High performance or tailwheel endorsement ?

odachoo

odachoo

Pre-Flight
Joined
Aug 10, 2011
Messages
31
Location
Santa Monica
Display Name
Display name:
Odachoo
Hi Friends,
I want to have high performance and tailwheel endorsement but my budget is limited. which one do you think is better to take first?

-Patrick
 
t/w endorsement is really misleading, doing one of those 5hr tailwheel packages does not mean you have any business flying a tailhweel solo, infact many of those places offering tailwheel training wont let you solo their aircraft until you have many more hours, if ever.

The high-performance is a good one, there are many planes that happen to break the 200hp mark, yet still handle like their lighter and low power little brothers.
 
Plenty of C-182s out there and they are all HP. I'd recommend the HP endorsement.
 
There is no better option in my opinion. Choose the one you would enjoy the most and have an opportunity to use afterwards. It really is a personal choice to me, especially if you will have both at some point in the future.
 
Yea I am with everyone else here. The one you will use. HP might be take alittle less time, so it might be cheaper!
 
The TW endorsement will make you land all other planes better. However, the HP endorsement is prolly more useful. I would recommend getting complex along with it, because many HP planes also have CS prop and retract.
 
docmirror said:
The TW endorsement will make you land all other planes better. However, the HP endorsement is prolly more useful. I would recommend getting complex along with it, because many HP planes also have CS prop and retract.
Click to expand...

No it won't, most of the time a TW endorsement just gets you up to speed in a conventional gear plane, and most TW anamolies do not carry over to tricycle planes. A TW plane doesn't teach you anything about flying or landing that you should not have learned in a tricycle gear plane except wheel landings.

Besides all this, if you don't keep flying a TW plane, all that will go away anyway.

Which to do first really depends on what you can rent to fly. I would do HP & Complex before TW unless I was looking at a deal on renting a TW plane or buying one because there aren't many you can rent solo anyway while there are considerably more complex planes to rent and even more High Performance.

If you want to move up in efficiency, start with Complex. If you want to move up in load start with HP, if there is a Bonanza around to rent, use it and get both.
 
Henning said:
No it won't, most of the time a TW endorsement just gets you up to speed in a conventional gear plane, and most TW anamolies do not carry over to tricycle planes. A TW plane doesn't teach you anything about flying or landing that you should not have learned in a tricycle gear plane except wheel landings.......
Click to expand...

Yes it will.

The vast majority of my guys learned to fly and built most of their hours (to CPL) in the 7 series, basic taildraggers. When I would transition them over to trikes for their complex requirement it really wasnt a issue, just told them to go to their three point it tailwheel sight picture. I've also check t/w only guys out in 172s, usually 3 touch and goes, read the poh and away they go. The inverse is NEVER true.

I believe the FAA agrees with me on this, before you can solo a t/w you need an endorsement... if your initial solo is in a tailwheel there is no endorsement required to go to trikes., wonder why??!


It helps with rudder skills, it helps with learning to feel the plane, t/w doesnt mask crappy aviators like most trikes do. I have also noticed that teaching someone in a plane w/o flaps, they slip very naturally, toss them into a plane with flaps and it's no biggie, again the inverse isnt true.
 
Last edited:
Henning said:
No it won't, most of the time a TW endorsement just gets you up to speed in a conventional gear plane, and most TW anamolies do not carry over to tricycle planes. A TW plane doesn't teach you anything about flying or landing that you should not have learned in a tricycle gear plane except wheel landings.

Besides all this, if you don't keep flying a TW plane, all that will go away anyway.

Which to do first really depends on what you can rent to fly. I would do HP & Complex before TW unless I was looking at a deal on renting a TW plane or buying one because there aren't many you can rent solo anyway while there are considerably more complex planes to rent and even more High Performance.

If you want to move up in efficiency, start with Complex. If you want to move up in load start with HP, if there is a Bonanza around to rent, use it and get both.
Click to expand...

I agree. Did the TW two months ago and was surprised when I asked about flying solo and renting! I had no idea it wouldn't be something I'd be able to do:dunno:

Oh well, it was still a blast and totally worth it! I'll just go up with the instructor from time to time for practice.
 
NineThreeKilo said:
Yes it will.

The vast majority of my guys learned to fly and built most of their hours (to CPL) in the 7 series, basic taildraggers. When I would transition them over to trikes for their complex requirement it really wasnt a issue, just told them to go to their three point it tailwheel sight picture. I've also check t/w only guys out in 172s, usually 3 touch and goes, read the poh and away they go. The inverse is NEVER true.

I believe the FAA agrees with me on this, before you can solo a t/w you need an endorsement... if your initial solo is in a tailwheel there is no endorsement required to go to trikes., wonder why??!


It helps with rudder skills, it helps with learning to feel the plane, t/w doesnt mask crappy aviators like most trikes do. I have also noticed that teaching someone in a plane w/o flaps, they slip very naturally, toss them into a plane with flaps and it's no biggie, again the inverse isnt true.
Click to expand...

I cant help but put my 2 cents in on this one. I agree with you both. A pilot that learns to fly tail down is better off in my opinion. All the things you say are true when comparing one of your students with someone that learned in a wheel barrow.

Henning is right too though. If you take a pilot and give a tailwheel endorsement in less than 5 hours which they never use again afterwards.....well they are no better off for the experience in any lasting way. They didn't learn all the things you learn when you really master a tail down aircraft.
 
NineThreeKilo said:
Yes it will.

The vast majority of my guys learned to fly and built most of their hours (to CPL) in the 7 series, basic taildraggers. When I would transition them over to trikes for their complex requirement it really wasnt a issue, just told them to go to their three point it tailwheel sight picture. I've also check t/w only guys out in 172s, usually 3 touch and goes, read the poh and away they go. The inverse is NEVER true.

I believe the FAA agrees with me on this, before you can solo a t/w you need an endorsement... if your initial solo is in a tailwheel there is no endorsement required to go to trikes., wonder why??!


It helps with rudder skills, it helps with learning to feel the plane, t/w doesnt mask crappy aviators like most trikes do. I have also noticed that teaching someone in a plane w/o flaps, they slip very naturally, toss them into a plane with flaps and it's no biggie, again the inverse isnt true.
Click to expand...


What you are observing is the result of poor instruction and learning in the modern system. When properly operated, you use the rudder pedals exactly the same on either style planes. What is being demonstrated is that most instructors are crappy at giving feedback and instructing, and most students are lazy about learning and we live in a culture of "good enough". The only thing the Tailwheel does is adds a more critical opinion of your flying and let's you know just how crappy you are rather than just covering your mistakes, taking your money and telling you you're doing fine.
 
Last edited:
Henning said:
What you are observing is the result of poor instruction and learning in the modern system. When properly operated, you use the rudder pedals exactly the same on either style planes. What is being demonstrated is that most instructors are crappy at giving feedback and instructing, and most students are lazy about learning and we live in a culture of "good enough". The only thing the Tailwheel does is adds a more critical opinion of your flying and let's you know just how crappy you are rather than just covering your mistakes, taking your money and telling you you're doing fine.
Click to expand...

Yes but I did notice it more in the taildragger when I didn't use enough rudder. It seems like the adverse yaw was more pronounced.
 
redtail said:
Yes but I did notice it more in the taildragger when I didn't use enough rudder. It seems like the adverse yaw was more pronounced.
Click to expand...

That is not a Tailwheel specific characteristic though many Tailwheel planes exhibit it because the are based in that epoch of design. The era of design is what makes tailwheel planes more demanding, not the tailwheel. The only gotcha to tailwheels is they won't save a landing for you and add various and sundery risks of embarrassment. The only argument for tailwheels is from people who periodically bounce off the ground at moderate and high speed. This is the primary utility capability conventional gear gives you.
 
Last edited:
Henning said:
That is not a Tailwheel specific characteristic though many Tailwheel planes exhibit it because the are based in that epoch of design. The era of design is what makes tailwheel planes more demanding, not the tailwheel. The only gotcha to tailwheels is they won't save a landing for you and add various and sundery risks of embarrassment. The only argument for tailwheels is from people who periodically bounce off the ground at moderate and high speed. This is the primary utility capability conventional gear gives you.
Click to expand...

Yes I understood that, it's just that I'd never flown anything other than a high wing Cessna, which as you pointed out, is a different design.

Oh yeah, my first few wheel landings looked like kangaroo hops:rofl:

One was so bouncy, I decided to go around after the third bounce. Things were just getting worse:goofy:
 
Last edited:
redtail said:
Yes I understood that, it's just that I'd never flown anything other than a high wing Cessna, which as you pointed out, is a different design.

Oh yeah, my first few wheel landings looked like kangaroo hops:rofl:
Click to expand...

That is exactly as they should, just push forward through the bounce. If it ever goes through the second bounce though, you must either be able to three point right then and if not you need to add throttle. As long as you're not short on an obstruction, the throttle is always your friend.
 
Henning said:
\When properly operated, you use the rudder pedals exactly the same on either style planes.
Click to expand...
That is not entirely true. You do not taxi a nose-wheel airplane the same as a tailwheel. The basic design precludes that. As you know, In MOST tailwheels, you have to anticipate the turn, take out the rudder and apply counter rudder as appropriate. If you were to do that in a nose wheel......you would center your nose wheel mid-turn and.....well, you wouldn't make a very good turn.
 
Fearless Tower said:
That is not entirely true. You do not taxi a nose-wheel airplane the same as a tailwheel. The basic design precludes that. As you know, In MOST tailwheels, you have to anticipate the turn, take out the rudder and apply counter rudder as appropriate. If you were to do that in a nose wheel......you would center your nose wheel mid-turn and.....well, you wouldn't make a very good turn.
Click to expand...

Sorry, I forgot to say "In flight", on the ground yes, there is a major difference, and that is why tricycle won, safety. Not even about landing safety but taxi safety with the restrictions in visibility. That's why in all the real war footage of the guys taxiing around in P-47s and what not all have a guy riding halfway out on the wing out of the prop blast as a lookout.
 
Henning said:
That's why in all the real war footage of the guys taxiing around in P-47s and what not all have a guy riding halfway out on the wing out of the prop blast as a lookout.
Click to expand...
Reminds me of the first time I taxiied a T-6 from the front seat.....holy cow I couldn't see jack....even with s-turns, on the narrow taxi-ways I sure could have used guys on the wings!
 
Fearless Tower said:
Reminds me of the first time I taxiied a T-6 from the front seat.....holy cow I couldn't see jack....even with s-turns, on the narrow taxi-ways I sure could have used guys on the wings!
Click to expand...

That is the real problem with most SE conventional gear planes, they aren't safe to solo taxi in a busy environment. It was the dicing of ramp personel that lead to the re-adoption of tricycle gear, the original wheel configuration for planes.
 
Henning said:
What you are observing is the result of poor instruction and learning in the modern system. When properly operated, you use the rudder pedals exactly the same on either style planes. What is being demonstrated is that most instructors are crappy at giving feedback and instructing, and most students are lazy about learning and we live in a culture of "good enough". The only thing the Tailwheel does is adds a more critical opinion of your flying and let's you know just how crappy you are rather than just covering your mistakes, taking your money and telling you you're doing fine.
Click to expand...

It is really hard to three point if you don't control airspeed. Landing, no matter what gear configuration is about airspeed. That's really why TDs teach people to land. Airspeed control gets lost for some reason in a lot of places.

What is sort of funny is a wheel landing lets you pick your speed, so taildraggers really have more latitude on speed control.
 
There are several places that offer instruction in a T-6. Get all three at once in one airplane. Don
 
ebetancourt said:
It is really hard to three point if you don't control airspeed. Landing, no matter what gear configuration is about airspeed. That's really why TDs teach people to land. Airspeed control gets lost for some reason in a lot of places.

What is sort of funny is a wheel landing lets you pick your speed, so taildraggers really have more latitude on speed control.
Click to expand...

Exactly correct. Most tricycle gear planes land more 'three point', aft pull than three pointing a conventional gear plane. In either you should be in the same attitude stalling into touchdown regardless Most people don't land tricycles all that well either. As you said, conventional gear actually gives you the ability to safely drive on a wheel landing at a much higher speed limited mostly by the tires. In the tricycle world a 'wheel landing' is called 'driving it on' and has the same basic 5 kt landing speed increase as a wheelie.
 
Last edited:
Henning said:
That is exactly as they should, just push forward through the bounce. If it ever goes through the second bounce though, you must either be able to three point right then and if not you need to add throttle. As long as you're not short on an obstruction, the throttle is always your friend.
Click to expand...

Yes, I finally got them down consistently enough to earn the endorsement but I also realize that it takes a heck of a lot more to be proficient at them. Kind of sucks that you can't solo or rent them anywhere. So my only option is to go up with a CFI every time or just lose those skills altogether.

It was a lot of fun learning, so that's what matters to me:)
 
It took me about 20 hours, flying 2-3 times a week to really get comfortable taxiing and landing a 7ECA (115hp) Citabria. Around the pattern the cockpit flows and speeds were pretty similar to the 152 I had initially trained in but landing and taxiing a taildragger really instilled a lot more discipline in my flying. It was expensive, but no regrets. My CFI was a tough guy to please. I ended up flying it about 10 more hours solo and I haven't flown it since. No regrets on taking the training and getting the endorsement though.
 
Lol, the best thing about doing your primary in a tailwheel is that it keeps your instructor honest.
 
Why not get all three endorsements, tailwheel, complex and high performance, in the same airplane and at the same time? Let's assume we stick with civilian single engine airplanes. Lets see, the "ideal" airplane for me would be the Beech Model 17; a slightly more "practical" ride would be a 210 hp Swift, and there are some rarer antique machines such as the Spartan Executive and some Bellanca 14-19-2 etc that would work. The goal would be to achieve the endorsements, have some serious fun and to thumb our nose at practicality. It would be best if a favorite uncle could provide the airplane, the instructor and the gas as well. If we're going to dream, let's dream big.

What other machines should we consider?
 
Cross-winds and gusts to 24 made today less than optimum for dragger flying, but the plane seemed to tolerate four landings at various airports without too many complaints. Tree line south of RW 5 at Cedar Mills caused a BIG sink on final.
 
l8evator said:
Why not get all three endorsements, tailwheel, complex and high performance, in the same airplane and at the same time? Let's assume we stick with civilian single engine airplanes. Lets see, the "ideal" airplane for me would be the Beech Model 17; a slightly more "practical" ride would be a 210 hp Swift, and there are some rarer antique machines such as the Spartan Executive and some Bellanca 14-19-2 etc that would work. The goal would be to achieve the endorsements, have some serious fun and to thumb our nose at practicality. It would be best if a favorite uncle could provide the airplane, the instructor and the gas as well. If we're going to dream, let's dream big.

What other machines should we consider?
Click to expand...

The ones that fly off water.:yesnod:
 
Having flown draggers for 50+ years and instructed in them for most of those, I disagree with this notion. If a TW endorsement is properly taught, the pilot will come away with a greatly enhanced awareness of the need to maintain longitudinal alignment with the runway, and understand that doing so is a requirement rather than an option. Trike design provides more latitude (sloppiness) in this critical phase of flight, and instructors can allow the pilot to get by with much less precision than is required for a dragger. Whether an endorsed pilot elects to transfer these skills to his trike flying is optional, but anybody who has done it will agree that the lesson required some work and imparted some learnin'.



Tarheelpilot said:
I cant help but put my 2 cents in on this one. I agree with you both. A pilot that learns to fly tail down is better off in my opinion. All the things you say are true when comparing one of your students with someone that learned in a wheel barrow.

Henning is right too though. If you take a pilot and give a tailwheel endorsement in less than 5 hours which they never use again afterwards.....well they are no better off for the experience in any lasting way. They didn't learn all the things you learn when you really master a tail down aircraft.
Click to expand...
 
wabower said:
Having flown draggers for 50+ years and instructed in them for most of those, I disagree with this notion. If a TW endorsement is properly taught, the pilot will come away with a greatly enhanced awareness of the need to maintain longitudinal alignment with the runway, and understand that doing so is a requirement rather than an option. Trike design provides more latitude (sloppiness) in this critical phase of flight, and instructors can allow the pilot to get by with much less precision than is required for a dragger. Whether an endorsed pilot elects to transfer these skills to his trike flying is optional, but anybody who has done it will agree that the lesson required some work and imparted some learnin'.
Click to expand...

Therein lies the issue, will they? It isn't a required effort. That's the long and short of it.
 
Dunno. Some will on occasion, if they show up here for FR. I don't consider such requirement for any pilot as onerous.

Henning said:
Therein lies the issue, will they? It isn't a required effort. That's the long and short of it.
Click to expand...
 
wabower said:
Dunno. Some will on occasion, if they show up here for FR. I don't consider such requirement for any pilot as onerous.
Click to expand...

I don't either, but most pilots are lazy and if aren't remined to mid their P&Qs on every flight, the habits go away.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top