etc :)

once you fly a 170, you'll transition quickly to the 172, the likely transition will be to boredom.

Do it do it do it! Your only regret will be you didnt do it first or at least sooner!
 
Tail wheel flying is addictive. Especially when you get a nice steady cross wind and get to practice greasing it on 1 wheel at a time. :D
 
Brad W said:
my guess is that it'll add substantial time required over just doing it in a 172...
but prob worth it as others have pointed out! I have about 10 hours tailwheel time but still no endorsement. 7 of those hours were trying right after I completed the instrument rating to get my endorsement... but the tailwheel in the champ was always wonky and would shimmy your teeth out so it was a lot of up and down & I just couldn't get the hang of it. I tried a couple other times years later in different planes but never put enough time into it...
so I guess my point is if the plane is in good shape, you have a good instructor, and you are on the ball it won't take you the 10+ hours like me...but it'll prob take more than the 2 hours or whatever for a typical BFR.

I was toying with the idea of doing a seaplane rating as my review, but figured it would prob be a bit more efficient if I'd go get current first and fly just a bit then consider going for it...maybe....
Click to expand...
Well, since it's been 18 years or so since I've flown... It may (probably will) take more than the usual 2hour "PFR/BFR" anyway...

I don't imagine the flying part will be that much different than the 172. Slow flight, landing, takeoff, WILL be different, and I'll have to be more active on the rudders.

I'll talk to the tw instructor at the club and see what he thinks.

@pigpenracing, I wish I could have your worries and concerns... Which plane to fly today? Which patch of sky to bore holes in? Oops, I better fly that one today to stay current in it... Etc.

Tailwheel does open up options. But I'm looking at it in a more practical way. A nice old Stinson 108-2or3 Station Wagon. Might be a practical plane for leisurely xc tripping, at a lower price point & hourly expense than say a 177.

I'd love an old BO, or Deb, or Navion in low wing complex. But probably can't make any of them work in retirement...$$$.

So, old Cessna, maybe Stinson, and maybe renting for the rest of my days. Options are nice to have. AMU$ even nicer...
 
Huckster79 said:
Its the most fun ive ever had!
Click to expand...
I should have added that same comment to my replay earlier!!!

especially just after all the work of getting my instrument rating, it was such a joy to fly that old champ with NO ELECTRICAL system. That thing just felt right down low and slow with the windows open
And I've gotta agree with GR55... if I had it to do over again and if I even had the opportunity I would have picked an old champ or something similar instead of that 152 as my primary trainer.
 
CharlieD3 said:
Well, since it's been 18 years or so since I've flown... It may (probably will) take more than the usual 2hour "PFR/BFR" anyway...

I don't imagine the flying part will be that much different than the 172. Slow flight, landing, takeoff, WILL be different, and I'll have to be more active on the rudders.

I'll talk to the tw instructor at the club and see what he thinks.

@pigpenracing, I wish I could have your worries and concerns... Which plane to fly today? Which patch of sky to bore holes in? Oops, I better fly that one today to stay current in it... Etc.

Tailwheel does open up options. But I'm looking at it in a more practical way. A nice old Stinson 108-2or3 Station Wagon. Might be a practical plane for leisurely xc tripping, at a lower price point & hourly expense than say a 177.

I'd love an old BO, or Deb, or Navion in low wing complex. But probably can't make any of them work in retirement...$$$.

So, old Cessna, maybe Stinson, and maybe renting for the rest of my days. Options are nice to have. AMU$ even nicer...
Click to expand...

You could have all my worries and concerns if you wanted them...
I am just a average guy that works 12 hours shifts at a print ship.... I choose to fly and have airplanes... Most people choose to buy Beer, buy Cigarettes, buy expensive cars and houses, go on expensive vacations. It boils down to what you want to spend your money on...
 
Why would a guy worry about flying conventional gear? The unconventional stuff is more suspect. ;)

Flying a tailwheel is no big deal and certainly no big achievement. You land and take off straight, just like in a 172.
 
CharlieD3 said:
As I de-oxidize, I'm thinking about getting recurrent by getting a tailwheel endorsement at the same time.

The club I'm thinking of joining has a 170 available, and a CFI to endorse me.

Since I'm so "rusty" I'm wondering if transitioning in this way would kill two birds with one stone, so to speak.

Most of my time prior to my lapse was in a 172 I'm thinking it would be similar, yet allow me to expand my horizons and re-checking out in a 172 should be easy (relatively) afterwards. For more 'practical" flying with friends, etc.

Is this a fairly good idea. Will it take that much longer than just doing it in the 172? Should I just go for the tailwheel after?

Thoughts?
Click to expand...

That’s exactly the way I got back into flying. Got my license in ‘89 in Tennessee, moved to California, built a career, started a family, and didn’t fly for the next 23 years. When I decided to get back into flying, I did it with a tailwheel certification in a Citabria. Highly recommended.

How long have you been not flying? Do you need to brush up or relearn the regs, airspaces, etc? When I got my license, it was all ARSAs and TRSAs, and when I got back into it, there were Class Ds, Cs, As, Es, Bs, and Gs. I took an online Gold school class to relearn all of that stuff and then contacted an instructor for the flying. Don’t know if you’re in the same situation or not.

The tailwheel flying will likely take a bit longer than just getting back into a 172, but not by much. It will make you more aware of the rudder, but it’s not all that hard, and it’s a lot of fun.

Plus it opens up the possibility of flying more unique airplanes. I’ve flown acro in Decathlons, and am getting checked out in a Great Lakes biplane.

I’d say go for it!

Once you get the cert, then yeah, maybe back to 172’s for the instrument ticket if the 170 isn’t equipped.
 
Last edited:
CharlieD3 said:
Well, since it's been 18 years or so since I've flown... It may (probably will) take more than the usual 2hour "PFR/BFR" anyway...

I don't imagine the flying part will be that much different than the 172. Slow flight, landing, takeoff, WILL be different, and I'll have to be more active on the rudders.

I'll talk to the tw instructor at the club and see what he thinks.

@pigpenracing, I wish I could have your worries and concerns... Which plane to fly today? Which patch of sky to bore holes in? Oops, I better fly that one today to stay current in it... Etc.

Tailwheel does open up options. But I'm looking at it in a more practical way. A nice old Stinson 108-2or3 Station Wagon. Might be a practical plane for leisurely xc tripping, at a lower price point & hourly expense than say a 177.

I'd love an old BO, or Deb, or Navion in low wing complex. But probably can't make any of them work in retirement...$$$.

So, old Cessna, maybe Stinson, and maybe renting for the rest of my days. Options are nice to have. AMU$ even nicer...
Click to expand...
Put the Pacer / Tri-Pacer on that list, too.
 
I loved it when I use to fly PA18s!
 
Alas, not to be. I had hoped to try and get my "BFR/PFR" whilst learning the 170.

The club requires that I be current and have some flight time (in aircraft I'm endorsed for) before getting 15 hours of training in the 170 for tailwheel endorsement.

That's okay, I'm finally joined up and starting after 2nd Tuesday Feb. Board mtg., I can schedule an instructor, a 172 for $80 WET(!), and get current again.

Who do I talk to at FAA to ground everyone but me in SE USA when I'm training?
 
How ‘rusty’ are you?

I’m all about flying tail wheels, but something to consider is if you have never flown a tail wheel before, the first flight or two can be a bit humbling. If you are really rusty, it might be better to do at least one flight in the 172 to get back into the game, shake off the rust on what you already know before you move on to the next challenge.
 
Fearless Tower said:
How ‘rusty’ are you?

I’m all about flying tail wheels, but something to consider is if you have never flown a tail wheel before, the first flight or two can be a bit humbling. If you are really rusty, it might be better to do at least one flight in the 172 to get back into the game, shake off the rust on what you already know before you move on to the next challenge.
Click to expand...
Last flew in early '99. And, since I know the rust is pretty thick... I know it's more than the usual "BFR" of old... But also because of that, I thought 'since it's gonna take more hours to get proficient, I might try to kill 2 birds with one stone.'

The "flying" part would likely be similar. But the take off and landing would be where the major differences would be; and I felt the TW time, especially near the ground, would make me a better "all around" pilot anyway.

It's okay... I'll go with the 172... I'll get proficient, and confident again... In that. And we'll see about the practicality of getting TW vs IR...
 
CharlieD3 said:
Well, since it's been 18 years or so since I've flown... It may (probably will) take more than the usual 2hour "PFR/BFR" anyway.../ /....
Click to expand...

You may be surprised, in both good and bad ways.

I took 23 years off while pursuing another career before getting back into aviation. The biggest hurdles in the flight review (it's apparently no longer called a Biennial Flight Review) were things like changes in ATC phraseology, changes in airspace designations, pattern altitudes as well as FAA changes in standards, such as not doing slow flight with the stall warning horn on. (Apparently they are concerned about normalization of deviance.)

Another change is in medical requirements and I got the impression in my second class physical that the FAA has backed off a lot in some areas. I guess that's consistent with the basic med option in lieu of a 3rd class medical, and no FAA medical at all for LSA.

Another big change was the shift from steam gauges to glass cockpits and GPS moving map displays. From an instrument rated perspective, I was struck by the irony that the challenge in instrument flight is no longer maintaining situational awareness and orientation during evolutions such as NDB approaches, but rather programing the approach into the GPS while flying on instruments. Even VFR there seems to be a lot more stuff in the cockpit potentially directing the pilot's focus into the cockpit rather than outside the aircraft.

I do like being able to access charts, AFDs, weather and notams on my i-Pad but not all changes have been positive. I'm maybe showing my age, but I think there are some sharp downsides to the reliance on, and the potential task loading caused by, the new technology, along with what I suspect is a decline in actual stick and rudder skills.

The actual flying part was relatively easy. I was fortunate enough to get to go fly on a day with lots of turbulence and gusty winds and it was also my first flight in type. At the conclusion of the flight I stated I wanted another hour, mostly in the pattern to get a better feel for the aircraft (a DA-20-C-1), it's electric trim system, and its low seating position. My instructor was a Marine who is only available on weekends, so in the interim I did a pre-buy test flight in a Citabria (with an instructor in the back) and it felt like coming home. I learned to fly in a Supercub (back before they thought of tailwheel endorsements), and built some time in PA-12s and CItabrias, and I've always felt flying a taildragger was just more natural - at least the low inertia, 2 place rag wing variety.

In any event after a total of 2.7 hours I felt competent to be flying again, albeit VFR only and with more conservative personal minimums, and less precision than I used to have, but it's a start and wasn't as difficult as I imagined it would be.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top