High performance or tailwheel endorsement ?

The word "budget" sticks out in the original post, so I'm going to recommend the TW add-on.
Taildraggers available for solo rental are very hard to find these days, but there are plenty available for dual only, and they are all usually cheaper to rent than any given HP machine.

My own TW experience illustrates this nicely (and the Champ in question is still available, for training and solo rental, down at KSDM):

-$65/hr wet now, for a well-maintained '46 Champ. Find me a 200+-hp airplane for rent less than $100/hr wet...!

-Ten hours were required to meet their insurance requirements for solo flight (insurance is what's gutted the old taildragger solo rental market), but it took me exactly 11 hours of dual to get the TW sign-off anyway. Instructor said that was about average for transitioning pilots.

- The instructor was not cheap; $40/hr, but he was the perfect guy to introduce me to flying antique taildraggers, being something of an antique taildragger himself. He'd been giving dual in that same airplane for over 40 years!! Also had flown Trackers off Navy carriers during the Vietnam years, so his overall aviation knowledge is complete, and he does not scare easily. :D

With all that experience in the Champ, he is an expert at figuring out what you've got, then systematically turning you into a tailwheel pilot. He was worth every penny, IMHO. I did better than I though I would, and still vividly remember all the important things he told me. I went on to log another 15 or so hours on my own in that bird, and did just fine with it. It has a comm radio but no tx, which wasn't limiting to me- I flew it all over that area, from San Diego to Chino, through the VFR corridor, out over the hills, over the beach... most of it at 80 mph with my elbow on the left windowsill and a chart in my lap. :D

Champs, BTW, are very good beginner TW airplanes- flown solo from the front, good vis over the nose in the 3-point attitude, docile and predictable, but with a challenging mix of much adverse yaw and not much power, it provides an "authentic" experience. And like any taildragger, the center of mass is behind the mains, so it will keep your feet busy.

Getting the endorsement served no "practical" purpose, although I was planning, and still am planning, or shall we say hoping, to get a nice antique 2-seater of my own someday. Over the next couple of years my interest, enhanced by the endorsement, got me stick time, and takeoffs and landings, in other classic TW airplanes, courtesy of very generous owners who wanted to encourage me.

I have to agree that the TW skills don't automatically make you better with nosedraggers, so it's not that, either... I just like antique airplanes, and the challenge of transitioning from "Land-o-Matic" gear to the "when men were men" gear configuration was a fun shot in the arm for the "another rented Skyhawk" blahs. :D

I'd love to get every possible add-on rating; most of us would, but if you feel the need for something new that won't break the bank, you should consider taildraggers.

Or gliders... :D
 
Last edited:
rottydaddy said:
I'd love to get every possible add-on rating; most of us would, but if you feel the need for something new that won't break the bank, you should consider taildraggers.

Or gliders... :D
Click to expand...

I got over that when I realized one needs to maintain proficiency. Not currency. The Instrument is going to be hard enough.

Gliders, lots of transfer to powered flying, not so bad to maintain proficiency. Would be fine to have the add-on.

Tailwheel? Unless I bought a Decathlon or better, it's useless to me right now.

High-performance, that's every flight for me, so useful.

Complex? Well... The prop control. Haven't flown anything that sucked the gear up in years. Would be ultra-conservative if I were transitioning back into a retract. With today's slick non-retracts, I don't see it happening for anything other than the requirement for a Commercial.

Commercial... Which, I have no distinct need for at the moment. Maybe later. Sometime before all my brain cells harden up and don't like retaining new things. I see that rating as additional proficiency in what I already do, so the likelihood of it is higher than others.

Seaplane? Nah. One time shot for me living in a State where all bodies of water are off-limits to aircraft.

Helicopter? Want to try it once, but can't see getting the rating.

Multi? No mission that makes it a must-have and non-proficiency there can be wickedly fatal. Nah.

I'm a pretty happy, powered, HP, non-retract, nosedragger driver, really. That could always change. But for now... It is what it is.
 
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...

Henning is right on this one. If you know what you are doing you should not have a problem transitioning to a docile TD like a Citabria. Canada does not even have a TD "endorsement". The insurance companies have more to say than the government on that. The first TD I soloed was a formula 1 plane.

The effort required to fly a tail dragger is a bit of a myth.
 
Well, there seems to be a pandemic of poor, and very poor instruction in trike planes. Cause, just about every fourth landing I see in a trike these days is a pilot that gets it close to the ground, then closes the throttle and deals with whatever happens. I stand by and extend my statement that ANY training in a TW aircraft will make a pilot better lander. A TW endorsement will teach the landing techniques to a point of competence. People do forget things. But - you can't unlearn something you have learned. One day, up at a local grass field I thought sure we were going to have to go rescue a Bonanza who clearly didn't get any TW time. It really stuck with me, and I've always remembered my TW landing techniques although I haven't had any TW stick time in +20 years. Having said that, I'm guessing the HP complex endorsement is more useful.
 
AEROBAT said:
The effort required to fly a tail dragger is a bit of a myth.
Click to expand...

+1...But you can say that about pretty much any airplane. Complex, slick, drag, two engines, one engine, no engine..they're all airplanes and you quickly adapt.
 
Some adapt quickly, some less so, some seem to take forever. As instructors, we never know how a student will react to different planes or different situations. I've come to believe that most of the problems stem from fundamentals that should have been learned and practiced at the beginning of whatever category, type or rating is being taught or upgraded.

For example, during IP training at SFI my training partner was a FO for a regional. He flew a few ILS approaches in the sim, all of which were deficient, and I finally concluded we would never pass if he didn't fly better. So I started teaching him basic IFR stuff that he had evidently never learned (he was too young to have forgotten) and within an hour or so he had made significant improvement. After a few hours of tuning, he became quite proficient. He later told me that nobody had ever mentioned anything about the stuff we discussed (like the necessity for limiting corrections to smaller increments when closer to the antenna). If anybody had told me that a Part 121 FO would be incapable of flying a decent approach in a turbo-prop airplane, I wouldn't have believed it.

jesse said:
+1...But you can say that about pretty much any airplane. Complex, slick, drag, two engines, one engine, no engine..they're all airplanes and you quickly adapt.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
The hp/complex is merely an extension of existing skills. The tw is the creation of new skills and increasing skills that are crucial to precise aircraft control.
 
NineThreeKilo said:
t/w endorsement is really misleading, doing one of those 5hr tailwheel packages does not mean you have any business flying a tailhweel solo,
Click to expand...

Unless its a citabria/decathlon.

I agree with henning that pilots can be taught how to properly land a trike. As in, touch down with no side drift. I had some difficulty learning to fly a clipped J-3, I think a lot of it had to do with not being able to see over the nose and being unable to judge side drift at first.

The super decathlon, I had zero issues with. I flew an hour from the front seat, 4 in the backseat and was signed off with 5 hours. I really thought I could have been signed off in three, it was that easy.
 
Last edited:
dell30rb said:
Unless its a citabria/decathlon.

I agree with henning that pilots can be taught how to properly land a trike. As in, touch down with no side drift. I had some difficulty learning to fly a clipped J-3, I think a lot of it had to do with not being able to see over the nose and being unable to judge side drift at first.

The super decathlon, I had zero issues with. I flew an hour from the front seat, 4 in the backseat and was signed off with 5 hours. I really thought I could have been signed off in three, it was that easy.
Click to expand...

Keep in mind that what seems easy in insignificant wind can be a whole different story when you're in significant gusty/x-wind conditions...even in the Citabria/Decathlon. The 3-5 hr signoffs will not get you competant with this, even if a Citabria/Decathlon seems easy as pie to land in insignificant winds. The main problem with the freshly signed off tailwheel pilot, especially if never exposed to much wind, is that they may have never had to recover the airplane on their own when pushed to the limits of controllability...even if it's a recovery from their own mistake, and not gusts, etc. Three hours landing a Decathlon in light winds will not prepare the new tailwheel pilot with the reactions needed when things really start going south, and the instructor is not there to save it. The newly endorsed pilot really must be treated like a brand-new solo pilot...baby steps into more challenging conditions, and very conservative in those first 25 hrs or so...and 25 hrs. assuming there is lots of landing practice done during this time.
 
I do agree with you, baby steps are needed. However the technique for landing a taildragger or a trike in a crosswind is the same. Wing low and keep it lined up with the rudder. Once you're down, keep the aileron into the wind and the plane straight with rudder. If you can actually do that well in a 152 you can do it in a Decathlon. You have 100% over the nose visibility from the front seat.
 
Last edited:
comanchepilot said:
The hp/complex is merely an extension of existing skills. The tw is the creation of new skills and increasing skills that are crucial to precise aircraft control.
Click to expand...

True. Going from a 172 to a 182 you add cowl flaps and a prop control. And more room and comfort. Going from a 172 to the Arrow (complex) you add gear and a prop control. More knobs and levers, but still basically similar airplanes. The 182 has a Both position on the fuel selector that the Arrow lacks, the Arrow has a gear switch that the 182 lacks.

The funny thing with our club's insurance is that I have to fly the Arrow at least 3 hours in a 180 day period or get signed off by an instructor and fly again within 45 days. No such requirement for the 182. I guess they want to make sure that I remember to put the gear down before landing the Arrow. Last time I went up with a CFI in the Arrow I had to keep swatting her hand to keep it away from the light switch so she didn't dim the gear down lights. Geez... :D
 
dell30rb said:
Unless its a citabria/decathlon.

I agree with henning that pilots can be taught how to properly land a trike. As in, touch down with no side drift. I had some difficulty learning to fly a clipped J-3, I think a lot of it had to do with not being able to see over the nose and being unable to judge side drift at first.

The super decathlon, I had zero issues with. I flew an hour from the front seat, 4 in the backseat and was signed off with 5 hours. I really thought I could have been signed off in three, it was that easy.
Click to expand...

Yeah when I finally got the wheel landings down, I was signed off in 3.2
You're right about the Super D, I became comfortable with it a lot sooner than I would have ever imagined!

This was my first time flying a tail dragger, a stick, and a flap less aircraft. It's an amazing airplane! I'm definately going to get more dual and acro in it just for the fun! even if I never solo:rolleyes2:
 
RoscoeT said:
Keep in mind that what seems easy in insignificant wind can be a whole different story when you're in significant gusty/x-wind conditions...even in the Citabria/Decathlon. The 3-5 hr signoffs will not get you competant with this, even if a Citabria/Decathlon seems easy as pie to land in insignificant winds. The main problem with the freshly signed off tailwheel pilot, especially if never exposed to much wind, is that they may have never had to recover the airplane on their own when pushed to the limits of controllability...even if it's a recovery from their own mistake, and not gusts, etc. Three hours landing a Decathlon in light winds will not prepare the new tailwheel pilot with the reactions needed when things really start going south, and the instructor is not there to save it. The newly endorsed pilot really must be treated like a brand-new solo pilot...baby steps into more challenging conditions, and very conservative in those first 25 hrs or so...and 25 hrs. assuming there is lots of landing practice done during this time.
Click to expand...

Yeah that's the truth! When I got my sign off, I jokingly asked the CFI if that means I'm an expert:rolleyes:?
He laughed and said, no it just means that you can safely land a TW without killing yourself:rofl:

We never had more than around a 5 or 6 knot crosswind.
 
When we practiced forward slips, I was amazed at how much of a slip we were able to achieve! Wow, that thing can slip!:). I fell in love with the Super D:yes:

I need to hit the lotto:D
 
Ghery said:
The 182 has a Both position on the fuel selector that the Arrow lacks, the Arrow has a gear switch that the 182 lacks.

The funny thing with our club's insurance is that I have to fly the Arrow at least 3 hours in a 180 day period or get signed off by an instructor and fly again within 45 days. No such requirement for the 182. I guess they want to make sure that I remember to put the gear down before landing the Arrow. Last time I went up with a CFI in the Arrow I had to keep swatting her hand to keep it away from the light switch so she didn't dim the gear down lights. Geez... :D
Click to expand...

That's debatable :lol:

I'd get the endorsement(s) for whatever you're going to fly. I originally wanted to jump into it and get my TW.. but it made waaay more sense (duh) for me to get hp/complex so I could fly my own plane...
 
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.
Click to expand...

In my experience, learning to fly TW will make flying a tricycle gear to seem easier (as far as take off, landing and taxiing) as TW requires "staying on your toes/feet...literally and figuratively... compared to tricycle gear. Although TW anamolies do not necessarily carry over to tricycle gear, learning TW will teach you to concentrate more, be more attentive and anticipate more in some ways which can cross over to doing that better while in a tricycle gear.

Also, in my experience, learning TW is like riding a bike...you might get rusty (and may need some dual time to get your proficiency back if you don't use it much) but the basic techniques/ you will never forget. This comes from a person who got proficient in TW and flew it for awhile (a year or so) and then rarely if ever for about 20 years before doing it again.

I am all for doing what you want to do most and/or what you will use the most in the immediate future if you plan on getting both.
 
Speaking of which, is the 195 still a member of the Bock household?

bockwoman3 said:
In my experience, learning to fly TW will make flying a tricycle gear to seem easier (as far as take off, landing and taxiing) as TW requires "staying on your toes/feet...literally and figuratively... compared to tricycle gear. Although TW anamolies do not necessarily carry over to tricycle gear, learning TW will teach you to concentrate more, be more attentive and anticipate more in some ways which can cross over to doing that better while in a tricycle gear.

Also, in my experience, learning TW is like riding a bike...you might get rusty (and may need some dual time to get your proficiency back if you don't use it much) but the basic techniques/ you will never forget. This comes from a person who got proficient in TW and flew it for awhile (a year or so) and then rarely if ever for about 20 years before doing it again.

I am all for doing what you want to do most and/or what you will use the most in the immediate future if you plan on getting both.
Click to expand...
 
bockwoman3 said:
In my experience, learning to fly TW will make flying a tricycle gear to seem easier (as far as take off, landing and taxiing) as TW requires "staying on your toes/feet...literally and figuratively... compared to tricycle gear. Although TW anamolies do not necessarily carry over to tricycle gear, learning TW will teach you to concentrate more, be more attentive and anticipate more in some ways which can cross over to doing that better while in a tricycle gear.

Also, in my experience, learning TW is like riding a bike...you might get rusty (and may need some dual time to get your proficiency back if you don't use it much) but the basic techniques/ you will never forget. This comes from a person who got proficient in TW and flew it for awhile (a year or so) and then rarely if ever for about 20 years before doing it again.

I am all for doing what you want to do most and/or what you will use the most in the immediate future if you plan on getting both.
Click to expand...

My experience running crews is that most people will never put in one bit of effort more than absolutely necessary for their current situation.
 
Perhaps you should take a hard look at whomever is responsible for hiring, training and managing them. People who worked for me knew that their base comp would be tied to the basic job description, and what they were able to contribute over and above determined their actual level of comp and opportunity to move up.

Henning said:
My experience running crews is that most people will never put in one bit of effort more than absolutely necessary for their current situation.
Click to expand...
 
wabower said:
Perhaps you should take a hard look at whomever is responsible for hiring, training and managing them. People who worked for me knew that their base comp would be tied to the basic job description, and what they were able to contribute over and above determined their actual level of comp and opportunity to move up.
Click to expand...

Yep, they don't put in any more effort than required either. It's not that easy to find enough people who can cut it.
 
Last edited:
RoscoeT said:
Keep in mind that what seems easy in insignificant wind can be a whole different story when you're in significant gusty/x-wind conditions...even in the Citabria/Decathlon. The 3-5 hr signoffs will not get you competant with this, even if a Citabria/Decathlon seems easy as pie to land in insignificant winds. The main problem with the freshly signed off tailwheel pilot, especially if never exposed to much wind, is that they may have never had to recover the airplane on their own when pushed to the limits of controllability...even if it's a recovery from their own mistake, and not gusts, etc. Three hours landing a Decathlon in light winds will not prepare the new tailwheel pilot with the reactions needed when things really start going south, and the instructor is not there to save it. The newly endorsed pilot really must be treated like a brand-new solo pilot...baby steps into more challenging conditions, and very conservative in those first 25 hrs or so...and 25 hrs. assuming there is lots of landing practice done during this time.
Click to expand...
Huskys are easy to learn in as well, but that doesn't mean you're gonna be good in a Cub in a crosswind.

Ryan
 
Get some upset / acro training instead of either. Expand your envelope - the bigger it is, the less likely you are to find yourself outside it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top